« Trouble Among The Fedders | Main | More Measure D Mail »

October 19, 2005


OCFA Rocks

Maybe Todd Spitzer should host a golf tournament and raise money to help pay for some of this.

Allan Bartlett

If they have their wish list then I will post mine. How about they(firefighters) switch to a more market oriented pension plan like a defined contribution plan instead of gravy training off the taxpayers with their defined benefit plans. Why should the taxpayers be made to make up the difference on their pensions when their investments perform poorly. Most workers have some sort of defined contribution plan like a 401k or roth IRA. There getting a free ride on the backs of the taxpayers. When they do this, then I might be willing to vote for something like Prop D.

Powder Blue Report


This is absurd....The demand for a lot of this sounds like featherbedding. There are legitimate needs, but a lot of this is unreasonable.

Mark Brainard

What are you doing off the Gilchrist threads? Is defending his crazy notions about taxing the rich becoming too difficult?

Matt is an expert of fire department needs and operations.

Who knew?

Jeff Flint

Fun Fact #1:

Orange County Sheriff's Department

1992 Staff Level: 1193 (sworn)
2005 Staff Level: 1980 (sworn)
Growth: 787 officers

Orange County Fire Authority

1992 Staff Level: 742 firefighters/paramedics
2005 Staff Level: 768 firefighters/paramedics
Growth: 26 personnel

I'm sure my friends on the "No" side have a good way to explain how this shows firefighter greed.

Phil Paule


This is no time to leave the Gilchrist Campaign for Measure D.

OCFA Rocks

Dear Mr. Flint

Regarding the growth at the OCSD in the past few years. Did you take into account how many people it takes to publish the FlashReport.

OCFA Rocks.

You don't think Jon does that during working hours, do you?

And you don't think he is talking to the Lewis team during working hours?

That would be a misuse of taxpayer funds.

And illegal btw.

Jeff Flint

OCFA Rocks:

I support Measure D, as has been well established.

But Jon Fleischman is my friend. I contributed to the launch of the new FR, I advertise there, and I do know that Jon gets up very early every morning to do his news summary from home. Most PR guys do get up very early to read the clips before the day gets going.


OC Fire Storm


You fail to point out that the OC Sheriff Deputies have the same retirement system that OC fire does. Oh, so do the OCDA Investigators, who are also represented by AOCDS.

And in fact. The AOCDS and OCDA folks paid less money out of pocket than the OCFA firefighters.

As Casey Stengel used to say.

"You can look it up".



Re: Staffing levels.

Answer to your question is simple: The Orange County Sheriff's Department serves 100% of the County of Orange in the delivery of law enforcement services and a portion of the County through direct contracts for law enforcement services.

So, growth in the sworn staff of the OCSD can occur through increases in county personnel (that would be with Proposition 172 funds) or by increases in contract personnel (that would be with funds from the contracting agency).

In other words, if a jail deputy is added it shows an increase in sworn personnel and is funded through one source of funds. If a city adds a patrol deputy, it shows an increase in sworn personnel and funded through another source of funds.

Firefighter greed is clearly indicated by your post where the firefighters are diverting away from any justification as to why the OCFA needs the money or by explaining what has been done by OCFA to find the money needed by managing existing funds better.

The fireguys just want to mislead voters and that is what happens when you state a number like you did, without any context. But you know that and continue to do it. You've done it before. That is greed!

You have a campaign that trades on the good will of the community and places them in fear without any justification at all. That is greed!

Why does the Sheriff or District Attorney need to justify to the firefighters why they need the Proposition 172 funds? These groups are not asking for any of your dedicated property tax revenues. That is firefighter greed!

By the way Jeff, regarding your comment "I'm sure my friends on the "No" side..."

Jeff, my friends on the "Yes" side are fire fighters that I disagree with over this issue. I disagree alot! Right now, I don't feel too kindly about them.

When this issue is over, we will hopefully find a way to settle up and move on. If we don't, we will still do our jobs as professionals. When the call for service goes out, I will do my job and assist them doing their job - they will do the same for me; that is what professionals in public safety do and what everyone expects of us.

I know what my friends look like Jeff and you do not look like one of them at this point in time. You are a hired gun working for a client, trying to make me and my department look bad in order to win for your client. It's business. I understand that. It's a professional fight. I know that too. It's not friendly. I hope you know that.

So, Jeff. You may be the nicest guy in the whole wide world and all of that. But, this campaign is a fight over an issue that threatens my livelihood and my ability to do a top notch job for the community I work in. For you, it's another gig. For me, it's personal and professional.

So, I ask that you please respect my preferences during the remainder of this fight and call me a cop or law enforcement professional or anything you would like to, but don't call me a friend.

Thank you.


Hey Sarge.

How does Prop 172 funding affect you personally in your job? Are you saying your professionalism is affected by your compensation?

More importantly. Why is OCEA and SEIU affected by this issue and why are they so adamantly opposed? This is a revenue dedicated to public safety. And yet, there are those two groups weighing in as part of the oppostion.

I think part of Jeff Flint's purpose in posting numbers of personnel is to dispel the myth that OCSD positions will be eliminated. Even when Prop 172 revenues decreased, the OCSD hired people.

Maybe you can provide the context since the 'out of context' line seems to be very popular with the NO side.

Allan Bartlett

OC Fire Storm,

Sorry about the omission. All public employee pensions should be switched over to a defined contribution plan instead of a defined benefit plan like you all have right now. The taxpayers end up bailing out the pension plans when the investments go down or don't perform up to their rosy projected returns. It's not right and it should be changed. How do you like them apples?

Powder Blue Report

Jeff Flint

Sarge, you can rest assured I was not referring to you when I said "friends." My friends who are opposed to D, of whom there are many, know who they are.

While I don't believe that Measure D will affect you "livelihood", at least we have established who is motivated by greed. And no, I don't think it will affect your ability to do you job.

The General Manager of your union admitted that no deputy will lose their job if Measure D passes, yet you continue to send out mail to voters which says that 210 front-line depupties will lose their jobs.

The analysis prepared by the Board of Supervisors, all opponents of D, clearly shows that the Sheriff's and DA's allocation of Prop 172 funds will increase even if D passes, yet you continue to say that law enforcement funding will be cut.

You praise the Greenhut editorial that says your firefighter "friends" should have their jobs privatized, but you're sure they will kiss and make up with you afterwards.

Thank you.


And Sarge. Maybe you can answer the question.

How much have the Supes, Carona, the Rack, Spitzer and all the others supporting your campaign contributed financially to this issue?

Why are they sticking the deputies with the bill? If they felt all that passionate, wouldn't they be weighing in with their personal or PAC funding sources? Seems to me their conviction is more lip service than anything else.

I'm sure the Todd will start getting all concerned about Wayne's car again.

OC FIre Storm


I figured that would be your response...just didn't want it to appear that only fire is being service by said retirement system.

OC Fire Storm

Hey Serge,

I'll be your friend.

anon ii

Allan- I just don't remember this hue and cry about defined benefit plans when the stock market was rocketing, do you?? We were just plodding away with the same pension, while everyone invested in tech stocks was making a small fortune. I happen to manage money pretty well, and if I had been given some matching contributions from the County starting some 30 years ago, I think I probably would have done alright. But it was never offered, so I went with what was. And by the way, you might want to exclude "safety" retirements from all these statements about huge double and triple benefit increases. Safety already had a very good retirement plan in the 70's, but just not much of a salary. The non-safety employees are the ones that have realized the biggest gains. So just because the economy tanks, don't begrudge us the good retirement we have always had!

OC Fire Storm

Serge said...

>>>just want to mislead voters and that is what happens when you state a number like you did, without any context.

Is that like the 210 deputies the Deputies Union keeps saying will be lost, both here and in mailers? Oh, now you're calling those "Blue Ribbon" positions after Macleod slipped and said no deputies will be laid off. Sup Norby even admitted the same yesterday in a Measure D debate (Kerr/Lacy kicked Norby’s/Quint’s butt, by the way.) Lay offs, vacancies, blue ribbon positions...you guys are playing a shell game based on fear. However, the public is smarter than that.

While driving around the county I noticed “NO” signs are getting bigger. That reminds me of the guy who needs a big, raised pick-up truck to make up for his other "inadequacy". In this case the inadequacy is the knowledge that Fire’s campaign is gaining steam and yours is petering out.

Yes On D

See Sheriff Corona support fire fighters bid for 172 funds. Go to firefightersforpublicsafety.com.

Blog Watcher

You have to love the No on Measure D website. They posted an excerpt from last Sunday's Greenhut column. They conveniently left off the Hitler Stalin reference.

Greenhut's a joke. After watching him crash and burn during the El Toro airport fight had got to be a godsend for the firefighters. His opposition guarantees its success.


Poeple, it's not about greed. It's about the will of the poeple in California here.The voters decided that the money should be shared amoungst the 3 groups or ( public safety). It's the Board of Supervisors that have caused this problem. Sheriff dudes, you were suppose to have a general budget plus 172. But the Sups. stuck it to you! Same with fire and D.A. Now were fighting each other witch is WRONG.Look at the big picture here and lets go after those who put us all in this position. We love you Sheriff dudes,we need to work together.Our politicians are dirty and that includes that clown, Spitzer! If we don't , we may see a ballot measure to reverse 172 someday. It could happen, if the will of the people are not met. Lets fight together. Go back to 1993, look at the facts and have a clear mind of what occured here. Stay away from, "you got that and we didn't get this" spin and all of that other garbage that will get us no where.Lets make this right by sharing 172 and getting your general budgets back.By the way, why are we fighting this battle and paying for this crap for something our Chiefs had a hand in. Screw both of them too!


Hey Flint,

How many fires were battled by OCFA in 1991 preceding the staffing year you indicate; how many fires were battled by OCFA in 2004?

My bet is there's likely no increase but I'd like to know; perhaps the interest in increasing staffing is to increase union dues to the OCPFA.


Hey Logical,

Can the same be said for the other side wanting to hire more personnel to fill their claimed 11% vacancy rate? Maybe they just want more union members.

If the fire guys really wanted to get more members, they would advocate for a 40 hour work week. That would cause a 33% increase in manpower and (ta da) more union members.

You can't have it both ways.

The comments to this entry are closed.