To the Editor:

For a self-proclaimed “emergency services expert” (Ogdensburg’s city manager) to believe that having only 18 firefighters is equally as safe as having 28 (or 24), is deeply concerning. And for him to openly disregard contractually agreed upon staffing levels, in going to 18, is flat-out wrong.

Even an untrained person would conclude that having ten fewer firefighters (than in 2019), in what was already a small department, will jeopardize the safety of all concerned. And if ten more law enforcement positions are cut...

I wrote recently that staffing cuts are “jeopardizing public safety”, which is not guaranteeing something bad will happen or meant to “promote public fear” (his reply); it’s saying there’s now a higher probability of negative outcomes. If he can’t acknowledge that publicly, he shouldn’t be in charge of public safety.

Where’s the argument for how cuts won’t have a negative affect on safety? Instead of just saying “Public safety is not in jeopardy”, as he did.

t’s easy to throw out a generic line like that, harder to seriously consider and be forthright about the effect of cuts.

Public safety should always be a top concern. Anything can happen at any time, and cutting numerous public safety positions can’t possibly result in the same level of safety for all involved. An “expert” would agree, especially after being on emergency scenes and seeing how having adequate manpower is essential.

But, even if he does agree, he can’t say it publicly because it would hurt his case. He wants city residents, and judges, to believe that the cuts he’s made aren’t a safety concern, even if he knows they are. So the expertise he’s relying on isn’t in public safety, it’s in cutting jobs.

If not, why not let the contract dispute go to arbitration, as it always has in these matters and is what the contract calls for.

It states: “The aggrieved party (the union in this case) shall request...the appointment of an arbitrator by the New York State Public Employee Relations Board...The decision rendered by the arbitrator shall be final and binding upon all parties to the grievance.”

Nowhere does it say that a party can block arbitration through the courts. So, that move in itself undermines the contract, which in turn destroys good faith. To my knowledge, never before has the City challenged the contractual means for settling disputes; arbitration. But it’s happening now.

The city manager is utilizing a high-priced law firm to try to avoid arbitration, where he knows the blatant contract violations will not be looked at favorably. Why avoid it if you believe in your position?

This dispute could be close to settled by now, if going to arbitration wasn’t being blocked. A move that’s just dragging things out and costing taxpayers more money in legal fees.

The firefighters union contractually agreed in 2019 to reduce total staffing, through attrition, from 28 down to 24 bargaining unit members. Not because it’s equally safe (it’s not, and the case was made in negotiations), but the union compromised due to the City’s expressed financial concerns. The previous city manager conducted negotiations with professionalism, and the union, for the first time ever, agreed to reduce total staffing.

That agreement was came to legally and was approved by both parties, who understood that contractual staffing levels are for safety and effectiveness. Less effective equals less safe. And doing the same job with fewer firefighters is definitely both.

The current city manager recently stated that securing a new contract in 2019 (with the old one set to expire on 1/1/20), was “a pitiful attempt at overthrowing an election.” What?

For the record, if the new contract hadn’t been finalized by the time the new council took office on 1/1/20, the old contract would have remained in effect, which called for 28 total members and five minimum on duty.

There’s no way the union would’ve simply agreed to the unsafe staffing levels we see now, and so, would’ve sought arbitration, same as now.

The new contract has obviously been violated, being that there’s now only 18 bargaining unit members instead of 24; and now a minimum of four on duty instead of the contractual minimum of five. One judge’s decision to stay arbitration doesn’t change that fact, even if the city manager wants people to believe it does.

Those of us who were involved in negotiations know the intent behind the staffing clauses; definitely better than someone who wasn’t involved in any way, or even living here, when the contract was negotiated and approved.

To close, Judge Farley’s decision to stay (block) arbitration has been justifiably appealed by the union, so maybe the city manager shouldn’t call it yet.

I don’t know how the appellate court will rule, simply because there’s no way to know for sure, but it seems he wants people to believe it’s over, when it isn’t. Proceeding to arbitration is the best path to settlement, and he’s doing everything he can to avoid it.

Oh, and be prepared for his canned response describing this as “fiction”. When truth was pointed out in the beginning, he called it “near fiction,” but he’s upped it now. I guess he figured out that calling it “near fiction” meant it was still true.

He just wants people to believe his spin, not what’s really going on. His agenda doesn’t include honoring contracts and the city charter, or acting professionally and in good faith, as we’ve seen. He’s only here to serve the four who irrationally hired him.

Ron Bouchard
Ogdensburg