Below are 2 sets of meeting minutes from the Local 3800 in Nevada County. These are on their public website, but I thought I would bring them to you here. Though older (2010 and 2011) you will get a feel of how they really operate.
I have highlighted yellow the “usual suspects” as well as areas of importance.
Local 3800 Jan 2011 meeting minutes
http://local3800.com/?zone=/unionActive/minutes.cfm
When the economy took a dump in 2008 and continued to fall through 2011, the Fire Chief (Tim Fike) realized that that with upcoming FF negotiation he would have to ask the NCCFD Local 3800 members for money back (concessions) rather than be able continue the trend of increasing salaries and benefits.
This did not go over well with the NCCFD Local 3800 members. They enlisted the “help” of newly appointed board member Keith Grueneberg. The NCCFD Local 3800 members sought Grueneberg for appointment after another Board member had passed away. His first meeting was January 2011. Grueneberg was instrumental in helping draft the Vote of No Confidence letter for the Fire Chief that the NCCFD Local 3800 members presented to the full board in January 2012.
The Board kept this information to themselves until late February 2012, and then only discussed in closed
session, as NCCFD wanted their Special Tax Measure to pass. The ensuing months were tumultuous, with Grueneberg constantly circumventing the Fire Chief’s Authority. In the end, Chief Fike retired in July 2012 and Grueneberg tried to step in as Fire Chief (http://yubanet.com/regional/Powergrab-at-NCCFD.php)
Between July 2012 and to-date things have only gotten much worse at NCCFD and with Grueneberg and the NCCFD Local 3800 members :
-In November 2012, Grueneberg’s Sheriff Buddies (Carrington and Hablett) were elected to the board. When they found out Linda Chaplin was running, they wanted to stack the cards in their favor at a cost of $23K to the NCCFD taxpayers.
-Though I reported to the Personnel Committee that Carrington sent a racially offensive email to Grueneberg, who then forwarded it the NCCFD Local 3800 President (and NCCFD employee), Wyatt Howell, who then forwarded to a still friendly with NCCFD Local 3800, Battalion Chief…Grueneberg resigned as Chairman of the Board, but remained on the board. (http://yubanet.com/regional/New-NCCFD-Board-Chair-Knox-Sets-District-on-Road-to-Recovery-with-Frank-Apology-and-Plan-of-Action.php)
-We tried to recall Grueneberg from the board and were not successful:
http://yubanet.com/regional/Nevada-County-Consolidated-Officer-Sought-to-be-Recalled-Responds.php
In June 2013, the Nevada County Grand Jury came out with their 2013 report on NCCFD and it was scathing regarding Grueneberg and the board as a whole.
http://yubanet.com/regional/NCCFD-At-Least-One-Response-to-Grand-Jury-Report-Appears-Inaccurate.php
Most recently Pascale reported on the continuing:
http://yubanet.com/regional/Memo-Prompts-Filing-of-Tort-Claim-by-2-Firefighters-against-NCCFD.php
http://yubanet.com/regional/NCCFD-Directors-Failed-to-Notify-Public-of-Board-Vacancy.php
http://yubanet.com/regional/NCCFD-Board-rescinds-appointment-restarts-process.php
I could go on and on about the TRUTHFUL reporting Pascale has done and the price I feel she is now paying. Oh…by the way, a friend of mine told me Gruenenberg’s son is a CHP in the Sacramento region.
As the former Office Manager of 49FPD and HR Administrator of NCCFD, I agree with Chief Vander Plaats regarding the paid call firefighter (PCF) rosters. At NCCFD, there were at least 20 names and an average on 4-5 consistent responders…mainly during the fair. If Mr. Gassaway has all his PCF certs and training completed, then why doesn’t he just go ahead and respond to emergency calls? Also, during my tenure, I found it was the firefighters who made it quite inhospitable for the “volunteers”…just ask any former 49er FPD volunteer what happened after consolidation with NCCFD.
But what does not pass the “truth test” here is where is the Penn Valley members of the Local 3800 firefighter union in this? The issues brought up by “several different audience members” stinks of Local 3800 involvement. Why haven’t they issued a letter or a voice of support for their Fire Chief? Could the PV members of the Local 3800, with the help of the Local 3800 FF Union President, actually be behind this? Attacking the Fire Chief’s credentials is certainly something as lowly as the Local 3800 is known for doing.
But after the NCCFD 2013 Grand Jury Report…, the Local 3800 have been trying to stay out of the spotlight. My guess is they have put these “several different audience members” up to making these false claims.
I can guarantee you, if this “group” (Local 3800 members) stays silent and un-supportive of their Fire Chief, then they are behind this attack on one of the finest, professional Fire Chief’s in Nevada County.
I can certainly tell you that during the my employ with NCCFD, I heard over and over that after the Local 3800 “took out” the NCCFD Fire Chief, that next on their list was the PVFPD Fire Chief, and then the Higgins FPD Fire Chief.
I am happy to see the PVFPD Board standing up for their Fire Chief, unlike NCCFD’s Board lack of support for its Fire Chief, past and present.
Please don’t let that tail start wagging the dog…it’s a slippery slope.
You have until 5pm, this Friday, October 11, 2013 to turn in an application to fill a board seat at the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District.
Even though the position to be filled is a 4-year term ending December 2016, the seat will go to election in November 2014 for the final two years of the term. Additionally, come November 2014, there will be 3 seats up as well as this “one-year” seat.
If you would like to start the process of taking your Fire District back, please take a moment to fill out and deliver your application to the Admin Office located at: 11329 McCourtney Road, Grass Valley, CA 95949.
The NCCFD Board will be holding a Special Meeting sometime AFTER 5pm, this Friday, October 11, 2013 to review all applications and to give the applicants time to speak at the meeting.
Below is a link to the NCCFD Website and attached is an application for your convenience.
Recall Grueneberg 2013
Press Release
September 30, 2013
After counting and recounting, we have fallen short of our goal of 4,388 signatures to force a Special Election Recall of Keith M. Grueneberg by 718 signatures. Unfortunately, we had to discount approximately 500 signatures as the signers did not live within the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District. While we were not able to recall Grueneberg this year, we will be refocusing our efforts to make sure he, as well as other select board members, are not re-elected in November 2014, should they decide to run as incumbents.
While Grueneberg might feel that we failed, we see our efforts as a win. Below are many (though certainly not all) of the known truths, along with the 2013 Grand Jury Report, we have proudly brought to light regarding Grueneberg and his good-old-boys.
Grueneberg has and continues to:
*KNOWINGLY chose to ignore provisions of the Brown Act, NCCFD by-laws, rules. regulations and ordinances IN ORDER TO AFFECT PUBLIC OPINION DURING THE SPECIAL TAX ELECTION. 90% of the people who signed the petition, asked us when we would have a petition to repeal the 2012 Special Tax. This is something we will consider. It only takes approx. 2300 petition signatures to force an election to repeal the Special Tax. Maybe it should be repealed, then NCCFD can go out and be honest about where they intend to spend the money and see if the voters will pass it. The 2012 Special Tax passed at 68%, only 1.6% over the 66.66% required…a very slim margin. Another sticking point is there is no Sunset Clause and the Board can increase it up to 3% per year.
*Undermine the authority of the Fire Chief as the Chief Executive Officer; Lacks executive leadership, micromanages…created and continues to foster an unhealthy working environment for administrative staff, leading to hostility and mistrust.
*Lacks fiduciary responsibility by entering into employee collective bargaining agreements leading to EXCESSIVE and UNEXPECTED EXPENDITURES; Has a close and personal relationship with Wyatt Howell, the President of the Local 3800 Firefighter Union, placing into question his credibility during collective bargaining with the Local 3800 Firefighter Union after the passing of the 2012 Special Tax.
* After receiving a racially offensive email from a retired NCSO and now current Board member, Grueneberg forwarded the racially offensive email to Wyatt Howell, the President of the Local 3800 Firefighter Union, who then forwarded it to a NCCFD Battalion Chief who chose not to report it, all in direct violation of NCCFD’s personnel code.
*Has fallen short in his role and responsibilities as a member of the Board of a public agency.
* And….We forced the entire the Board of NCCFD to comply with Government Codes pertaining to its Special Tax (formation of Citizen’s Oversight Committee (COC), setting up a special accounting for revenues to be deposited and insisting on the required annual report of what the Special Tax dollars were spent on).
*And …We have recently (9/19/13) forced the Board of NCCFD to rescind an illegal board member appointment as they violated the California Government Code relating to appointments.
*And…we will continue to be the NCCFD watchdog, until this board (or a newly elected one) proves that they can abide by the provisions of the Brown Act, NCCFD by-laws, rules, regulations, ordinances and the California Government Codes.
Last night, at the NCCFD “emergency board meeting”, the four board members who attended rescinded their previous decision to appoint Mr. Ronald Pennington (good friend to four of six sitting Board Members) as the board member replacing the seat left vacant by Robert Rhodes.
It was this “watchdog” blog that called out the NCCFD Board’s illegal action on 9/19, violating California Government Code 1780 (see earlier posts), thus, once again, forcing the NCCFD Board to play by the rules…not just the ones they make up as they go. We could have waited until the October 17th Board meeting to call them out, and then the Nevada County BOS would have stepped in and made the decision for NCCFD, but that is not what we are about. The NCCFD Board should be thanking us for bringing their obvious, devious, good ol’ boy network to light…again. (What were a majority of the Board Members doing right before the 9/19/13 meeting, all huddled outside with Mr. Pennington? Coaching him? Congratulating him? Wait! He had not even been appointed, albeit illegally, to the board as the meeting had yet to start.)
District Council, Jim Curtis, was in attendance. He apologized to the Board stating he had not anticipated that the Board would have deviated from the Resolution he was asked to draw up and had not properly prepped the Assistant District Council should the Board go off course. (Poor Jim, I guess he forgot how badly the Board behaves when he is not in attendance) The Resolution presented 9/19/13 was reviewed by the Chairman of the NCCFD Board prior to the meeting.
grueneberg sat there with a sourpuss face, shaking his head. Carrington chimed up “well, stuff happens.” (Wow, really? Only when the Board chooses to circumvent the law)
The Board and Council spent quite a long time on the 15 day posting requirement and when to hold a special meeting to avoid missing their 60 day window. They finally landed on October 11th, no time was mentioned. October 13th is 60 days from 8/14/13, the effective date of Mr. Rhodes resignation.
According to the Government Code, the posting of the vacancy must be for 15 days. Though posted last night, after the meeting, the 15 days start counting today, Thursday 9/26. All applications must be in by the close of the day on Thursday October 10th and the appointment will be made on Friday October 11th. Yubanet was in attendance and offered to post the vacancy announcement that night. Knox and Hanson thanked thanked Yubanet, but grueneberg and Carrington were silent on the matter. Click here: http://yubanet.com/regional/NCCFD-Vacancy.php#.UkRlFEPn9Ag and here: http://yubanet.com/regional/NCCFD-Board-rescinds-appointment-restarts-process.php#.UkRlXUPn9Ag
When asked for public comment, I spoke up and stated that while I thought it was a kind act for Mr. Curtis to fall on the proverbial sword, it is time for this Board to start taking responsibility for its own actions. Mr. Curtis stated he had “broad shoulders”. I continued, that is nice to have broad shoulders, however, if the Board would have followed the resolution, which just happened to follow the procedures required by the California Government Code, then they would not be in the predicament they find themselves in…again.
Rather than let my statement stand, Carrington decided he had to chime in with his brilliant statement, “well, stuff happens.” My immediate reply was, “yes, and it seems to happening a lot to you (the board). I stated it is time for this board to take responsibility for their actions and to stop blaming others. I continued, it was their responsibility, as board members, to know the Government Code, it was their responsibility to know how to do their job.
Carrington started to say something snide, when the Chairman stopped him as did Dir. Hanson. I’m sitting there thinking, Wow! Such anger from Carrington and grueneberg (still a sourpuss face and more head shaking, kind of like one of those bobble-heads), in full view at a public board meeting. Professionalism at its best. I will be happy to go toe to toe, at any public board meeting, with these gentlemen (and I use the term gentlemen loosely). I will be happy to point out everything this board has done, and continues to do since September 2011, to tarnish the NCCFD name and bringing this fire district to the sorry state it is in today.
And the meeting was adjourned.
I believe in the future I will video these meetings. If you could see the disdain Carrington and grueneberg (& Hablett when in attendance) have for certain women in the audience, when they speak up and let the board know when they are doing something wrong…boy, if looks could kill.
So look for video clips on future blogs, that should be fun!
Back when I was still working as a lowly HR Administrator for NCCFD and the elections in 2012 were rolling around, NCCFD had three board seats up and two incumbents re-filed (Rhodes and Leonard) and one (Hitchcock) did not. At that moment in time, if only one interested party chose to run, then there would not have been an “election” as all candidates would have been appointed in lieu, saving the District $25,000.
The first person to file for the seat was Linda Chaplin. Again, if no one else chose to run then all incumbents and Ms. Chaplin would have been appointed in lieu, thus saving the District $25,000 in election costs.
Now here is where the plot thickened. In my office, Director Hanson, in front of the Division Chief and the District/Board Secretary told this interesting story, Sorry Dave, but this has to be told:
grueneberg had asked his buddy o’pal Hablett to run for the seat Hitchcock was giving up. But, lo and behold, when Hablett arrived to file his paperwork, he asked if anyone else had filed. The Elections Office stated that indeed someone had filed the previous day. So, Hablett called and informed his buddy that if he, Hablett, files it will force an election to the tune of $25,000 bucks. The buddy asks who has put in their paperwork, Hablett replied, Linda Chaplin. His good ‘ol buddy said file, we can’t work with her. Boom! $25,000 on the hook.
Then, I had an NCCFD employee state grueneberg told him how he was also recruiting Carrington to run for the Board as we can’t let that “crazy woman” on the Board.
Last, but not least, Pennington was a neighbor and is still a personal friend of Dave Hanson. Hanson recruited him to run.
So there ya have it, the circle is now complete. The good ol’ boy network still is in play.
Regarding the illegal appointment of Pennington on 9/19/13, the Calif. Secretary of State’s Office states the do not have the authority to enforce the government codes, see the below email:
Thank you for contacting the Secretary of State regarding a special district.
While the Secretary of State oversees elections in California and files and maintains certain government and business entity documents, our office does not have the oversight or authority to investigate this matter. If you haven’t done so already, you may wish to forward your concerns to your county’s Board of Supervisors.
You may also wish to consult with private legal counsel. A private attorney could directly represent your interests and provide advice most helpful to you. Lawyer referral services are available through the State Bar of California.
And then they clarified:
When we receive correspondence about a matter that does not fall under the oversight of the Secretary of State’s office, we try to refer the individual to an agency that may be able to assist. In our previous response to your email, we suggested sharing your concerns with the Nevada County Board of Supervisors. We have since confirmed the Board of Supervisors does not have the authority to intervene in this matter.
We apologize for any confusion that may have arisen from our previous response. If you need advice related to concerns you have about a special district, you may wish to contact private legal counsel.
So, the County BOS and the County Election Dept has no authority to enforce the Calif. Gov’t Codes…I guess neither does the State….the only avenue is for citizens of the District to file a claim with the NCDA. Really? I should go out and pay for any attorney to pursue violations the NCCFD made?
And this is why it is all so corrupt, even at this puny level of government.
From the recording in it’s entirety, my comments are italicized in parentheses:
Chairman Knox, stated the first item under New Business was Item 7, Discussion and Possible Action, Resolution R13-12, Accepting the Resignation of Director Robert Rhodes and filling the vacancy on the board.
Knox directed the public to page 7-1, upon which is a copy of Dir. Rhodes’ letter of resignation dated 7/29/13, with an effective resignation date of 8/14/13.
Hanson asked, “does the Board needed a resolution to accept a resignation?” grueneberg stated no. (Why do you just believe him?) Hanson continued that you can accept the resignation in an open meeting, but you a have an entirely different thing going on in this resolution, on filling the vacancy. Assistant District Council (ADC), Christian Curtis stated District Council (DC) James Curtis felt by providing a resolution for the resignation as well as the vacancy issue would cover all the bases, though it may not be necessary, what would it hurt on doing so? Knox confirmed what ADC Curtis stated in his conversation with DC Curtis.
Knox stated the resolution has a timeframe that needs to be filled in, for how long the district will accepting applications “Period of blank weeks”, so the Board needs to decide that and a date by which those applications will be addressed.
Carrington asked, “is this the only method to appoint a board member? Why not, essentially…the next vote getter be the one? Is that reasonable? Can you do that? In other words, not go through this whole…”? ADC Curtis stated the process is the board has 60 days in which to fill the vacancy, by the board’s vote. If you do not act, then the County BOS would receive 30 days to fill the position. If the BOS did not fill within 30 days, then it would go to a special election, the downside being the financial aspect, the cost of a special election…You would be better off making an appointment.
Carrington: “but making an appointment based on going through all this, outside people wanting to be part of…”
Bass: “that is how we have always done it.
Carrington: “does it mean it has to be that way? I am just asking because I don’t know.
Knox: “No, no it does not have to be that way…(really, why would you say something like that when you truly do not know? Oh wait, did a certain director tell you it was possible?) it would be my suggestion that we do it that way, however if the board decides differently I am perfectly amenable to any process you choose.”
grueneberg: “I would like to suggest, if we have to accept this resolution, resignation by resolution, that we go down to where it says is now therefore and strike everything after board of directors in the first sentence…”
Hablett: “and just accept the resignation?
grueneberg: “Yeah, There is not set procedure to fill a board vacancy, other than this board has to act. why should we labor over this thing?”
ADC Curtis, “as I understand, you wish to strike everything after the acceptance of the resignation, that entire paragraph…?”
grueneberg: “We do have to notify the elections officials.”
Curtis: “correct.”
grueneberg: “and then it wouldn’t say on the subject vacancy…it would just stop there.”
Curtis: “I believe that is fine.
grueneberg: “or should say, will notify the county election officials of the appointment…”
Curtis: NO, no,:
Bass: “that’s not part of this.
grueneberg: “oh yeah that’s not part of it.” (what, almost caught yourself in the farce)
Hanson: wait , wait. It should say we accept the resignation, end of story,
grueneberg: “yeah, yeah, we can do the other thing sometime later.” (of course you can, that is the way it was planned)
Knox: “that is why this discussion is valuable.” (to make sure you all have your stories straight)
grueneberg: “this is tied into…not like the decision has not already been made.” (Oh, I beg to differ)
Hanson: “Move to accept the resignation, as amended, with the elimination of the vacancy appoint paragraph. grueneberg seconded.
Linda Chaplin stated she wanted to thanks Dir. Rhodes for the years of service he provided sitting on the Board. Approved by all.
Then they moved to part 2 of item number 7, even though one did not exist, since they struck the vacancy appointment from the resolution and there was no talk about breaking the resolution in two. ANYWAY,
Knox: “moving on to item 8.”
grueneberg: stated no, no, the second half of 7. (and here we go…..)
Hablett, “I tend to agree with Carrington as far as we have a candidate, who was on the ballot, did receive votes from citizens of the district, and he has made an offer to fill the spot. I think we should consider that before we open it up to the public at large.”
Bass: “why wouldn’t we open it up the public at large? To get as many candidates as possible?
Carrington: “Well, we did open it up at large at the election.
Bass: “that is not the way it has ever been done.”
Carrington: ”I Don’t Care. I don’t mean to be a smart-aleck, but do we have to do everything the same way we’ve always done it, for a hundred years, I don’t think so? My question is this guy did his job, he did the due diligence, went out an campaigned, he came in third place, now he is basically first place. It’s done as far as I am concerned. I don’t see the need…” (Wow, talk about good ol’ boys)
Bass: “you don’t just do that. If the Mayor of GV resigned, you wouldn’t just go to the next runner-up to replace them.”
Hanson: “this is interesting, as we had numerous people run for 3 seats. They put out time and money to campaign, got a lot of people to vote for them…”
Bass: “so in other words, you are just going to hand it to an individual instead of allowing the public at large apply.”
Hablett: “my logic is the people of the district have indicated their support of his candidacy…”
Bass: “at that moment in time, It is a different time now and that is just not the way it is done.”
Hanson: “I read in the Grand Jury report where we were not being open, we were doing an old boy network, so if people rely on our 7 votes versus our constituents, I think (if we open this up at large) we are going against what we were just cited for in the Grand Jury report. Why don’t we do what the people want?”
grueneberg: “4562 people voted for this gentleman” (funny how he just happened to know that number), “and now we’re going to interview some people so “us” can decide? I don’t think so.”
Carrington: “It doesn’t’ smell right to me.” (wow, such an intelligent and professional statement)
Bass: “wasn’t this the same way you were appointed (to kg, public at large)?”
grueneberg: “EXCUSE ME?!”
Bass: “when you were initially appointed, via public at large, that was how you came on. We could have gone back to the previous election and have picked that person.”
grueneberg: “PARDON ME?!?” (are you deaf?) “Well that was the way you did it back then.”
Bass: “we should open it up to the public, like we just did with the citizen’s group, for the community…to people who want to serve and we picked…”
Carrington: “we picked”, well the people picked this person” ( no they did not, otherwise he’d be sitting on that board) “and that seems more correct to me, and I may be wrong.” (no doubt)
Bass: “it has never been done that way,”
Carrington: “That just doesn’t matter to me.” (apparently)
Bass: “what advantage is there…you are going to a past election and picking a runner-up.?”
Carrington: “he ran, he got votes he’s next up.”
Hablett: “another advantage is it takes us out of the process, fulfilling the will of the people.”
Public Comment:
Mike Miller: (nccfd financial asst’s Pam Miller’s husband, personal friend of the former finance manager to be and gruenberg and Hablett…) “comparing the COC appointments was something internal to the board and the board positions were voted on by the public and when you have someone who placed fourth, when you have citizen’s who voted for him already, versus a group 6 people who are going to review who ever applies, I think the board should go with what the citizens of the district have already done would be the better move.”
Linda Chaplin: “I believe I came in about 500 votes lower than Mr. Pennington, did, so I guess the next that opens on the Board, I would expect also to just be appointed because people voted for me.”
Knox, any further discussion? KG moved to accept Pennington. Carrington seconded, Bass opposed Hanson, I believe he can sit on the board right now? Staff, no he needs to be sworn in. We can do that tonight, right? NO, needs Conflict of int. paperwork, Form 700, and other paperwork.
Great Article at Yubanet.com. Enjoy!
Prior to, and since the November 2012 elections, I have never seen Mr. Ronald Pennington at any NCCFD Board Meetings. So, forgive me if I have to wonder how he became aware of what was to take place at the September 19, 2013 NCCFD Board Meeting. I find it very suspect that Mr. Pennington just happened to be in the audience at the September 19, 2013 NCCFD Board Meeting.
I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that Mr. Pennington probably is not on the email request of all agendas and board packets. Not ONE news agency posted the meeting announcement, though they did receive it. So how the heck did Mr. Pennington recognize the need to go to this specific NCCFD Board Meeting?
Could it be he was called and asked be there, as the Board was going to appoint him, if he was interested? What if he wasn’t interested? Did they call and ask Linda Chaplin to be at the meeting? She pretty much attends every board meeting. Would they then have offered it to Linda Chaplin…she only had 500 less votes than Mr. Pennington in the November 2012 elections? Now I am wondering just how many Board Members played that game, behind the scenes, not in the public eye?
Of course, the Chairman of the Board will come out and publicly state, “Since all of our senior staff suddenly departed…blah, blah, blah”, but in reality, it is the responsibility of each and every board member to know their “jobs” as Board Members. Below is the Grand Jury Finding I.2, NCCFD’s Response and our response:
Below is how NCCFD has ALWAYS filled Board seats by appointment, the last being the infamous keith m. grueneberg for Mr. Ron McRoberts’ board seat in December 2010, prior to that and in the not so far past, the Board appointed members from the public for the resignations of Mel Mouser, Fred Bulher and Olivia Diaz:
In Thursday night’s case, the Board never notified the Elections Dept. of the vacancy and they did not follow the minimum posting requirements. And here is why I think the NCCFD chose to violate California Government Code, Section 1780 (b) and (d):
I believe the Board knew they messed up. Since Mr. Rhode’s resignation was dated 7/29 and effective on 8/14 (and why did this not come up at the August 15th Meeting?), they should have had a Special Meeting around the end of August to accept the resignation and get the ball rolling. Since they failed to do that (and to notify the Elections Dept. by 8/29), they realized, just prior to last Thursday night, they were running out of time and could not wait until the 10/17 meeting as their 60 days were up on 10/13, so they tried to sneak this by, rather than do the right thing…SNAFU.
The NCCFD Board should re-think and update their response to the Grand Jury findings because they certainly do not know how to follow the NCCFD rules, regs, ordinances, polices and procedures, nor do they have a clue about California Government Codes (laws)…But wait, isn’t it grueneberg who loves to cite those codes/laws when it suits his needs? Being on NCCFD’s Board is not his first rodeo, he also served on the Board of the Cosumnes Community Services District. I wonder if this is how he ran the show down there as well.
Keeping it real…
*I do not have access to any NCCFD files, emails, documents or personnel information and since I never was required to sign a confidentiality agreement, the above statements are what I recollect.
Below is an email I have sent to the NCCFD Chairman of the Board and the District’s Board of Supervisor Representative, Nate Beason. Please feel free to voice your own concerns via email to:
warrenknox@nccfire.com and Nate.Beason@co.nevada.ca.us
The district shall notify the county elections official of the vacancy no later than 15 days after either the date on which the district board is notified of the vacancy or the effective date of the vacancy, whichever is later.
The remaining members of the district shall post a notice of the vacancy in three or more conspicuous places in the district at least 15 days before the district board makes the appointment. The district shall notify the county elections official of the appointment no later than 15 days after the appointment.
Resident Linda Chaplin was at last night’s NCCFD Board meeting (darn, I was not able to be there) and reported the board appointed Ronald Pennington to a vacant position left by Bob Rhodes. With the resignation of NCCFD Board Member Bob Rhodes and appointment of Ronald Pennington to fill the vacancy, NCCFD has once again violated the California Government Code. According to a call I made to the Nevada County Elections Dept. this morning, NCCFD did not follow the California Government Code, Section 1780 (b) which states:
The district shall notify the county elections official of the vacancy no later than 15 days after either the date on which the district board is notified of the vacancy or the effective date of the vacancy, whichever is later.
In the attached Board Packet from last night’s meeting, page 7-1, Bob Rhodes resignation letter dated July, 29, 2013 stated he was resigning from his position with an effective date of August 14, 2013. The Board was under the obligation to inform the Nevada County Elections Dept., by August 29, 2013, that NCCFD had a vacancy. They NEVER made the notification.
http://nccfire.com/2013-09-19%20Board%20Packet.pdf
In appointing Ronald Pennington to replace Bob Rhodes at last night’s “regularly irregular” Board Meeting, NCCFD continued with violating California Government Code, Section 1780 (d) which states:
The remaining members of the district shall post a notice of the vacancy in three or more conspicuous places in the district at least 15 days before the district board makes the appointment. The district shall notify the county elections official of the appointment no later than 15 days after the appointment.
Sounds like NCCFD will be reneging the offer to Ronald Pennington and go back to the drawing board (well at least until Oct 14, 2013) to properly appoint a new board member!
It sure would be nice to see tax paying citizens of NCCFD attend these important meetings, after all, it is YOUR money and YOUR Fire Department.
Below is a link to the 9/19/13 NCCFD Board Meeting Agenda/Board Pkt. The packet is a whopping 108 pages long! It is in .pdf format, easy to open and save.
http://nccfire.com/2013-09-19%20Board%20Packet.pdf
What I think of interest is:
1) The operations fund is at a massive NEGATIVE ($595,018.88) as of 8/31/13…larger now that it is halfway through September. Yes, I know the County of Nevada allows the District to go negative until it receives its first teetered deposit of Revenue (55% of total) in December, but at what cost? I still cannot find the “Interest Expense” line item in the reports. What is the interest rate the District is charged?
2) At 17% of the Fiscal Year, the District’s OVERTIME budget is at 34% of budget. That is DOUBLE where it should be at this time in the Fiscal Year and Budget. I’m thinking the District should have budgeted $400K instead of $200K.
3) Fund 758. At both the 9/5/13 and in the 9/19/13 Board Pkt, the Chief’s stated and has referred to in his “Short Term Business Plan” that there needs to be a Captial Replacement plan. The prior Chief’s Special Tax memo (dated 11/8/2011) stated the Special Tax would be spent on: “…Funding for our Fire Engine Replacement Plan…” The former Fire Chief had outlined setting aside at least $50K per year, but I do not see that in the Final Budget. With only a cash balance forward projection of $194K, all it will take is one big-ticket item to wipe that away. See Item 4) below. Wait! I know why! It would cut into the $$ the Board wants to give the Local 3800 in their ongoing MOU negotiations. Better to pay them, then to have an apparatus replacement plan?
4) Vehicle Maint., at 17% of the year is 25% expended. As noted in the Chief’s Short Term Business Plan under “major equipment”, the Chief acknowledges…”the lack of planning for apparatus replacement will only create a bigger expense in the future…as it stands today we will fall behind on our equipment replacement schedule for many of our emergency response apparatuses…Our existing apparatus are well maintained, but the cost of doing so will only keep rising…” Thus, the Vehicle Maint. line item in the budget is already over budget for this time of the Fiscal Year. Why not set aside $50k in this budget?
5) Just a little confused on the McSweeney engagement letter (for audit services). Maybe an “updated” engagement letter from McSweeeny should be drafted for signature and presented at the 9/19/13 Board Meeting? The memo in the 9/19/13 Board Pkt states “Total Estimate Cost of $21,250.00.” However, the engagement letter states $26,240.00 a difference of $4,990.00. Maybe the “former to be Finance Manager” added some “unauthorized” work as the “former to be finance manager” did last year?
And last, well, for now at least,
6) On page 4 of the Chief’s Short Term Business Plan, item d. refers to the JOA. One sentence in particular shows a lack of understanding and historical research. “Although, there have been some events and activities in the past that have created some discomfort by some in the community…” I think the Chief should re-visit that comment as the discomfort NCCFD is experiencing is not because of “some in the community”, but rather in their own house, i.e. a rogue board member (grueneberg), a rogue Local 3800 FF Union President and NCCFD employee (howell), a rogue and missing finance manager and a rogue/current battalion chief. These four were at the center of the storm that NCCFD has faced in the past and continues, though to a lessor degree, today.
One thing to remember is that Grass Valley and Nevada City are small, hometown cities. To think you can run NCCFD without the support of the community is ludicrous. With NCCFD making and or writing statements (as above), blaming their constituents for the dire straits they are in today, is not the correct path for the District to travel. Accept the fact that the NCCFD Board has made some grievous errors. Accept the fact that a core group was allowed to act without oversight, resulting in the “majority of your senior staff suddenly left”. Once NCCFD accepts the part it has been playing (and allowed others to play), the sooner corrective matters can be taken and the District can get back on track.
Last Thursday, 9/5/13, I attended the first meeting of NCCFD’s Special Tax Citizen’s Oversight Committee (COC) meeting. It was held at St. 84 (Nevada City) at 3pm.
As well as the new committee members, in attendance were Chairman of the NCCFD Board, Warren Knox, Chief Zubia and Jeff Van Groningen, the new “Interim Finance Manager.” There were a few on-duty firefighters (who for the first time, chose to sit directly behind Linda Chaplin and myself…they usually sit on the very far right of the room, in the back). Also present was a Union New reporter (see att. article below).
Intro’s were made and all COC members appear very qualified and eager to serve. All voiced concern they wanted to ensure that the Special Tax dollars the District receives are spent in a manner consistent to what was told to the voters.
Fred Buhler was elected as the Chairman of the COC, Rich Ulery was elected as Vice-Chair.
The Brown Act was reviewed explaining the importance of not having serial meetings and meetings “behind the scene (are you listening NCCFD Board?).” Governmental Fund Accounting versus Private Sector Accounting was touched upon, noting that NCCFD reports on a Cash basis and most private sector companies report on an Accrual basis. Fred asked that Jeff Van Groningen, at the next COC meeting, give a 15 minute presentation on Governmental Fund Accounting and NCCFD’s funds in particular…what they can and cannot be used for.
Fred asked Warren Knox to give a little overview of the what the Board’s vision is of this new committee. Warren spoke about the Special Tax initiative. Knox spoke about the “concession giveback”, which had cost the District a unbudgeted amount of $20,000. He stated the reason this was done is the Board felt it, that once the Special Tax was passed, it is not fair to uphold the careers of the eight individuals affected by the concessions, by holding up there their merit increases they (the firefighters) had agreed concede. Keep in mind, ONLY the Local 3800 received their concessions back…no other bargaining unit received any concession givebacks.
He spoke about the “AB1600” fund and Jarvis Gann, at great length, and unless you have every worked at Special District, you would not have had a clue as to what he was talking about…It probably would have been slightly more clear if Knox would have referred to it as Proposition 13. What’s more is the Prop13 really had an effect on NCCFD’s Operations Fund as this is where NCCFD’s property tax $$ are placed. NCCFD’s AB1600 Fund (aka Fire Mitigation fees) is a fund the District collects money when people build in within the NCCFD District boundaries. The more Knox spoke about this the more confusing he and the subject matter became.
Bottom line:
The State of California has a history of shifting the costs of state government programs to local governments. Under Dillon’s Rule, California legislature has stipulated local governments are administrative arms of the states and can be ordered to carry out state programs or policies generally referred to as mandates.
Shifting state costs to local governments accelerated in the 1990’s with the passage of Educational Revenue Augmentation Funds (ERAF) or the taking of local money and transferring it to schools to cover the state government unwillingness to use its own general fund money. The revenue shortages for schools started with the passage of Proposition 13 known as the Jarvis-Gann initiative that limited all property tax to one percent of the market value of land and improvements.
As the state continued to transfer costs to local government with use of laws such as ERAF and unfunded mandates, it was not long before local governments revolted with the passage of Proposition 22. Voters in 2010 passed Proposition 22 to Constitutionally stop the state from taking any future local revenues but mandates were not covered.
Finally, Knox got to Fred’s question/request “You folks are to oversee the Special Tax spending and make comments about where we are, and how we are spending that money.”
Fred focused the committee on Resolution 11-18 and COC By-Laws (att below) that provides more detail of what the committee will be doing than Knox’s comments. Fred asked the members to read through and bring questions to their next meeting. Fred noted that the committee is playing catch-up, as the Board should have put together the committee over 18 months ago. Fred asked the group to consider what questions they should be asking and what information should they use. Fred stated “…one way of describing what the COC should be doing is to step back and understand whether or not the funds have been spent in the manner in which they were intended. Are the funds being spent they way the voter’s intended, because at the end of the day, the COC represents the voters of the District.”
Fred requested information that was provided to the voters: website, minutes/memos, news articles, comments to the press. Fred also noted it might be helpful to invite prior District Staff, who were around for the passing of the Special Tax, to come and speak to the COC.
Since the District, through their Finance Department and Board, for the first year of the Special Tax, did not comply with the Government Code’s 50075 – 50077.5, (the Finance Dept. failed to set up a special account and did not track the expenditure of the Special tax from 7/1/12- 12/31/12, also no tracking had been done for the period of 1/1/13 – to-date) the COC requested budgets from 2010/11 to-date for comparison, for a before and after Special Tax picture of the District’s Finances. The COC felt they might be able to extrapolate where the Special Tax dollars were spent be reviewing the budgets. Mike Bratton agreed and commented that all Special Taxes require oversight committees as the oversight committees are representing the people who voted for or against the Special Tax. Bratton continued that “by law, there has to be an oversight committee to be sure the monies are spent as the Tax was presented to the voters.” Fred reiterated that the COC is a Government requirement.
The lack of a “sunset” on the Tax (unless the tax “is cancelled” via repeal or by the District itself) was discussed, thus meaning there will be no “sunset” on the COC. Fred stated that in this case, specific to NCCFD, a sunset clause would not have worked as expenses of the District do not “go down”, and when running an agency like NCCFD, you cannot just cut services in half.
The conversation moved back to the COC asking for documentation on how the Special Tax Measure was presented to the voters for the next COC meeting. The members asked for any and all documentation. Zubia stated, “hoping he would not sound argumentative or contrary”, he understood why the COC is asking for documentation on how the Special Tax Measure was presented to the voters. He stated his current concern is, “things have changed (over the last 1 1/2 years since the passing of the tax) and he could almost guarantee that those priorities presented then, have now changed and those issues are not the same priorities as of today.”
Zubia continued, that “what was said during the campaign, and not having been a part of that, gives me that opportunity…of what I want to be able to do and move forward, in the future, is what the resolution legally allows us to comply with. And that is what I am going to adhere to in the future, with all do respect with what might have been abdicated for, I need to take care of today’s issues, today’s priorities and today’s concerns.” Zubia stated he “did not want to see what happened 1 1/ years ago to start dictating how we operate this organization or influence the COC input.” Fred thanked the Chief for his comments.
Fred stated he sees this as a two-step process, the first step is “how was the Special Tax sold, what was said to the public, and what commitments were made and have those commitments been met. The second step is what is needed now in “real time.” If the commitment(s) were not met for some sound reasons, changing circumstances, then why and what are those circumstances. Or the commitment was met, until now, and will not be met in the future because of changing circumstances. That is a reasonable discussion, and as contemplated in the COC By-Laws, the committee is asked to give an opinion on such matters. Changes should be expected and the committee is mandated to show that the commitments were met or not, and if not why and then come to the Board with an opinion on how we see it representing the voters.”
Ulery noted that if the committee had been formed 18 months ago, this discussion (above) would not be taking place, as it would have already been dealt with, and not be in a “catch-up” mode.
Fred summed up the discussion that the COC “needs to sensitive to the voters and the commitment made to them as well as be supportive to the Districts efforts to move forward in a sensible way. The COC should not be locked into a period to history with blinders on, but be sensitive to what the Fire Chief is trying to do with the District and look at it objectively.”
Fred recognized Linda Chaplin and then after her comment told Linda her comments are always welcome at the COC.
Linda stated she is a voter in the District, since 1984, and she supported the tax even though she did not want another tax, but she felt it was critical during the state of the economy. Linda stated she sat through all of the meetings and made her decision to vote for the Special Tax. Linda continued, that the passage of the tax was announced in March 2012 at which time, almost simultaneously, the Fire Chief stepped down and there has been total disarray ever since. Linda stated she feels as a tax payer, she got the real short end of the stick, because she was looking forward to the tax she voted for being implemented in an orderly manner and that never happened because of all the turmoil of personnel. She stated she believed the Fire Chief had ideas of what he wanted to do and he never got that opportunity. She felt a considerable number of the employees created a lot of commotion and one of the main reason she voted for the Special Tax was because of the mandate to have a COC and having to wait 18 months for that was unacceptable. Linda stated she felt she has been duped, and will never, ever, vote for a special tax for this Fire District based on her experience with this last one. Linda stated she felt like the taxpayers were disregarded on the Special Tax. She continued that the “District” is about “everybody”, not just the NCCFD Firefighters/Staff. Linda closed with the statement that she cares about her Fire District, but feels imposed upon and not listened to. She makes a lot of effort to come to all the meetings and is tired of being looked upon as rude just because she has an opinion to voice.
The meeting closed with a summation of what the COC would like available for their next meeting: Prior budgets, Fund Accounting presentation, and documents on how the tax measure was presented. The next meeting has yet to be set, but hopefully the end of September.
Nevada County Consolidated Fire District financial oversight group gets a late start
Below is copied directly from KNCO.com this morning.
“Zubia replaces Keith Grueneberg who resigned as chief in March, but is still on Consolidated’s Board of Directors. There’s an effort to recall Grueneberg from the board, but Zubia says he doesn’t have any control over that…”
Well, I guess KNCO really did know that Grueneberg wanted to be Chief of NCCFD and thus spearheaded the campaign to rid NCCFD of one of the finest Fire Chief’s in California as well as its senior staff.
Thanks KNCO for pointing out the “truth” that grueneberg, the Finance Manager and the Local 3800 really wanted! Let’s hope Chief Zubia has better luck than his predecessor’s.
On 9/4/13 I attended the public NCCFD Finance Committee meeting and noticed that, once again, the NCCFD Finance Manger of 17+ years was not in attendance. Instead, seated at the table was a gentleman introduced as Jeff Van Groningen, “Interim Finance Manager.”
Mr. Van Groningen has quite the financial pedigree, something that was sorely missing with the nowhere to be found NCCFD Finance Manager, who makes a salary of $61k a year + benefits of $34k a year (http://gcc.sco.ca.gov/Reports/SpecialDistricts/SpecialDistrict.aspx?fiscalyear=2011&entityid=1290#Pfb788bab32b5445d8a3b2fb8ebf6cc72_5_28iT0) and not even an AA Degree.* According to LinkedIn, Jeff received his Bachelor of Science in Accounting from CSU Chico in 1978 and is a Management Accountant at Van Groningen & Associates. Van Groningen & Associates specializes in providing part-time and/or interim controller services to various industries, specializing in construction service trades and governmental, or government fund agencies. Again, something NCCFD has been woefully missing.
Back to the Meeting! Right off the bat, I was impressed with the memo (see att. meeting pkt. below) that Chief Zubia (and I am surmising, Jeff) put together for the “Significant Budget Changes”. NCCFD has never received such a clear and concise memo regarding it’s finances. It was very easy to read and follow along with the actual proposed Final Budget (see att. meeting pkt. below).
As the discussion moved forward, I was not surprised when the Chief stated the following:
“Jeff, coming in a couple of weeks ago, has made me a whole heck of a lot more comfortable with the numbers we have before us. I think, with the situation that has transpired in my office, I wasn’t comfortable with the numbers we were dealing with at the initial time I began here. With Jeff here, having him go back and look at our records and our data as well as thoroughly review it, I feel as comfortable as I can be, at this point, with some of the adjustments we have made to the budget. I feel a lot more comfortable than I did 4 or 5 weeks ago.”
What I take away from that comment was Chief Zubia did not have confidence in whomever was preparing the financial data 4 or 5 weeks ago and he was not comfortable with the data and/or explanations he was given by that person. The only one responsible for that data/information is/was the NCCFD Finance Manager. Well, welcome to the collective, senior staff suddenly left, world.
As the meeting continued, the Chief’s statements were even more intriguing. Chief Zubia was speaking about the timing of the preliminary budget for the fiscal year and some things he would like to see implemented (I am guessing that did not go over well with the NCCFD Finance Manager, ergo Jeff). The Chief stated “What happened in the last month or two was the District (read: NCCFD Finance Manager) made some purchases and other expenditures at the last part of June 2013, that then were calculated in to the last year’s budget.” (NCCFD is on a Cash Basis for accounting, and this statement means the NCCFD Finance Manager most likely knowingly booked items as an accrual basis…a large no no in the accounting world). He continued, “And now the numbers are skewed for this fiscal year and has impacted our operating fund…Unbeknownst to anyone, honestly…there are some expense items that have shown up on my desk that were surprising”.
While sitting at the meeting, listening to the Chief, I am thinking something very wrong and an act(s) of possible malfeasance might have occurred at the behest of the NCCFD Finance Manager. With that in mind, I would like to request that Board Member grueneberg, in order to protect the Board of Directors and the District, and their fiduciary responsibility, prepare and submit a complaint to the Nevada County District Attorney’s office to look into the “surprising”, “unbeknownst to anyone”, “surprising” expense items that have shown up on Chief Zubia’s desk for the for review. I would also like grueneberg to ask the Nevada County District Attorney’s office for a determination to verify if Section 424 P.C., Misappropriation of Public Funds (Felony) has been violated, While I am guessing there was no criminal intent, there appears to be a lack of good judgment, incompetency, and lack of supervision and oversight. Sounds a little familiar doesn’t it? Lovin’ that Karma!
What I find thought-provoking is about two weeks prior to Chief Zubia taking the reins at NCCFD, the NCCFD Finance Manager was “sick” as announced at the July 2013 Board Meeting and previously reported on this blob site. A NCCFD resident had stopped by the McCourtney Admin site to drop off a Citizen’s Oversight Committee application during Chief Zubia’s first week in August. The resident saw the NCCFD Finance Manager was there and being moved into the ex-Fire Chief’s (Fike and Ray) office…again, gotta love that Karma!
Ok, so the NCCFD Finance Manager was “sick” with the Board stating at the July 2013 they did not know when the NCCFD Finance Manager would return, then the NCCFD Finance Manager returned and now, with Jeff Van Groningen as the new Interim Finance Manager “for a couple of weeks” now, doing the math, I believe that the NCCFD Finance Manager has left again, probably during the week of 8/19/13.
A friend of mine ran into a NCCFD Board Member, and that Board Member stated that he had stopped by McCourtney Admin site, and noticed that ALL of the NCCFD Finance Manager’s personal items had been removed from the “Karma” office. That act, the removing of all personal items, is not the act of someone planning on returning to work. I suspect one of the three scenarios’ has occurred with the NCCFD Finance Manager: 1) Fired, 2) Retired, or 3) Worker’s Comp claim. Of those three, my best bet is #3, though it should be #1. If my guess is correct (#3), then I am sure grueneberg has offered his advice, based on personal experience (during 1984-1985) to the NCCFD Finance Manager, aka his ex-Bullion Secretary during April 1983 – July 1984 (Union News Opinion, December 1984), and yes, the plot between those two still thickens.
Back in the day (1983-1991), according the Union News and Bullion FPD Board minutes, when gruenberg was fired, rehired, fired, and placed on paid admin leave, he filed a worker compensation claim stating stress/high blood pressure as the primary complaint. In February of 1985, in a Union News article, Bullion Board member Dwight Brooks stated that grueneberg, who was still on paid leave/workers’ compensation, would need to pass a physical for high blood pressure, before resuming any duties. Former Bullion Board member and current NCCFD Board member, Bill Habblett (and yes, there at Bullion the time the ex-Bullion Secretary aka NCCFD Finance Manager) as usual, opposed any negative action towards grueneberg. Habblett stated, “No decision should be made until the conclusion of grueneberg’s workman’s compensation claim…”
Is there no end to this trail of mediocrity?
I would like to give special thanks to Linda Chaplin for her research and binder of Union News articles from 1962 through 1991, a fantastic, though disturbing read.
2013-09-05 Finance Committee Packet
*I do not have access to any NCCFD files, emails, documents or personnel information and since I never was required to sign a confidentiality agreement, the above statements are what I recollect.
We are very pleased to see the first Citizens’ Oversight Committee Meeting will be held this Thursday, September 5 at 3pm. The meeting will be held at NCCFD’s Station 84, 10135 Coyote Street, Nevada City. For your convenience, I have provided the agenda and link to NCCFD’s Citizens’ Oversight Committee page.
The second meeting is a Finance Committee meeting on the same day at 5pm, same location. The Finance Committee will be meeting to discuss the Fiscal Year 2013/14 Final Budget as well as the audit report for the Fiscal Year ending 6/30/13.
Maybe they should invite grueneberg, that way he won’t have to ambush them at the Regular Board meeting (on 9/19/13) with info he is privy to, but does not feel it is his job to share. I have provided the agenda, below, and link to NCCFD’s Board Agenda page.
See you there!
http://nccfire.com/citizen’s_committee.htm
2013-09-05 Citizens’ Oversight Committee Agenda
http://nccfire.com/board_agendas.htm
2013-09-05 NCCFD Bd Fin Com Spl Mtg Agda
According to Yubanet.com (July 2013) and KNCO (July 2013), The California State Insurance Commissioner awarded the Nevada County District Attorney’s Office with a $66,000.00 grant to help prevent and prosecute workers’ compensation insurance fraud. The long-term goal of the program is to develop a regional unit that will investigate fraud cases in Nevada County and surrounding neighboring counties.
Phantasmagorical! I sure hope this regional unit is developed soon, as I would like to see a regional unit look into the possibility of workers’ compensation fraud at NCCFD. As the past HR Administrator*, the Fire Chief, Battalion Chiefs and I were extremely concerned to see NCCFD’s workers’ compensation premium rise from approximately $90,000.00 in the 2009/10 fiscal year to $222,000.00 for the fiscal year ended 2012/13. And the projection for the 2013/14 fiscal year is $225,000.00…an increase of 150% over a five-year period! This super-colossal increase, over a five-year period, was not due to increases in the workers’ comp category rates (those dropped over time), but due to an unprecedented amount of injuries in a short period of time.
Seeing the 2013/14 Preliminary Budget was increasing the Workers’ Compensation line item from the previous year, at the June 2013 Board meeting I asked what is the District doing to de-escalate it’s workers compensation claims. I never received an answer other than they could not talk about ongoing cases. I did not ask about any ongoing case(s), but I wanted to know if the District had analyzed their claims and if they were planning to implement changes to reduce their high incident of injuries. Still no answer.
When I was in employ, the Fire Chief requested the District’s workers’ compensation carrier come out to review the high number of claims and make recommendations for injury prevention. I remember this report was completed in August of 2011 and had numerous recommendations, most of them related to the “personal” workouts taking place at the stations. A large portion of the workers’ comp claims were due to “working out” on duty. Unfortunately, 1) the report was not popular with the “tail”, 2) the “tail” was beginning their work with grueneberg to circumvent and remove the Fire Chief (and other key personnel…”suddenly left” ring a bell) and 3) recommendations were never implemented.
I remember one employee who would injury himself EVERY year…without fail. I had employees telling me they had a pool going on which body part this employee was going to injure next!
I had another employee who recovered from back surgery, only to lift and deliver hay bales, lift live farm animals, then slip and fall while walking the dog, and come back to work saying “I think my back is “acting up” again from my previous injury/surgery.
I had one employee who injured his shoulder and required surgery, after cleared for work he “re-injured” the shoulder during an off duty workout where he was lifting a large amount of weight overhead. There were pictures of this employee lifting the weight online. Of course he never mentioned the lifting of heavy weights completely overhead, and had the impudence to suggest the surgeon did not properly repair the shoulder…really?
I had many employee’s who, after their 4-days off, would come back to work and within the day injure themselves “working out” (yeah, I did check their Facebook pages to see what they really did on their 4 days).
While on duty, I had employees’ injure themselves flipping tractor tires (lower back), jumping up on boxes (knees), lifting too much weight (bicep, should tears), using their full weight with bands suspended from the ceiling (shoulder tears), lifting up and moving an industrial treadmill by themselves…the list goes on and on.
What I would like to see, since the District refuses to police itself, is to have the NCDA scrutinize NCCFD’s workers’ comp claims for fraud (past and present). This can be achieved by reviewing the last 5 years of workers compensation claims…we are only talking about 40 employees total and not all of them have filed claims, but there sure were a lot of repeat offenders when I worked there. Maybe the NCDA can offer up suggestions to NCCFD to avoid false claims and in their review if the NCDA deems a claim is fraudulent in nature , then prosecute that person to the fullest extent allowed by the law.
http://www.mynevadacounty.com/nc/da/Pages/Fraud.aspx
http://knco.com/district-attorney-gets-workman-comp-grant/
*I do not have access to any NCCFD files, emails, documents or personnel information and since I never was required to sign a confidentiality agreement, the above statements are what I recollect.
So I am thinking John (I won’t give you my last name), badge number 3376 needs to be a little more understanding of people who are calling for information or assistance. I am thinking he is a buddy of the ex-reserve S.O. who sits on the NCCFD Board.
Mr. 3376: 911 what’s your emergency?
Me: Well, it is not an emergency, at least not yet. The neighbor at the end of my road thinks it is OK to fire off hundreds of rounds of ammo, sometime very rapid fire, like an automatic. I am also concerned about the potential for a wildfire (hello American and Rim Fires!)
Mr. 3376: (exasperated) They can shoot all day any day until sundown.
Me: Well, what about the rapid fire? That could be an automatic weapon?
Mr. 3376: (still exasperated) Are you now saying it is an automatic weapon?
Me: Not sure, sometimes single fire, sometimes very rapid fire.
Mr 3376: (challenging) If you are saying this is from an automatic weapon I will have to send someone out, are you saying it is an automatic weapon?
Me: I really don’t like your tone and you don’t seem very helpful and you keep interrupting me.
Mr. 3376: Really, because I just told you I was sending someone out if it is an automatic weapon.
At this point I, again, inform Mr. 3376 that he is not being very understanding or helpful and maybe I should speak to someone else. I ask his name, he says “John”. I ask for his last name, he says “I don’t give that out, but my badge number is 3376. I say thanks, and he says something like “thank you for calling”.
A few minutes later I get a call from a real S.O. asking what’s happening. I go through the whole story, again. Darn if I did not get his name, but he was very nice and understanding and helpful. I mentioned, right before we hung up, that maybe someone should give John 3376 some happy pills, because he was not very nice at all. The real S.O. chuckled and said he would look into it.
So I am spending the rest of the evening, well at least until sunset, explaining to the dog that there is nothing to retrieve and coaxing the cat from under the bed.
The Real Deal on Nevada County... 