An Open Letter to Arlington City Residents:
For the record, I don’t like getting into political matters. I don’t like divisive talk or controversial topics. I hardly spoke a word, one way or the other, during the superheated 2016 presidential elections. But this affects me greatly, so I can longer be silent. I am not an Arlington resident, so technically you don't have to listen to me; but I am a wife of an Arlington firefighter and have a vested interest in an amicable outcome to the civil service implementation.
I’ve watched this saga unfold over the past year or so, and it has only gotten worse. More divisive. More unforgiving. More finger pointing. More inflexibility. Less cooperation. Less collaboration. Fewer good intentions. If I step back and forget that I am a firefighter wife for just a moment, the city’s angle on all of this is still an enormous misstep from my perspective. As a Human Resources professional, it is my opinion that the choices being made, the tactics being used and the words being spoken (check some out here) are derogatory and demotivating for the employees of the Arlington Fire Department.
How did we get here?
This entire civil service campaign was initiated by a subset of firefighters due to low morale and the majority of the department employees' dissatisfaction with their leaders and the decisions being made. Right, wrong or indifferent, that is the origin. The core goal of the campaign was to drive clear and fair hiring, promotional, disciplinary and termination decisions across the department. The first section in Chapter 143 of the State of Texas Local Government Code: Municipal Civil Service for Firefighters and Police Officers states,
"The purpose of this chapter is to secure efficient fire and police departments composed of capable personnel who are free from political influence and who have permanent employment tenure as public servants."
I'm certain the intent of the campaign couldn’t be any clearer. The citizens of Arlington spoke loud and clear when THEY (not the firefighters) voted for implementation of civil service.
There are, according to the Arlington City Council, significant budgetary implications of implementing civil service, which I believe require further substantiation. The Arlington City Council estimates a $580,000 cost of implementing civil service in the first year. I honestly do not understand the details or necessity driving this cost, so I can't be a nay-sayer, but it does seem extreme and exaggerated (especially considering it was recently claimed to be $800,000). To pay for this, the council wants to “reset” benefits to the civil service minimum. This would include cutting certain firefighter benefits and pay, such as sick time, vacation hours, and certain specialty pay items. After a Meet and Confer session on Tuesday September 19, the council said they would concede on some of the benefits if certain items like the promotional and disciplinary processes were amended or waived to reflect their wishes. Thankfully, the firefighters stood their ground because this is completely in opposition of what they are fighting for and what Arlington voters asked for when they voted in civil service. Asinine. When citizens voted to usher in civil service, it was likely not with the intention of cutting benefits and pay of the firefighters.
So what's the real outcome we are driving towards here?
If the Arlington City Council wants low firefighter morale, proceed as planned.
If the Arlington City Council wants low levels of firefighter engagement, proceed as planned.
If the Arlington City Council wants a fire department that is demotivated and giving the bare minimum because that’s what their leaders are giving them, proceed as planned.
If the Arlington City Council wants to see loss of tenured, skilled, and well-trained talent due to increased retirement and turnover, proceed as planned.
If the Arlington City Council wants significantly increased hiring costs due to increased retirement and turnover rates, proceed as planned.
If the Arlington City Council wants to see increased difficulty in recruitment due to poor publicity, proceed as planned.
If the Arlington City Council wants continued tensions between firefighters and city leaders and administration, proceed as planned.
However, if the Arlington City Council wants an engaged, happy, talented, and efficiently managed fire department, let's set aside our politics, our hurt feelings and damaged pride, and our animosity towards one another, and let's link arms and figure this it together. The optimal outcome is really quite simple.
We must support our public servants.
These men and women on staff with the Arlington Fire Department are hard-working and truly enjoy serving others. Trust me, they're working for remuneration, but by no means are they in this profession to get rich. These are not greedy, money hungry businessmen. These are servants. We should see them as such. Their families constantly make sacrifices for this demanding profession (missed holidays, missed birthdays, lonely nights, the list goes on and on), and most firefighters work second jobs or run side businesses to make ends meet for their families. The current direction this is headed is going to make that more difficult.
Let’s lay our weapons down and come to the table.
The Arlington Fire Department is one of the most financially efficient operations in the state. That’s amazing. Would the city leaders be willing to lay that title down for a short while until everyone can acclimate to civil service and determine what it truly affects and how best to move forward? Perhaps we rethink how we can more efficiently implement civil service. Do we need a new senior city attorney, a paralegal and 2 additional Human Resources staff members? Maybe, maybe not. Could we ask a few more City of Arlington employees to take on additional responsibilities and increase their pay by a reasonable amount? That would be a much more digestible cost and efficient way of spending tax payer dollars. Can we cut or downsize other city programs or exorbitant areas of cost to pay for the so called increased cost?
Cutting benefits and compensation under the guise of a "reset" to meet the bare minimum requirements for civil service is not a healthy decision. It’s spiteful and unwise. Any successful business that attempted this would be committing talent and workforce suicide. I’m guessing what the city doesn’t want is a fire department full of green or disengaged firefighters, who were really the bottom of the barrel because the cream of the crop went to another, more attractive city. Granted, firefighters don't generally vote with their feet and find employment elsewhere like your run-of-the-mill professional, but they can, and if the city is banking on the fact that they won’t, the outcome of this will not be a favorable one.
How can you help?
Please please please contact your City Council representative and tell them to take care of Arlington's firefighters. The welfare of city depends largely on these men and women, and because of that their retention, morale, motivation and engagement is crucial. We must keep the hiring, promotion and disciplinary components of civil service. The statute outlines a fair and equitable process for these topics, and should stabilize a great deal of morale issues that have been running rampant due to lack of process standardization. Please contact your City Council representative and ask them to do what is right and decent, but not something punitive, retaliatory or vindictive.
Here are some additional reading materials on the Meet and Confer Sessions from earlier this week: