I just received this from a source of mine.  I’m posting it here for it’s information value.  You decide what the truth is and vote accordingly

Here’s Ten Good Reasons to Vote NO on Spokane Proposition #1

1.)    Proposition #1 is a fire levy request for thirty-three million dollars in exaggerated needs as claimed by the Spokane Fire Dept. Administration.   It’s a windfall akin to a winning lottery ticket and it will be spent with the same reckless abandon.

2.)    Spokane already has new fire stations and facilities that were built in the last two bond issues.   The two new proposed fire stations would be built well outside the existing city boundaries.  So, city taxpayers would be expected to fund city growth into Fire district’s 8 & 10 that have already built brand new stations in the proposed areas.  Why not share existing facilities and save millions in construction cost?

3.)    There was around 2 million dollars left over from the 1999 bond issue.  These funds were used to buy four new pumpers that were purchased in 2008.  The fire apparatus are being worn out running on EMS calls.  Today’s cardiac save rate in Spokane is 8%. Back in the mid 1980’s, four smaller and faster squads were used yielding a save rate of 27%.  Today the SFD has twice as many paramedics on seven slow fire apparatus so reduced staffing is not the real reason.  It’s a management problem where the local fire service is more concerned with saving property than saving lives.

Spokane Advised to Quicken Response

4.)    In sworn court documents filed on behalf of the Ambulance overbilling lawsuit in Spokane (9-24-2007) – it was discovered that the original overbilling excuse appeared to be a hoax and the fine levied against AMR could have exceeded $80 million dollars.   Instead the city fined them about 1/1000th of this amount.  This bond levy would be totally unnecessary if the ambulance company was fined the correct amount.

5.)    The 911 dispatch center is divided into police and fire dispatch.  Both have computer aided dispatch (CAD) software.  The police system already has the fire dispatch software in their CAD system.  So, you will be expected to pay for system redundancy in this bond issue that might be in the millions.

6.)    The current fire CAD software never went out to bid and it was purchased from a former co-worker and friend of Fire Chief Bobby Williams.  This friend used to be the Fire Chief in Clovis New Mexico where Bobby also worked.  As reported by a Clovis FD employee in 1999, “Bobby’s friend was later fired for driving a fire department vehicle while intoxicated.”  Hence, he went on to sell CAD systems.  The NW Edition of the WALL STREET JOURNAL reported the bungling by the Spokane City Council in 1999, as they awarded another no-bid contract to his friend based upon a ten year old consultant report.

7.)    The proposed Proposition #1 involves the purchase of new breathing apparatus.  Despite the fact that the SFD received a Federal Grant to buy new breathing apparatus earlier this year.  So, why wasn’t this mentioned?

8.)    Golden parachutes for fire bond managers:  In the 1999 fire bond, Chief Williams hired both his deputy and assistant chiefs to manage the bond construction project upon their retirement from the SFD.  They were paid a very generous salary to work part time doing work that was already being performed by the architectural firms.  So, indirectly the past bond issue was used via a revolving door to pay SFD employees.  It has not been disclosed with whom he will appoint should Proposition #1 win.

9.)    Why build huge fire stations like the one at the South end of the Maple Street Bridge?  The reason is simple, “because they have the money to waste”.  This station cost between 3-4 million dollars and it doesn’t really do anything different from the ones that cost $650,000.   A no vote on this bond issue is a vote against wasteful spending.  If failed, Prop #1 will not have any effect on current fire department operations.  A failed bond issue will send the city back to the drawing board and cut the fat out of the next proposed bond levy.

10)  The true cost to each citizen for this bond issue is about $163/capita*.  For a family of four, that would be about $650 dollars.  Six hundred and fifty dollars is about the same cost of a medium sized HD television.  One would expect that the average family would spend the same time and effort studying the details about this bond issue as they would before buying a new TV.  But they can’t, because all the details are not being disclosed.  Study the fine print and vote NO on Proposition #1.
*202,000 people divided into 33 million = $163 per person.


Larry Shook of Camas Magazine and Girl from Hot Springs replies to Mayor Verner’s response re the Fire Bond

———- Forwarded message ———-

From: Larry Shook

Date: Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 6:02 PM
Subject: Fwd: Mayor Verner & the Prop 1 Fire Bond
To: “Verner, Mary” <>,, Terri Pfister <>,

Dear All: The email exchanges below relate to the Prop. 1 Fire Bonds on the upcoming ballot. Rich Magney, a retired Lt. firefighter and emergency medical technician with Spokane International Airport, and Lt. Bill Jackman, an active duty Spokane Fire Dept. fireman and emergency medical technician, believe the bond is deeply embedded in Spokane’s public corruption. As relates to Spokane’s fire service, they say, this corruption concerns the city’s refusal to appropriately penalize AMR for its ambulance over-billing. That refusal, they say, implicates city government, former Mayor Dennis Hession, and Spokane’s current fire chief. Prop. 1, say Lts. Magney and Jackman, has nothing to do with saving lives. It’s pork barrel, they say, pure and simple. To save lives, they say, you want to get accident victims under the care of a physician as quickly as possible. This should be easily done in Spokane, medical hub that the city is, but it isn’t because of the corruption of our ambulance service, they say. I am sharing this email, with Lt. Magney’s permission, because I believe the public deserves to hear what he and Lt. Jackman have to say. Sincerely, Larry Shook

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Richard Magney
Date: Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: Mayor Verner – Questions re the Fire Bond?
To: Larry Shook


Thank you for the E-Mail.

There is absolutely no reason for Proposition 1 to be on the ballot at this time.

Mayor Verner is correct . She was not the mayor when AMR was penalized for the over-billing.   But Verner and the other city council members were well aware of the Causey Demgen & Moore Report and its financial potential.   Verner and the other members of the city council failed to exercise their policy making and oversight authority in the behalf of the public interest.   Instead they chose to cooperate with Mayor Hession and AMR and look the other way.   Please keep in mind that the Consumer Protection Action was taken because the mayor and the city council deliberately failed to do their job and stand up for the unsuspecting and vulnerable citizens of Spokane.   Verner was part of that council.

There is an unholy alliance between the mayor, the fire department administration, AMR, SAFO and Local #29.   As you will find out when the Abaris Report comes out, they are the real stake holders here while the resident tax payer-rate payer get left behind.   Their needs will be taken care of before the public need and the citizens of Spokane will hold on to their status as a needed financial resource.   When Mayor Verner acknowledged “the well known dilemma” of sending paramedics on large vehicles, she was not completely truthful.   Instead she was deliberately vague.   The real problem is much greater and more important than the financial considerations of sending large fire trucks to medical emergencies.   The most important consideration is the quality of emergency medical care.  The most important aspect of public safety is to save life and limb and promote quick and complete recovery to the sick and injured.

Local #29 President Greg Borg has told me and the city council that the fire departments most important job is fighting fires.   Accordingly, emergency medical service has been relegated to kind of a second fiddle job that the fire department has to do to look busy while delaying patient transport to the hospital.     This is confirmed by the resistance of the fire department administration and the unions to provide immediate patient transport.   This is also confirmed by the reluctance of the mayor to aggressively bargain with the unions in and for the public interest.   Even-though other fire departments  with similar budgetary constraints provide emergency medical transport, it is beyond the comprehension of our mayor and our local fire department.   Part of the problem is the sticky web created by the unholy alliance.

Last April I sent a proposal to the mayor and the city council to create an EMS Department separate from the fire department.   The new EMS Department would respond in ambulances and not fire trucks.   This would provide better patient care and deliver patients to the hospitals more rapidly than the current system.   The current system is structured around the AMR system status management which means that life saving transport = whenever we get there.   The highest quality EMS system will provide immediate and rapid ambulance transport in conjunction with emergency medical treatment. The best basic and advanced life support is provided by the doctor in the hospital and not the paramedic in the field.   It is not when the fire department arrives on the scene but when the patient arrives at the hospital that saves lives and improves recovery.    As a bonus this system would drastically reduce fire department expenditures and the need for $33-million and proposition 1.

Proposition 1 has nothing to do with providing good service, its about spending your money.