"Cot Inspection" Is Really A Full Unit Inspection

Don't know if you have heard but the Cot Inspection being performed at Fire stations is nothing more than a Unit inspection of see if they are carrying the state required items. The "cot inspectors" show up and separate the crew, one person gets the medic keys and goes through the drug bag while one inspects the inside with the OIC and another the outside compartments with the driver. Please warn others so that they might prepare for the inspection. If these were random inspections that would be one thing but to use the guise of Cot Inspection is a little misleading, more Fun-n-Games brought to you courtesy of the Upper Echelon of the F.D.

Follow Up From Brother Mohler

President Niemiec took approximately one hour to explain a chronology of events, he developed, regarding my motion to make the reconstruction of FS10 a high priority during the budget deliberations. These events were a series of emails, phone calls and face to face conservations that took place prior to and after my motion. The questions you sent previously covered most of the subject matters and areas of most concern to the executive board. Lot's of allegations were made by President Niemiec and others about timing, information not included during the discussion phase of my motion, Local 2068 chain of command and my use of the VPFF retainer agreement. Once Pres. Niemiec was done I attempted to fill in the gaps in the chronology, explain some of my actions and provide background as to the need for this motion. It quickly became clear that an explanation from me was not what was wanted as I stood against a barage of allegations and "What would Mike Mohler have done under the same circumstances"? Which I believe is a very fair question. This actually happened several times during my administration as both the Local Pres. and VPFF Pres. I have come to make good use of the "serenity prayer" for these times. I say this because I know when our members get something in their head that they feel very strongly about,especially those familiar with parlimentary procedure, they are determined to have their day. So the best thing to do, is work to sway opinion and work to protect the Local. It is not always necessary to be right nor win as long as you can avoid damage to the Local. I believe the problem is, that these issues are more about personalities than the substance of the issue. I own some of the blame for this and will continue to question my motives and seek objective counsel before launching anything. In this instance I have a totally clear conscience as it relates to my motive for my motion. Although I do believe that sharing the legal opinion I received would have been a fair thing to do; my and Pres. Niemiec's relationship is not one based on trust. The members stated firmly and clearly that they expect Pre. Niemiec and I to work cooperatively on their behalf. We shook hands, but results will be a better measure of our individual sincerity.

Another issue of concern had to do with the right of retiree's to have a full vote for less than half dues. V.P. Bailey said someone was pushing the idea that they should have no vote. My personal position is that it
is not healthy for the retirees to dominate a Local Union. A half vote for half dues is the standard all over the IAFF. Sec./Treas Gray reported that the retirees currently make up 33% of Local 2068's membership. Tom Simcoe stated that the retiree's are easy to represent because the scope of their issues are so narrow. You can't say that about our incumbent members. The scope of there personal, financial and operational issues are very broad in scope and need intense attention. I believe that there is strong evidence that retiree issues are dominating our Executive board's time and will only worsen over time. I suggest that you take a look on the Local's forum for a posting by Leigh Boswell for an in depth opinion on this matter. While Leigh does not deny retirees a full vote, she clearly has a grasp of the problem that retiree dominance creates.

Ron Kuley, to his credit, also reaffirmed his support for a retreat for the purpose of mediating the differences that currently exist on the executive board. There was a call for Leigh to be brought up on charges for operating outside some vague chain of command. I truly believe this was totally unfair. Leigh admitted to some missteps during the previously discussed matter and said she would be more apt to work cooperatively with the whole board but I believe this will require the same committment from all parties. This is where Brother Kuley's suggestion can be of real value. There was a specific agenda, but I was busy defending my actions. Since then I have been thinking about all the comments that were made and I'm dealing introspectfully with the hope of changing any unacceptable behavior on my part.

Brother Mohler Responds To Our Questions

1. 1. During the A shift teleconference AFC Burke indicated that FS42 will be finished by late summer 2013. In a memo from Captain II Galvez to the members of FS10 he indicated that the TEMPORARY facility would be completed by Fall 2012. Interesting, since the soil around FS42 hasn't seen a shovel yet. Our members should be given an assurance that the reconstruction of FS10 will be a high priority and that no internal processes will be allowed to languish on someone's desk.


2. 2. This was never just about money from FS42 being redirected. It was about the public safety bond referendum that included the Fairfax Co. courthouse, the training academy, the Massey bldg. FS42 and other assorted projects. Once AFC Burke was assuered that my motion wasn't about just FS42 he told me that the biggest hold up was internal county processes. Keep in mind that the reconstruction of FS12 is well ahead of schedule.


3. 3. I assure you that I have no ulterior motive and if the board had decided differently, I don't understand why this would not have been a political win/win for them.


4. 4. Yes. A member of the VPFF/Local 2068 told me that he was told that money dedicated for a specific project could not be redirected for an emergency reconstruction project. I told him I felt that was incorrect and if he would research the issue and give me the origional language from the Public Safety ref. that I would seek a legal opinion from the VPFF legal counsel, Woodley & McGillivary. We have a retainer agreement with them and so there was no cost. The member in question is a member of VPFF. I truly believe that this member felt empowered and that he was doing something positive to change the situation that our members have suffered through for the past 14 months. I make no apologies for helping a member attempt to control his/her destiny.


5. 5. I answered that in the previous response.


6. 6. I have to let Battalion Rep. Boswell answer that.


7. 7. I don't know the answer to that either.


8. 8. Sister Boswell asked if it was ok for her to send information along to the FC and Supervisor Gross so they wouldn't be blindsided by the issue. I believe Supervisor Gross overreacted to what was sent to her. I now regret that I told her it was ok because our member at FS10 was subjected to unfair and totally intimidation by DFC Walsh.


9. 9. Yes, again this was an FYI. Sister Boswell has a preestablished business relationship with both. This is something that has gone on for years and with the advent of the creation of several different employee groups, this has become commonplace. I can say that when I was President it was annoying but something I could not control. Mr. "Big Eye", I don't know if you are a Union member but what you provide here is very healthy and the BOSs read it. We know it is not always complimentary toward them.


10. 10. No and no. Our members are going to continue to do what they do. In some ways it helps them feel empowered. You do not want bylaws that are so restrictive that you have a perceived dictatorship. Effective leadership at the executive board will minimize this.


11. 11. Bylaws, maybe not. I haven't researched it. But, they did violate the oath they made when they were sworn in; in front of a general membership meeting.


12. 12. I don't know.


13. 13. Having ex. board meetings videotaped is a thorny issue and typically I would not support it but from what I understand the latitude some are afforded during meetings and the abnormal behavior has made some on the board feel it is necessary and that is why I supported it. Again, effective leadreship would make this a moot point.


14. 14. Continue to apply pressure where ever it will help. Politicians should not be dictating our Local's agenda. We are supposed to compel them to do the right thing. I guess it appears "the right thing" is a relative phrase.


15. 15. What was the specific information that caused the ex. board to panic and over rule a motion that had overwhelming support. The vote was 24 for 11 against.

Thanks again for this opportunity, Mike Mohler FS 23 A

Questions You Should Be Asking Brother Mohler and The Executive Board

1. 1. Clearly the rebuilding of FS410 is not progressing fast enough. What actions has Local 2068 taken PRIOR to the motion being made at the GMM by Brother Mohler, to ensure that this process doesn’t continue to drag out over an extended period of time?


2. 2. Would the money that was earmarked for the construction of FS442 expedite the re-construction of FS410? If yes, how? If not, why?


3. 3. Do you think that Brother Mohler’s motion was made in bad faith?


4. 4. Was it appropriate for Brother Mohler to contact legal counsel about the issue prior to making his motion? If not, why?


5. 5. Who paid for the legal advice given to Mike Mohler on this issue?


6. 6. What specific information did Sister Boswell’s e-mail contain, that “by her own research, the money to rebuild Fire Station 410 is not the issue; therefore risking political capital with Supervisor Gross in pushing this “shift of money” would be foolish.”


7. 7. Did anyone do anything to verify the validity of the information that Boswell’s email contained, that indicated that the “money to rebuild Fire Station 410 is not the issue”. Or did they just take for granted that the information contained in the email was accurate?


8. 8. How would Brother Mohler have reacted, if Sister Boswell contacted the Fire Chief and BOS about a polarizing issue during his tenure as President of Local 2068?


9. 9. Is it ever acceptable for a Local 2068 member to approach elected officials about business that is typically handled by Local 2068? Please explain your reasons.


10. 10. Should Local 2068 By Laws be changed to create a chain of command, regarding contacting politicians? If so, should it be grounds for expulsion from Local 2068?


11. 11. Were any By Laws broken with the Executive Boards action to overturn the GMM vote?


12. 12. Which Executive Board member stated that “those who don't support their motion need to grow a spine and vote with them.”


13. 13. Would you support having every Executive Board Meeting videotaped, and made available to the membership? (with the exception of when the Executive Board goes into closed session).


14. 14. What are you going to do from this point forward to expedite the rebuilding of FS410?


15. 15. What other questions have we NOT covered, that you feel need to be answered by parties involved in this incident?