Spokane City Council President Ben Stuckart sent out a point-by-point rebuttal against arguments made by the mayor and fire chief, following Wednesday's story about the council's decision to require at least two firefighters to respond to a call for help.

As we reported, the requirement raises questions about the future of the city’s “Alternative Response Units,” which were formed in 2013 in response to long-standing concerns that the department was over-responding to minor medical emergencies with multiple firefighters in gas-guzzling firetrucks. Fire officials had long argued that they needed to be in firetrucks so they would be ready for any call. But they said that position shifted with the increasing load of medical calls and budget crunches.

Until recently, the SUV-like vehicles were staffed by just one person, but their use was suspended in May after a few incidents raised questions about their usefulness.

Stuckart, using his campaign's email roster, responded to many of the charges leveled against the council by Mayor David Condon and Fire Chief Bobby Williams.

Here's the email, re-printed in full:

Why I Acted For Public Safety

I have spoken to many people in my time at City Hall.  This is a story that made me act for Public Safety.
 
A call comes from a house near Joe Albi Stadium.  ARU (Alternative Response Unit) is dispatched from downtown.  Takes 16 minutes to arrive.  Station 16 was 2 to 3 minutes from the home.  The call was for a lady who fell in a bathroom.  ARU driver is at door talking to family for 3 to 4 minutes.  Once ARU driver enters bathroom lady has fallen again and not breathing.  She fell while ARU driver was speaking to the family.  Family had to go get equipment from truck.  Meanwhile ARU driver had to call for the ALS and monitor and ambulance.  This citizen died.  She was alive until the truck arrived 16 minutes later.
 
If we sent a closer unit they would have been on site when she passed out the second time and been able to provide life support.  If there had been two firefighters in the SRU the 2^nd member of the team would have been with her when she passed out the second time.  It is irresponsible to claim that nothing could have prevented this.
 
This is one story of many I have heard.

Policy Breakdown

Policy can be very complicated and hard to understand if you do not have the background.  People like to use soundbites and no one is any better for it.  There have been some stories in the press this week and an action by council.  I want to take this opportunity to dive a little deeper.

ARU’s stand for Alternative Response Units.

These are smaller fire vehicles that respond to lower priority calls for emergency medical service.  This is a pilot program that operates with one person operating the SUV.

We have many more medical calls than we did years ago so it makes sense to not send big fire trucks to every medical call

The issue that council dealt with Monday is two-fold:

The City Council was not aware until a few months ago that many of these calls were taking much longer than the Comprehensive Plan mandated response time, many times response taking over 20 minutes. For these types of calls the City's guiding document says that a response time of 11 ½ minutes (90% of the time) is the goal.  So the first action we took made it clear that ARU’s should respond in 11 ½ minutes.   

The City Council also took action to mandate that these vehicles have two person crews instead of one.  A super majority of council had listened to stories, spoke with ARU drivers and felt that the reality on the ground with one driver put citizens and firefighters at risk.   

Argument 1: The Mayor and the Police Chief did not know anything about this and it took them by surprise

• May- ARU Program suspended due to concerns

• June – Public Safety discussion with Fire Chief and City Council.  Council asks for any data on program

• June – Chief explains that he cannot produce data in 30 days and will discuss in August

• July 1 – Councilmember Stratton and I meet with Mayor Condon to tell the stories.  Mayor Condon confirms that he has heard these stories and will end the program.  He confirms 3 times in the meeting that he will end the program. 

• July 10 – Letter sent to Mayor confirming that the program will end

• July 15 – Mayor sends Council a letter stating issues are being dealt with (what does this even mean?)

• Noon July 22 – An ordinance is dropped at noon moving ARU’s to two people and response times reiterated

• 7pm July 22 – A notice goes out to firefighters that ARU program will be restarted on August 3

• July 27 – Public Safety meeting and neither ARU’s nor the ordinance are not mentioned by Chief

• July 27- Council acts to protect public safety

 
The Mayor and Chief saw the ordinance that was dropped on the 22^nd.  The Mayor and Chief had numerous conversations with council.   Why would they restart the program without further discussion?  We do not know, but what I do know is that if we restarted the program on August 3^rd with no data and knowing a person died we are not doing our job.
 
We tried having conversations but were lied to, deceived and not given any data. 

Argument 2: This is Just Politics

The City Council’s job is to protect the public’s safety.  If a citizen dies because of a bad policy the Council has a responsibility to change the policy.  It is easy to claim that when you disagree with someone it is just politics instead of discussing the issue head on.

Argument 3: This is Just the Union Getting What They Wanted

The Union actually negotiated ARU’s and have not challenged one person units.  This has nothing to do with the Union, it has to do with Public Safety.

Argument 4: City Council is Overreaching and Making Operational Decisions Instead of Policy Decisions

I firmly believe that City Council has the right per the charter to set policy.  It is a policy decision to decide whether our EMS calls have one or two responders.  I have never heard this argument before and can point to at least 10 other ordinances over the past 4 years that set policy in the same exact way.

Argument 5: We Have Fixed the Problem and That Is Why We Are Restarting the Program

The City had the Police Department train firefighters in self-defense. Interesting. Our firefighters are not armed and if they are alone no training will help them on calls like the one where an angry citizen charged and threatened them.   The fact that we had to offer this training begs for two person units.

The City will now have dispatch ask citizens if they are okay with a 15 minute response and if one person can handle their issue. When I call 911 I am in no state to determine whether I need one or two people to respond or how fast I need them.  I call 911 because it is an emergency and I need help. 

In the Spokesman on Wednesday, “Chief Williams confirmed the woman’s death, but said 911 dispatchers had been told a woman had fallen and needed help getting up.”
 
This statement proves exactly why sending a one person unit across town is a bad idea.  You never know when a call to dispatch about a fall will turn into a death.
 
Faster response and a two person response could have saved her life.   To suggest otherwise is ignoring why we have always sent two people from the closest station.