Publishers Note: The Jacksonville Review finds the following email communiqué a positive community-oriented means of solving complex problems and encourages you to express your opinion on the matter here and to your City Councilors.

From Bob Kingsnorth via email, December 20, 2010

I have found the many emails to be enjoyable and informative. The exchange of facts, theories, and opinions has been useful. I hope it continues.

A few thoughts:

A decision on fire department staffing and funding zeroes in on two considerations – what is the “service level” and what are you personally willing to pay.

The cost is quantifiable. We all understand our dollars and cents.

The service level is largely subjective. What “risk” are you willing to accept? What are the benefits of having 6 paid positions instead of 4.5 or 8. What level of pay will attract the “right people”? What are the benefits of “paramedic” instead of EMT-intermediate or EMT-basic? What are the benefits of having a paid person instead of an intern, or a volunteer? Etc., etc. “Service level” is difficult to understand and define.

The emails have revealed many personal views on the subject. Ultimately, the voters need to make a decision. Hopefully there will be enough facts and options for the voters to make an informed decision based on their personal evaluation of “service level” and their wallet.

The May 2010 ballot measure was an attempt to offer the voters a researched option. The measure was well represented by acting Chief Hull and an extensive article by Linda Meyers in the Jacksonville Review. The voters rejected the measure, roughly 600 to 400, as I recollect.

What did the rejection tell us?

In my opinion, it only told us that the voters rejected that option. It said nothing about what they wanted.

I am confident that some people voted no because it raised property taxes. Others voted no because it perpetuated the “surcharge.” Some voted no because it was too expensive, and some voted no because it did not provide enough services. Some voted no because they wanted the services of Fire District #3. Some voted no because they vote no on everything, and some people voted yes because they vote yes on everything. Etc.

The council ultimately implemented the structure of 6 paid positions and raised the surcharge. There was talk of a follow up proposal for the voters, but that seemed to fade away.

The question left on the table is: Now what do we do?

As I stated, the rejected measure was a simple “no,” and provided no hint of what the voters want.

In addition to the two basic considerations of “service level” and “cost,” I suspect that there is a third consideration – the funding mechanism – “surcharge” and/or property tax. The two dimensional question now becomes a three dimensional question.

The typical ballot mechanism is awkward and provides no useful feedback, especially for a three dimensional question. It tells us only yes or no. The temptation is to do “surveys,” but experience shows that the level of response is minimal, and even the nation-wide professional polls do a poor job of predicting election results. Holding “public hearings” or “town halls” provides even less feedback. Attendance is usually limited to “the usual suspects” – 20 or 30 people who have the passion and the time to attend these functions. Where are the other 2000 registered voters? The ballot gets the necessary voter attention, but the challenge is to get feedback on a three dimensional question.

One approach would be for the council to develop several competing ballot measures for the May election. Those measures should be “advisory,” so that the council could evaluate the results, and then create perhaps 2 decisive measures for the November ballot.

For example, in May, the council could present three advisory ballot measures to gauge the voters sentiment on department size (service level) with three options for funding mechanisms, as follows:

Measure #1 –
You may vote for one, two, or three options – which ever ones are acceptable to you. If none of these options are acceptable, do not mark any option.

  • Option 1 – 8 paid positions funded by property taxes, tax rate of xxxx
  • Option 2 – 6 paid positions (existing) funded by property taxes, tax rate of xxxx
  • Option 3 – 4.5 paid positions (circa Jan 2010) funded by property taxes, tax rate of xxxx
  • Option 4 – 2 paid positions (circa 2000?) funded by property taxes, tax rate of xxxx

Measure #2 –
You may vote for one, two, or three options – which ever ones are acceptable to you. If none of these options are acceptable, do not mark any option.

  • Option 1 – 8 paid positions funded by a surcharge of $xxx per month
  • Option 2 – 6 paid positions (existing) funded by a surcharge of $xxx per month
  • Option 3 – 4.5 paid positions (circa Jan 2010) funded by a surcharge of $xxx per month
  • Option 4 – 2 paid positions (circa 2000?) funded by a surcharge of $xxx per month

Measure #3 –
You may vote for one, two, or three options – which ever ones are acceptable to you. If none of these options are acceptable, do not mark any option.

  • Option 1 – 8 paid positions funded by a combination of a surcharge of $xxx per month and a property tax rate of xxxx
  • Option 2 – 6 paid positions (existing) funded by a combination of a surcharge of $xxx per month and a property tax rate of xxxx
  • Option 3 – 4.5 paid positions (circa Jan 2010) funded by a combination of a surcharge of $xxx per month and a property tax rate of xxxx
  • Option 4 – 2 paid positions (circa 2000?) funded by a combination of a surcharge of $xxx per month and a property tax rate of xxxx

Note: For the elections official who says that the ballot computers cannot handle all these options, this structure is the same as the election for Jacksonville council positions – eg., “vote for three.” Some people vote for only one candidate, some for two, and some for three. Each vote is counted.

The above advisory measures will provide definitive feedback on voter preferences. Armed with the results from the above ballot measures, the council could offer two (or even three) “final” ballot measures in November. Ultimately, the measure with the largest majority is the successful measure.

Too complex? I say, trust the voters.

The election costs are too high? I say, what has the current approach cost us – in confusion, lack of direction, delay, personal issues, etc.?

Still does not provide sufficient answers? What are your suggestions?

Bob Kingsnorth