Turf war brewing between OCFA and county over medical calls, [Orange County] grand jury says

Report slams use of extra personnel and expensive equipment to calls where they are not needed

Distrust and poor communications are fueling a heated turf war over medical responses involving Orange County’s Fire Authority, Fire Chiefs Association and Emergency Medical Services, a grand jury investigation has found.

“Although their mandated responsibilities are clear, there is a mutual reluctance to acknowledge their respective spheres of authority, in particular the critical role of Orange County Emergency Medical Services as an independent regulatory body,” the Orange County Grand Jury said in a 22-page report issued Friday, May 20.

The grand jury examined the efficiency of the Orange County Fire Authority and various municipal fire agencies in responding to emergency medical calls.

The grand jury recommend that fire departments implement a universal tiered response system to dispatch ambulances to most medical calls rather than deploying larger fire engines as a standard response.

‘Dangerous and costly’

“Current protocol requires sending multiple vehicles to the scene, which involves not only additional personnel but also expensive fire equipment,” the report says. “This is the case even when an ambulance or rescue squad vehicle could provide all the necessary medical supplies and personnel. Sending a 36,000- to 60,000-pound fire engine or aerial ladder truck down residential streets for strictly medical calls is not only dangerous and costly, but it also results in unnecessary wear and tear on our streets.”

The OCFA is reviewing the recommendations, spokesman Matt Olson said Friday. “We received the Orange County Grand Jury report and appreciate the work that went into it. We look forward to commenting further after a thorough review of the report and its recommendations,” he said.

The Orange County Health Care Agency, which manages the OCEMS, and the Orange County Fire Chiefs Association did not respond to requests for comment.

Appropriate level of response

The goal of a tiered dispatch system is to match the emergency with the appropriate level of response in terms of urgency, personnel and equipment.

As part of its investigation, the grand jury reviewed records, memorandums and other documents. It also interviewed OCFA and OCEMS officials, private ambulance company executives and firefighter union representatives.

The OCFA has 77 fire stations in Orange County and contracts its services to several cities. Municipalities with their own fire departments are Anaheim, Brea/Fullerton, Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach, Laguna Beach, Newport Beach, Orange and Placentia.

OCEMS has established a minimum requirement that one paramedic and one emergency medical technician respond to emergency medical calls. However, it is left up to the individual fire departments to determine how to deploy personnel and whether to exceed these minimum staff requirements, according to the grand jury report.

At the OCFA, regardless of the preliminary assessment of the medical emergency, a fire engine or truck staffed with four personnel — at least two of whom are paramedic/firefighters — are sent to the scene. A transport ambulance with two EMT trained attendants also is dispatched.

Ambulance use causing friction

The use of ambulances is causing friction between the OCES, the OCFA and the Orange County Fire Chiefs Association, the grand jury said.

The report noted that that Fire Chiefs Association wrote a seemingly contradictory letter to the OCEMS, describing the agency’s implementation of policy changes without prior notice or collaboration as “offensive.”

“This complaint was made despite the fire chiefs’ specific acknowledgment in the same letter that a joint advisory committee had been formed and had been discussing the issues,” the report says.

Despite the fire chiefs’ complaint about OCEMS overstepping its authority, the only example provided was an emergency action taken by OCEMS in 2021 when hospitals were backed up, causing long wait times for first responders.

In response, OCEMS introduced an emergency measure that allowed emergency medical technicians and paramedics to leave patients in the hands of the hospital on a portable cot, according to the grand jury.

“Although OCEMS could possibly have provided better notice to OCFA and the independent fire chiefs, the OCEMS appeared to be working in the best interest of all parties involved,” said the report. “This was a fact that was, at best, only begrudgingly acknowledged by a few OCFA union representatives and other fire agency personnel.”

Tensions have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and the demand placed on ambulances, which have been struggling to respond to calls in a timely manner, prompting the OCFA to take matters into its own hands, the grand jury noted.

‘Code 3’ responses

In December 2021, the OCFA directed that all emergency medical services responses be classified as “Code 3” — requiring vehicles to use emergency lights and sirens — to speed up ambulance response times, according to the report.

“Code 3 responses have been shown to pose a significantly greater danger to the public and emergency personnel,” said the report. “The Orange County Grand Jury is concerned that this OCFA directive and the power struggles existing between the fire chiefs association and OCEMS may be viewed as self-serving rather than serving the best interests of the public.”

The report recommends that the OCFA immediately stop the practice of requesting Code 3 responses on all non-life-threatening calls. “Code 3 response is over-utilized by OCFA, unnecessarily putting the responders and public at risk,” the grand jury said.

The grand jury also recommended:

By 2024, all Orange County fire agencies utilize criteria-based dispatch protocols and send a single unit response to those incidents triaged as non-life-threatening. Additionally, the OCFA should station a paramedic squad vehicle, which is more nimble and less costly to operate, in place of a second engine in stations with high volumes of medical calls.

That OCEMS should recognize how certain policy changes may pose operational challenges to emergency responders in the field, and fire leadership should recognize and respect the independent oversight authority and expertise of OCEMS.

Departments with publicly owned ambulances should allow OCEMS to inspect their ambulances for compliance with state emergency medical services guidelines and adopt OCEMS recommendations.

“Despite fire departments throughout Orange County having evolved into emergency medical departments, most have not updated their emergency response protocols accordingly, but have simply absorbed emergency medical responses into their existing fire response models,” the grand jury concluded.

Orange County Register
By Scott Schwebke
May 20, 2022

[Humboldt County] Grand Jury report details complications of sea-level rise in Humboldt Bay

The Humboldt County Civil Grand Jury just released its second investigative report revealing the startling future of sea-level rise in the Humboldt Bay.

The 2021-2022 report titled “The Sea Also Rises” details how rising waters may affect highways, sewage treatment plants, commercial properties, farms, homes and 52 Wiyot cultural sites in the area.

To create the report, the Grand Jury conducted interviews with sea-level rise experts, including public planners from Humboldt County, Arcata, and Eureka, officials from Humboldt County, the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District, The Coastal Commission, The Coastal Conservancy, environmental scientists, a tribal representative, non-profit organizations and a state legislative analyst.

The report delivers the sobering fact that Humboldt Bay has a subsidence problem that puts it in danger of having greater a sea-level rise than any other place on the West Coast.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, subsidence is a term for when the ground sinks, specifically after things underground get moved. This can be caused by earthquakes, removing water, fracking or rivers adding more sediment to the area.

As sinking and sea-level rise continue, the report warns of monthly flooding around the Humboldt Bay. Specifically, a three-foot sea-level increase will make communities in King Salmon and Field’s Landing especially vulnerable to frequent floods. Such flooding may cut off the only access road to King Salmon. The report said high tides are already starting to cause damage in the area.

Flooding also poses a risk to Highway 101 along the South Bay, Elk River Slough, and Arcata Bay and Highway 255 on the Mad River Bottoms.

The report also details how local waste systems will take a hit including septic tank failures in Fairhaven and Finntown communities.

“Fairhaven/Finntown are not yet impacted by tidal actions, but because they do not have a wastewater treatment plant and instead rely on septic and leach field systems, they are finding those systems become nonfunctional at very high tides,” the report said. “Property values within these communities are suffering because of these impacts.”

Energy systems are also at risk. PG&E’s Humboldt Bay Generating Station and the interim spent nuclear fuel site could be impacted in addition to approximately 9.6 miles of municipal water transmission lines, 30 electrical transmission towers and 113 transmission poles, according to the report.

Spots on the South and North Jetties, three cargo and commercial docks, and contaminated sites in Arcata and Fairhaven are also locations of concern.

Securing funding and acquiring the proper permits from regulatory agencies could pose an obstacle to mitigating the impacts of sea-level rise, but the Grand Jury is calling on local lawmakers to help.

“The Grand Jury believes SLR planning needs to be a priority among all elected officials in the County,” the report states. “The County of Humboldt; the cities of Arcata and Eureka; and the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation, and Conservation District should formally state their immediate and continuous support for, and commitment to, SLR mitigation and adaptation efforts.”

The Grand Jury will share more information with the public in coming weeks.

KRCRTV.com
Carly Wipf
May 19th, 2022

Report on idle oil wells doesn’t change Santa Barbara County response to grand jury

A follow-up analysis and multiple-agency report about how idle oil wells are monitored in Santa Barbara County didn’t change the Board of Supervisors’ response to a critical grand jury report released in December.

But supervisors generally supported the idea of providing county staff with more tools to monitor the thousands of active, low-producing, idle, orphaned and abandoned oil wells, most of them located in the North County.

Supervisors unanimously approved the staff’s recommended amended response to the grand jury report, agreed to post annual reports on oil well monitoring online and asked the staff to look into providing the Planning and Development Department with optical gas imaging cameras to look for methane leaks.

The board also asked long-range planning staff to consider incorporating incentives for oil companies to properly abandon wells into ordinance revisions to be brought before supervisors in the fall.

Exxon Mobil Corp. files suit against county supervisors over denial of oil trucking permit

Supervisors chose not to change the responses to the grand jury after hearing reports from Planning and Development, the Fire Department, the County Air Pollution Control District and the California Geologic Energy Management Division, which has oversight of oil wells.

The board was pleased to hear that $25 million has been secured to properly abandon about 170 of the 200 wells that were orphaned when Greka Oil went bankrupt.

A CalGEM representative said the state organization is committed to properly abandoning all the wells.

But pleas from representatives of the Environmental Defense Council, Santa Barbara Community Action Network and Fact Tracker Alliance failed to convince the board to accept and implement the grand jury’s recommendations.

The grand jury recommended supervisors direct the Planning and Development Department to identify health and environmental risks and determine actual and potential fiscal labilities from idle wells in annual reports to the board.

It also recommended supervisors direct Planning and Development to maintain enough trained personnel to staff the Petroleum Unit of its Energy, Minerals and Compliance Division and to enforce County Code requirements for removing equipment and derricks from idle wells.

Supervisors’ consensus was the county’s monitoring efforts, combined with those of the APCD and CalGEM, are sufficient to protect the public and environment.

They found that particularly true since a survey of Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Ventura and Los Angeles counties showed Santa Barbara County is the only one with a staff specifically tasked with monitoring oil wells.

“I believe methane leaks are a very serious issue and contribute greatly to climate change, and the more we can do there the better,” Board Chair and 3rd District Supervisor Joan Hartmann said of the optical gas imaging cameras.

“We’re the only ones who are out there every year, and others [are out there] every two years or every three years,” she said. “So that means we’re the first ones who have eyes on it, and if we can enhance our powers on it, that would be good.”

But she also suggested APCD would be a better agency to post annual reports online.

Lisa Plowman, said providing the staff with the optical gas cameras could be a viable tool, but she said it would also depend on how much training they would require between options that ranged in cost from $450 to $100,000.

Santa Maria Times
Mike Hodgson
May 24, 2022

Grand jury report on Monterey County cannabis urges systemic changes

SALINAS – A Monterey County civil grand jury report determined the Monterey County Cannabis Program has lapses in transparency, oversight and analysis that need to be addressed, concerning the crop that has an estimated $484 million market value.

The civil grand jury investigates and provides reports on the operations of local government in Monterey County, including the county, cities and the numerous special districts that exist to serve the residents of Monterey County. The jury consists of community volunteers tasked with ensuring the best interests of all citizens of the county are being met.

The report. entitled “Monterey County’s Cannabis Industry Up In Smoke,” says that in interviews with various County officials, the civil grand jury learned that one of the most significant new sources of revenue for the county was the new cannabis tax, specifically the new tax on cultivation.

“In just a few years, cannabis production had grown into a crop with a market value of $484 million in 2021, according to the County Agricultural Commissioner,” said the report in part. “That makes cannabis one of the top three most valuable crops in the county. Monterey County ranks as the fourth largest legal producer in the state.”

Yet there is no comprehensive, consistent reporting on the entire county’s cannabis tax revenue and spending. Information is scattered among numerous sources and reports, the grand jury found.

The civil grand jury calls for more comprehensive and regular reporting to the public on all aspects of the county’s cannabis program including mixed-light indoor grow, cannabis tax revenue, economic development impacts and concise allocation reporting.

The civil grand jury analysis has determined that the Cannabis Tax Fund has collected $69.7 million since its inception. The Cannabis program budget plus the documented allocations since 2016 total $61.7 million with a remaining amount of $8 million. The rolling balance at the end of each year or its current balance was not provided to the grand jury. The cannabis tax revenue has grown into the second-largest tax source for the County general fund.

While tracking cannabis taxes and spending was difficult, determining the economic impacts of the new cannabis industry was impossible. One of the primary stated reasons for legalization was economic development, but the county has done nothing to examine the economic impacts.

The report says the civil grand jury could find no clear, consistent process for how one-time allocations of cannabis revenue award requests are brought before the Board of Supervisors, such as $20,000 for a Prunedale senior center, $158,740 for a Salinas homeless shelter, $250,000 for a Salinas soccer center and $929,000 for an emergency women’s shelter. At the height of the pandemic, the Board of Supervisors allocated $16 to $18 million from the Cannabis Tax Fund on measures to help deal with the crisis, including $500,000 to the Food Bank for Monterey County and almost $3 million for a community outreach program to provide vital coronavirus information to vulnerable and limited-English-speaking populations.

The grand jury recommended that the following be implemented by Dec. 31: The Monterey County Cannabis Program be required to provide a comprehensive annual report detailing all Cannabis Tax Fund revenues, allocations and reserves. The Monterey County Cannabis Program web page should be revised to include easy-to-follow directions for accessing revenues and expenditures. Monterey County monitor and reports on improved property value and tax reassessment due to cannabis compliance regulations. The Cannabis Program annual report include an accounting of all full-time employees funded by the Cannabis Tax Fund and the Cannabis Program adopt a consistent process for inspection and checklist. The grand jury recommended that by June 30, 2023, the county economic development manager be directed to complete a study on new jobs created by the cannabis industry and its impact on the local economy.

The Monterey County civil grand jury requires a response by law from elected county officials, including the auditor/controller, and the assessor/clerk/recorder, within 60 days, and from the Monterey County Board of Supervisors within 90 days. It also invites responses that are not required by law from the Monterey County Cannabis Industry Association, the Monterey County Cannabis Program Manager, and the Monterey County Economic Development Manager.

Monterey Herald
By James Herrera
May 18, 2022

[Tuolumne County] Grand Jury Critical Of Some TUD Actions

Sonora, CA — The high number of Tuolumne Utilities District general managers coming and going, and the planned acquisition of PG&E infrastructure, are some of the items recently reviewed by the Tuolumne County Grand Jury.

The Grand Jury serves as a government watchdog, and TUD was the focus of a new report just released. Over the past decade, the district has employed eight general managers and/or interim general managers. They also dismissed general managers in 2013 and 2021, and the Grand Jury reports that those actions have had both tangible and intangible costs. The Grand Jury recommends the district establish a process for hiring and firing. It also says the district should review compensation and salary structures.

On the topic of acquiring PG&E infrastructure, like the Tuolumne Main Canal, Pinecrest Reservoir, and Lyons Dam, it argues that the district has been lacking in transparency.

You can read the entire 31-page report by clicking here, which also touches on things like rates, finances and aging infrastructure.

Rather than put out one long comprehensive report this year, the Grand Jury has decided to release details of the individual investigations as they are completed.

MyMotherLode.com
B.J. Hansen
May 19, 2022

[Humboldt County] Civil Grand Jury Calls for Improvements, Modernizations in County’s Weed Grow Permitting Process

Gather ‘round, public watchdogs! Civil Grand Jury report season is upon us, and the first in this year’s batch just dropped. It examines the county’s weed permit processes and finds them lacking.

Quick refresher here: The Civil Grand Jury is an independent body of 19 citizen volunteers. Sworn to secrecy, jurors do most of their work behind closed doors, functioning as an instrument of the state court system. Their duty: to investigate and report on the institutions of local government, ensuring that public monies are being handled sensibly, that t’s are being crossed and i’s dotted, etc. Basically, as the website puts it, they seek to ensure “honest, efficient government in the best interest of the people.”

Three cheers!

As noted above, the jury’s first report this year — which carries the mildly snide title “Permitted (Eventually)” — relays its findings from an investigation into Humboldt County’s permitting process for commercial cannabis cultivation. In the course of its investigation, the jury reviewed relevant rules, regulations and codes; interviewed county officials and employees; explored the proprietary online permit management software used by the county (Accela); conducted “internet research” and more.

Among the jury’s findings: As of January 2022, the county had more than 900 pending cannabis permits, though many are amendments to existing permits. According to the report, the permit applications get handled on a “first-come first-served” basis. 

Unfortunately, the report notes, the Accela software employed by the county can’t accept credit card payments, which means the public can’t use the software’s online application process. Another shortcoming of the software as deployed: employees in the Public Works Department are limited to responding to referrals from employees in the Planning & Building Department.

The program does allow members of the public to access and view the status of permit applications, though the Civil Grand Jury report calls the process “cumbersome.” 

The report also calls out a controversial element of the county’s weed-grow permitting process — namely, that applicants are allowed to “self-certify” that roads leading to their cultivation sites meet the county’s Category 4 roadway standards, and this self-certification is not always verified.

Ultimately, the report lists seven recommendations, which we’ll paraphrase below:

• 1.      The county should pay to upgrade the Accela system so applicants can complete the application, including payment, online, thereby reducing the need for them to physically come into the Planning and Building office.
• 2.     The county should pay to improve Accela so that employees in Planning and Building can complete more tasks, including reviews, calculations, permitting and reporting.
• 3.     The county should pay to “fully implement Accela to a level which enables Public Works to meet its specific needs.” (This one is a bit redundant, perhaps.)
• 4.    In the county’s Citizen Access Portal, the Planning and Building Department should give the public specific instructions on how to search a location without creating an account in Accela or contacting the Planning and Building staff.
• 5.     When the Planning and Building Department gets notified that a state provisional license has been approved or denied, staff should immediately act on the corresponding interim cannabis permits.
• 6.    For applications pending more than 30 days, the Planning and Building Department should notify applicants what they need to do for approval.
• 7.     Before the end of the year, Public Works employees need to conduct actual verification that a roadway meets Category 4 requirements.

The county is not obliged to adopt the Civil Grand Jury’s recommendations, but legally it does have to respond to the report. 

For this one, the Civil Grand Jury is requesting responses from Planning and Building Department Director John Ford and Public Works Department Director Thomas Mattson sometime in the next 60 days.

The jury is also requesting a response from the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors within 90 days.

Lost Coast Outpost
BRyan Burns
May 9, 2022

Monterey County grand jury report determines COVID-19 response inadequate, confusing

 SALINAS, Calif. —

The Monterey County Civil grand jury says the county's initial response to the COVID-19 pandemic was confusing and inadequate, in a report released Monday.

According to the Jury, the county failed to collaborate across agencies and disseminate a single unified response.

In a natural disaster, the County Administrative Officer activates the Emergency Operations Center, which comprises of county personnel familiar with the topic of emergency who is supposed to coordinate emergency response.

The EOC is led by an Incident Commander, who is the leading county expert. In the case of a public health crisis, the role of Incident Commander would fall on the County Health Department or the County Public Health Officer.

According to the report, neither of those public entities assumed the leading role of IC.

Moreover, the dissemination of pandemic-related information was not coordinated through the EOC.

"The County Health Department did not acknowledge its lead role and responsibilities as Incident Commander in the County EOC during a public health emergency," the report states. "The County Health Officer did not appear to use the full authority of his office to command and direct the County response to COVID-19 in Monterey County.

The report lists six other findings including insufficient communication and resource materials for non-English speaking county residents and hearing-impaired residents.

Outlined in the report are nine recommendations for the Monterey County Board of Supervisors and supporting agencies including: The development of an Infectious Disease Response Plan, the adoption and implementation of state and county emergency protocols dictated by EOC and California Standardized Emergency Management System, and more resources for non-English speakers and hearing-impaired residents.

"This issue of communication was not something that's a surprise to me," Monterey County Supervisor Wendy Root Askew said. "And it's something that we know we need to continue to invest in. We have to be able to communicate with people in the language that they speak, in the methods that they're listening to. And in times of crisis, we have to understand that the county as an official communication channel is where people are going to go to verify information. So we need to ensure that our systems are super clear, that we're prepared to let people know what's going on and that we know how people are communicating and receiving their information."

KBSW News
By Christian Balderas
May 9, 2022

Sacramento County rejects most of [Sacramento County Civil Grand Jury] report that slammed its handling of COVID relief

Sacramento County’s Board of Supervisors and top government officials this week rebutted a civil grand jury report that sharply criticized how they spent early coronavirus relief funding and refused to implement most of the investigation’s recommendations.

The investigation released in February concluded that the county “abandoned responsibility for COVID spending” and “undermined public confidence in government” in 2020 when county leaders allocated the lion’s share of $181 million in federal coronavirus aid toward the Sheriff’s Office.

The controversy put a spotlight on county officials starting in August 2020 when a staff report showed then-County Chief Executive Nav Gill had allocated more than $104 million of $181 million in so-called CARES Act funding to salary and benefits for Sheriff’s Office employees.

Gill’s justification at the time: By moving general fund dollars out of the Sheriff’s Office budget and back into the general fund, then backfilling the sheriff’s budget using CARES Act dollars, the county could offset an anticipated revenue shortfall.

He also said it would free the county of a Dec. 30, 2020, spending deadline attached to the funding.

The grand jury report, however, called the budget maneuver “inconsistent with the widely publicized intent that CARES Act funds be directed to meet the community’s challenges” triggered by the pandemic.

But supervisors on Wednesday unanimously approved the county’s responses to the report, which disagreed “wholly” with seven of the grand jury’s findings and “partially” with two.

The county agreed with one finding – saying that it didn’t disburse any of its aid money to cities because they received their own – and deferred comment on another to the Sheriff’s Office. Three findings weren’t addressed because they dealt with the city of Sacramento.

Calling the totality of the response “very thoughtful and detailed,” Supervisor Phil Serna said the county’s response to the grand jury does the board and county “a great service.”

“Because I think it finally makes very clear, in probably the most legal context we’ve seen so far, what is fact separate from perception or misunderstanding,” he said.

A handful of residents addressed the board Wednesday criticizing the county’s response to the grand jury investigation, which began in March 2021 and was triggered by a citizen complaint.

Kula Koenig, co-founder of Sacramento’s Social Justice Now Political Action Committee, told supervisors they shouldn’t congratulate themselves “for adhering to the letter of the law.”

“You can say that it was a clean audit, there were no findings, there was no misalignment,” she said. “But there’s a difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. And the spirit of the law was for you to allocate funds in a way that was going to benefit those most directly impacted by the coronavirus. And that is not what you did.”

SACRAMENTO COUNTY RESPONSES

Among the grand jury’s most serious allegations: That the county “abdicated” its responsibility to determine community needs and to provide oversight in the development and implementation of its pandemic response.

The county, wholly disagreeing with that finding, said the board adopted a series of resolutions to allow staff to respond to the crisis and accept COVID-19 funding.

Procedures were established for county departments to apply for “program-specific and centrally administered funds,” including coronavirus relief funds, “based on department-identified needs,” the county wrote, adding that the board received regular updates from the director of health services and public health officer.

The county also completely disagreed with the grand jury’s finding that supervisors used “the vast majority” of CARES Act money to augment the county budget and support its operations “while providing minimal support” to its health department or other agencies “to address community needs” related to the pandemic, “neglecting its public support responsibility.”

The county noted it directed tens of millions of dollars in special funding from state and federal governments to its Department of Health Services. The CARES Act was just the first round of that funding.

MONEY FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYEE SALARIES

Coronavirus relief funding was also provided to public health and safety departments to cover the cost of health and safety employees who would presumably be responding to the pandemic and therefore eligible for the funding, the county wrote.

Funding salary and benefit costs would allow the county to avoid “major reductions” in health, public safety, human services and other programs providing “critical services” to residents, the county said.

On a range of other grand jury findings where the county “wholly” disagreed, officials asserted that the county maintained and implemented emergency plans, communicated frequently about COVID-19 policies and guidelines, and spent all funds in compliance with federal requirements.

The coronavirus relief funding program was audited by external auditors for fiscal years 2019-20 and 2020-21 “with no findings reported,” the county wrote.

Of the five recommendations made by the grand jury – including recommendations for policies to ensure community input in the use of emergency funding and monthly updates on the use of special funding – the county declined to implement four.

Those recommendations, the county wrote, were “not warranted” or “not reasonable” because processes were already in place to address the points raised.

One recommendation – that county officials adopt a “transparent and properly noticed budget allocation and approval process” – had already been implemented by way of a community engagement plan approved last year, the county said.

The Sacramento Bee
April 28, 2022
Patrick Riley

She’s the first female chief of Santa Clara County’s fire department. Will it resolve the organization’s lack of women?

Suwanna Kerdkaew, who has risen through the ranks since 2002, says she’s determined to address the absence of women in the department highlighted in a 2020 [Santa Clara] civil grand jury report

Along the stairwell near the lobby of the Santa Clara County Fire department headquarters in Los Gatos, a row of photos line the wall of the former chiefs spanning back 75 years.

All of them are men.

On April 19, Suwanna Kerdkaew broke that all-male streak when she became the first female, Asian-American and LGBT fire chief to lead the county department and its over 200 firefighters.

Kerdkaew’s ascent to the role comes at a trying time for the fire department as it deals with pandemic-related staffing shortages and prepares for the momentous challenge of battling the region’s wildfires that have left California skies chock full of smoke in recent years.

Kerdkaew also enters into the role as fire departments around the Bay Area are being scrutinized for their lack of female firefighters. A December 2020 Santa Clara County civil grand jury report blamed the absence of women within the ranks at the county and three other fire departments in the county on poor recruiting techniques, gender bias and a lack of inclusivity.

In an interview during her second day as chief, Kerdkaew said that while the county fire department has made progress in some areas, there’s room to improve. And she’s determined to push the recruitment of women even further.

Currently, women make up 6 percent of the county firefighting force of 211. The number is slightly higher than the national average of 4 percent, according to the National Fire Protection Association.

“It’s a dangerous job,” Kerdkaew admitted. “But I do want to push out there the ability for women to know that, if you are physical and that’s what you like — the physicality of the job — you can be successful and actually rise to the ranks in this career.”

Born in Bangkok, Thailand in 1967, Kerdkaew and her mother were brought to Riverside County by her step-father, a Vietnam War veteran. In high school, she ran track and played a lot of “sand lot” softball. But she was never part of any organized sports since her family didn’t have a lot of money, she said.

From the start, she was a trailblazer. She became the first in her family to graduate college, earning a bachelor’s degree in biology from San Jose State University in 1997. During college, Kerdkaew worked at a UPS center in San Francisco loading packages from trailers onto railcars. She was one of two women working among 70 men at the worksite, her first experience in a male-dominated work environment.

While in college, Kerdkaew said she briefly considered becoming a firefighter, but the lack of women discouraged her.

“I hadn’t seen very many women, if at all,” she said. “I thought, just stay on this path, get your bio degree, and then go from there. Because if you don’t see it, you don’t know that you can.”

That view would change after Kerdkaew, as part of her training as an emergency response worker at the biotech company Genentech, got a ride along with San Francisco’s fire department.

“(I) got hooked,” said Kerdkaew.

The fire chief then obtained her EMT and fire science certifications before entering into and eventually graduating from the county fire academy class of 2002.

Shay Mountford, a firefighter engineer with the county who was also part of Kerdkaew’s graduating class, said she was grateful when she saw another woman within the academy. The two were also the first openly gay women within the county fire department.

“Being a female in the fire service can be initially intimidating,” said Mountford. “I was relieved to have Suwanna in there. I also had someone who was gay who understood our lifestyle, her struggles, my struggles.”

Denise Gluhan, who also graduated with Kerdkaew and Mountford in 2002, echoed similar remarks about being a female in the job, but said that the environment wasn’t always the easiest to be in.

“As a woman, you don’t ask for help to pick things up,” said Gluhan, who retired in 2018. “Because then they’ll say, ‘Hey she can’t do the job.’ You’ll push yourself. And I’m not going to speak to some of the comments that I’ve been privy to, but it hasn’t been supportive. (Kerdkaew’s) really had to prove herself outside the fire department. Her skills, her productivity is why she is there. It’s not a personality contest.”

Kerdkaew has been determined to make a mark on the county fire department, past colleagues said.

Kerdkaew immediately went back for more schooling to become a paramedic. In 2011, she graduated to become a captain — a career highlight, she said.

It was also as a captain that Kerdkaew experienced one of the most intense moments in her career.

In 2014, Kerdkaew and her crew were assigned to the Lodge Lightning Complex fire up in Mendocino County. At one point, Kerkaew and her team went up on a ridge when things turned south.

“A spot fire below us blew up,” she recalled. “And what happened was complete area ignition. Usually you can see the fire coming and you can go, oh, okay, here it comes. Where with (this) just everything caught fire at once.”

A total of nine firefighters had to be evacuated from the scene that day because of burns to their hands or face, she said. And Kerdkaew wondered whether it would be her last deployment.

“My daughter was seven at the time and honestly, I didn’t know if we were going to go home that night,” she said. “In that instant, I didn’t know what was going to happen.”

After the incident in Mendocino County, Kerdkaew returned to county fire department office in 2015 as the manager of the department’s emergency medical services program and then eventually became a battalion chief.

In 2018, Kerdkaew became deputy chief then acting assistant chief in 2021.

Today, Kerdkaew now heads a fire department serving close to a quarter of a million residents in the cities of Cupertino, Los Altos, Campbell, Los Altos Hills, Monte Sereno, Los Gatos, Saratoga, Redwood Estates, as well as the county’s vast unincorporated areas. She lives with her partner Tina M. Yun and the two have a 14-year-old daughter Alex.

The Mercury News
By Gabriel Greschler
May 4, 2022