It has been said, at the highest levels of government, that you never want to waste a good crisis.
And while the current fiscal crisis affecting Haverhill, its fellow Merrimack Valley communities, the state and the entire nation is anything but good, it does indeed offer an opportunity to restructure government that should not go to waste.
Too many of the services it provides are simply not affordable.
The Haverhill Fire Department is not the only example of this, but the recent split vote on the preliminary approval of its budget last week makes it a worthwhile example. The current structure is not working.
According to fire Chief Richard Borden, the $8.1 million budget will result in the closure of the Bradford fire station. Fire Capt. Paul Weinburgh, the union president, added that it would also result in the demotion of several superior officers, which Mayor James Fiorentini had said might be necessary to cut costs.
And everybody agreed that it is not good for the department staff to have declined from more than 130 firefighters to 90 over the past several years. While both the chief and the mayor say they hope to hire five to eight more firefighters, that is expected to barely cover impending retirements.
Then there is the out-of-control cost of overtime, prompted mainly by contract language that mandates how many firefighters have to be at a station or on a piece of equipment. Borden said at some points during the past fiscal year, it was costing $4,000 a week.
While the union argues that the city could save on overtime costs if it hired more people, the mayor and others argue that it is less expensive simply to pay the overtime, because the salary and benefits of regular firefighters is so costly.
Clearly, there is something very wrong when overtime is less expensive than hiring a new employee.
And, just as clearly, the problem is going to get worse if it is not addressed now, when fiscal constraints are putting communities in crisis mode.
The first thing to go should be the minimum manning clause, not because it is a bad idea to have an ideal number of people on a shift, but because that decision should be made by management, not the union. And it should be flexible, based on the amount of money available.
After that, union and management should meet with the common goal of increasing efficiency and cutting costs. Perhaps there should be fewer officers. Perhaps other staffing rules should be changed. Perhaps some benefits can be modified. Perhaps a supplementary volunteer force should be recruited.
If both sides meet in good faith, there should be a way to provide good service at an affordable price.
But this year's painful budget process should make it clear that the structure of the status quo cannot continue.
