Editors Note: Long-time gardener and Discovery Bay resident Bonnie Broders contacted the Free Press in an effort to alert others in the county to a devastating worm infestation that she believes came from packaged organic potting soil purchased locally. She says that unlike conventional earthworms, these worms destroy plants and travel quickly. They multiply exponentially in a short time and exhibit very erratic behavior. The invasive worms have killed thousands of dollars worth of plants on her property and the effort to eradicate them is costing many thousands more. Bonnie cannot prove definitively now that this infestation came from the bagged soil because once the problem started, she destroyed the remaining soil. But circumstantial evidence is significant.
We have asked Bonnie to present her story in her own words. Have any readers had a similar experience? Please share feedback if you can contribute to this conversation.
————————————-
Last fall at the end of September, we had the first rains after a very warm fall. Each evening around 9 o’clock I would go out with a flashlight to capture the tiny slugs that were making holes in some of my greens.
The third night as I walked into my garden, I saw a huge worm migration of thousands of worms. They were traveling quickly on the ground and even climbing up my raised covered beds. I salted them all. They did not look like our normal worms, but were smaller and more slender and they moved like snakes. They were twisting up out of the soil and jumping around like crazy. The creepy worms gave me nightmares for many nights.
After researching bad worms on the internet the following night, several family members came out to the garden to look for the worms. A bag of potting soil left over from a local purchase of 20 bags was at the epicenter, right in the middle of the infestation.
In that area of the garden, I had difficulty planting a late summer crop as the leaf lettuce and arugula seeds would not come up. I kept buying more seeds and re-planting, at least four times, without any success. When we dug in that area, there were over 50 worms in one square foot. In other words, there were thousands and thousands of worms in one corner of my garden, radiating out from the bag of potting soil, which also had worms coming out of it.
[Note: This video was taken in cooler weather when worms are less active, whereas the author says, “When the weather was warm last September, the worms were disgustingly and disturbingly active.”]
We used about eighteen 50-pound bags of salt in that area to kill the worms. They were adult worms with the obvious egg sac around their body. We started tearing up all the vegetables left in the garden, like the broccoli and cauliflower and brussels sprouts and onions. We discovered worms around the roots of all the vegetables except the onions. It looked like the worms were eating the small hairs off of the vegetables, and the plants weren’t thriving. Later I would find out that they ate the root hairs off of all my blueberry plants in the garden, too.
It was obvious that the worm migration centered around this bag of potting soil with worms still in the bag. We burned the bag of soil and all the plants in the garden, and all the wooden raised bed boards and stakes.
Dismantling garden structures and burning infested materials.
At this point, we didn’t know how far the worm infestation would go, but we knew it had to have started from this bag of potting soil. Bad news is I had already spread 19 other bags of potting soil around my yard in various operations.
The Mustard Test and Seed Meal
I had six raised beds where I would grow lettuce above the ground to keep the slugs out. Each raised bed contained hundreds of worms. I learned from research on the internet that a person can look for bad worms by mixing powdered mustard with water and pouring it on the soil. That brings the worms up to the surface so you can see if you have any.
I had also used the potting soil in four areas where I plant annuals after my tulips are spent. I always need a little extra soil to plant the petunias or pansies. There were a few other areas I used the potting soil to add a little extra soil. I had one pot on the deck where I planted a tomato plant. I had four citrus plants on the patio, but I only put potting soil in two of them as the other two were full up of soil.
The mustard test in all of the areas where I put the potting soil showed that there were worms everywhere I put the soil. I also tested many other areas of the yard and I did not have worms in areas that I did not use potting soil. In doing that mustard test all around the yard, I could mark all the areas infected and determine the spread.
Unfortunately, there was just me to do the work and the worms were spreading like crazy as the weather was still very warm. There is only one product that when watered in can bring the worms above the ground and kill them, a particular type of fertilizer called tea tree seed meal. I ordered $2500 worth of this fertilizer and by the time I got it the worms had spread far and wide across three acres. This cut down on the worm population a bit, but the worms are very good at hiding under every leaf or piece of bark or rock or brick that is in the ground.
When the weather in late December hit a high of 53°, the little worms started to hatch and there were millions of them under leaf debris and under moss. By this time, I had five acres of worms, millions and millions of them. My plan was to systematically clean off all the leaves, edging, bricks, etc. and water in the worm-killing fertilizer.
[While salt will kill worms, it also kills plant life. Tea seed meal is a non-toxic organic fertilizer that kills snails, worms, nematodes, aquatic insects, and other biota without polluting water and soil. It is used on golf courses, rice fields, in aquaculture and other industries as a safe alternative to pesticides and other harmful chemicals.]
There were so many worms at this point that the worms that came out of the ground and were laying there dying were so thick — literally a thousand worms in a 10 x 10 area — that you could not walk without stepping on one or two.
Identifying the Worms
Unfortunately, when the Department of Agriculture came out to check, they sent a person on a 16-degree day. The worms disappear underground at this temperature. A worm that they DNA tested at the Washington State extension was found to be of the species “lumbricus”. My understanding is that there are over 20 varieties of that species, one of which is the common helpful everyday earthworm that can live deep in the ground and bring up nutrients. They did not go into any further detail.
As I did not trust their analysis, and since they got their specimen when it was 16° out, I sent a video or two to University of Wisconsin where they are dealing with the Asian jumping worm. The expert there said he did not know what my type of worm was, but it wasn’t the Asian jumping worm. I understand that the Asian jumping worm drops its tail to get away from predators and can run faster than a human can catch it.
There was no help from the master gardeners because their director believed these worms were not a threat because they were not Asian in origin, but a type of European worm. There has not been any help by any government agency. In fact, they all claim that since these are not Asian worms, they are not a problem. But I have discovered they eat all the seeds and they eat the roots of the plants.
It is obvious that my worm is invasive and not common to other people in this area. It lives in the upper part of the soil, or just on or under deciduous leaves and bark and moss. They also live under roots of plants, and eat the root hairs, because I have a number of plants that were destroyed because they have no root hairs. I have about 20 established blueberry plants in one area of my garden and the year before last they had an amazing crop. This year, nothing. And you can grab the blueberry and pull it right up out of the ground because there are no small roots anchoring it now. I have had many plants that I have just burned because they were practically dead, and not from lack of water last summer as I was very proactive in watering my yard.
We have dug up and destroyed thousands of dollars worth of plants. We are in the process of pouring some concrete in an area around our house, because we no longer can have bark. We must take all the ground down to bare dirt to make it possible to destroy the worms. All plants that touch the ground will have to be destroyed.
Taking soil down to bare ground.
There is not a day that I do not go outside and do jobs to eradicate these worms. I have discovered that the fertilizer will eradicate all the worms in an area but that more eggs will hatch in about 4 to 5 weeks so every inch of the ground must be redone in that amount of time. Worms can reproduce very quickly, with a single worm producing 500 to thousands of hatchlings in a year. They can migrate surprising distances. We have discovered that the worms have already traveled a mile down the road.
I have run across some of the hatchlings under some of the plants like the hostas. There can be hundreds of little hatchings jumping around. We also have a tennis court that has been fairly clean through the winter except for a few deciduous leaves that had fallen on the court. If you turned over any leaf, you would find three or four worms on each leaf. They climb very quickly and somehow I managed to get a half a dozen worms in my house.
There is also the consideration that my 20 bags of potting soil were not the only ones contaminated with worms. A nursery owner I spoke with told me that she had a customer that bought potting soil in the area and that it was filled with worms.
I wished I would’ve had some help from the master gardeners or somebody, but I am only one senior citizen, and there is only so much I can do every day. I also am committed to homeschooling my grand children, which is a big priority. This is going to be a big problem for our community and I will be happy to help anyone to discover if they have a problem and to help them if they do.
Editors Note: The following letter was sent by Dr. Rob Rennebohm to Public Health Officer Dr. Allison Berry and the Jefferson County Board of Health on February 4, 2023.
—————————————-
On November 16, 2022, I sent an email to Dr. Berry, Dr. Locke, and members of the Jefferson County Board of Health (BOH – Greg Brotherton, Kate Dean, Heidi Eisenhour, Amanda Grace, AJ Hawkings, Kees Kolff, Libby Wennstrom) to alert them to an important medical article entitled, Multifocal Necrotizing Encephalitis and Myocarditis after BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccination against COVID-19.
The article, written by German pathologist Dr. Michael Mörz, is a case report of autopsy findings in a 76-year-old man who had died three weeks after receiving his third vaccination against COVID-19. The article was published by the peer-reviewed journal Vaccines on October 1, 2022.
Dr. Mörz’s article provides compelling and sobering evidence of the potential of mRNA vaccines to cause serious harm to the brain and heart – namely, vasculitis, necrotizing encephalitis, and myocarditis. In my view, his report represents one of the most important to be published during the pandemic because of its potential to appropriately change attitudes about the mRNA vaccine safety.
I attached the Mörz article in my email to the above-mentioned physicians and BOH members. I also attached my own analysis of the Mörz article to help non-physicians to more easily understand its significance. I asked the BOH a series of pointed questions about possible vaccine-related immunopathology, the informed consent process, and the BOH’s continued promotion of the COVID vaccination campaign.
I was hoping that my email would stimulate and facilitate a healthy, scientific dialogue about the safety and wisdom of the COVID mass vaccination campaign — a dialogue that would inform and benefit all involved, including the general public. I requested a response from the BOH “within 2 weeks (i.e. by Nov 30), if possible.”
Unfortunately, as described in my article published by the Port Townsend Free Press on December 9, 2022, I never received any response from any physician or staff or member of the BOH — not even a brief email saying, “Thank you for calling our attention to this article.”
Public Comment & BOH Meeting Response
Because of this lack of response, I decided to personally attend the Jefferson County BOH meeting on January 19, 2023. During a 15-minute segment set aside for “comments from the public,” I was given 3 minutes to again state my concerns about the significance of this article and to ask the physicians and BOH members for their thoughts about the article. I pointed out that no one had responded to my email of November 16, 2022.
Dr. Berry explained that the physicians and BOH members had “briefly talked about” the article among themselves. Dr. Berry emphasized that the article represented a single case report that, “notably,” had been published “in a ‘pay-for-play’ journal, which is the lowest quality of journals that we have.” She pointed out that the article’s findings “had not been replicated elsewhere in high quality research” or “in the valid peer-reviewed literature.” In her view, these observations about the article “called into question the accuracy of the findings.” For these reasons Dr. Berry and the BOH had decided not to take any further action regarding this article.
Unfortunately, the rules of the “public comment” segment of the meeting are that the citizen making the public comment is not given any opportunity to respond to the response of the members of the BOH. In other words, actual dialogue is not permitted.
After the brief public comment segment was over, the BOH members proceeded with their business meeting. After about 30 minutes of listening to that business meeting, I decided to leave. I had considered waiting until the end of the meeting to possibly engage Dr. Berry in further discussion of my concerns. But I decided it would be better to respond in writing, rather than be perceived as “confronting” the BOH.
My Written Response to Dr. Berry & BOH
Well-trained physicians use their critical thinking skills and medical knowledge base to develop their own opinion regarding the quality, value, and significance of a published article. If they humbly conclude that their knowledge base is too limited to perform an adequate assessment of the article, they seek help from more knowledgeable colleagues.
When I initially read the Mörz article, including the methods section and a careful look at the numerous images, it was immediately obvious to me that his analysis was scientifically sound and of very high quality. As a rheumatologist who has published extensively on the neuropathology of Susac syndrome, I could easily see for myself the lymphocytic infiltration (inflammation) surrounding vaccinal spike protein in the microvasculature and parenchyma of the heart and brain.
Well-trained physicians also double-check their conclusions, even when they feel quite certain, particularly when much is at stake. Accordingly, I double-checked my conclusions by sending the Mörz article to two of North America’s most knowledgeable and experienced neuropathologists. Both concluded that the article was excellent, scientifically sound, and that the author had drawn appropriate and important conclusions.
In comparison, how did the BOH and its physicians approach the article? Did they strive to develop their own independent opinion about the article? Then, if they felt their knowledge base was inadequate, did they seek the opinion of experts in the field? Did they bother to carefully read my written analysis of the article, which I painstakingly wrote to help non-pathologists interpret the article and its images?
Apparently not. Instead, they concluded the following (and I am paraphrasing):
It is a single case report so not much significance can or should be attached to it. It is not necessarily representative. In fact, even if the autopsy was excellently performed and the findings accurately interpreted, the pathologist may have simply stumbled upon an extremely rare event. There is no need to further address this article or Dr. Rennebohm’s concerns.
Yes, it is a single case report. But it is the one of the best-documented studies of its kind to look for the spike protein in an autopsy and try to determine whether it is derived from the vaccine or from natural infection. In 100% of autopsies that have been studied in this fashion, these abnormalities were found. That, of course, does not mean these findings are common, but it certainly means that this observation needs to be taken very seriously and absolutely warrants immediate further investigation — to promptly determine more exactly how common these findings are.
The responsible response to this article would be to double-check its excellence and significance by obtaining the opinion of objective experts in the field. If its excellence and importance are confirmed, the responsible response would be to thoughtfully and carefully share its findings with the public — out of an abundance of caution — which is our moral and medico-legal obligation as part of informed consent and human decency.
One could also argue that this single case report should at least prompt us to strongly consider stopping all COVID vaccination, at least of children and healthy young adults — until further similar autopsies are done. It is irresponsible to conclude that since this is a single case report, its findings need not concern us, need not influence our thinking about the safety of the vaccine, need not obligate us to change our message to the public, and need not modify the information we provide the public as part of our informed consent process.
Should “Open Access” Journals Be Discounted?
Regarding their conclusion that: It was published, “notably, in a ‘pay-for-play’ journal, which is the lowest quality of journals that we have.” Its findings “have not been replicated in the valid peer-reviewed literature.” These observations “call into question the accuracy of the findings.”
There is a great deal wrong with the above conclusion.
For one thing, the important question is “what is the quality of the article,” not “what is the quality of the journal in which the article is published.” The fact is, excellent articles may be found in journals that are considered “low quality” journals, and very poor articles can be found in “highly reputable” journals.
It is also important to point out that there is a considerable difference between journals that have a “low impact score” and journals that are of “low quality.” A journal that has a low impact score can, nevertheless, be an excellent journal or at least publish excellent individual articles.
Journals with “high impact scores” and reputations for “high quality” – like the New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, and British Medical Journal – can and have published articles on COVID-19 that are of extremely low scientific quality and even fraudulent and retracted, whereas relatively obscure “low impact” journals have published articles on COVID-19 that have been excellent, scientifically sound, and extremely important (like the journal Vaccines in this case).
So, just because an article has been published in a relatively obscure medical journal that does not have a “high reputation” or a “high impact score,” does not automatically mean that the article is not of high scientific quality. Furthermore, during this COVID-19 era, it must be realized that “highly reputable” medical journals have been very hesitant to publish scientifically excellent articles, if those articles contradict the prevailing COVID narrative.
It is naïve to think that “highly reputable” medical journals have not refused to publish certain articles. If a physician or scientist submits an article that supports the prevailing narrative and its mass vaccination campaign, that article is much more likely to get published than an article of even greater scientific merit that provides sound scientific evidence that contradicts the prevailing narrative.
This is not a “conspiracy theory;” it is a reality that has been experienced by many physicians and scientists who have dared to challenge the prevailing narrative. Many scientists and physicians who have challenged the prevailing narrative have not only had their submitted manuscripts rejected, but have also been threatened with loss of employment, even loss of licensure. That is a fact.
So, one reason why an excellent scientific article might be published in an obscure journal with a low impact score, rather than in a highly reputable/high impact journal, is that the latter journals have been hesitant or unwilling to publish an article that raises questions about the merits of the prevailing narrative. In many cases, the author of an excellent article may need to publish it in an obscure journal by default. That is a fact.
It is also wrong, and insulting, to insinuate that an article has been published in an “open access” journal, because the article did not merit publication in a more reputable “closed access” journal, and/or because the author needed to pay a journal in order to get the article published. Such an assertion insinuates that the author is bribing the journal to publish an unworthy article and the journal is willing to accept such a bribe. Such an insinuation is insulting to both the author and the journal.
“Open Access” Journals Provide Open Access!
A major advantage for publishing in “open access” journals is that their articles will be free to anyone (including ordinary citizens) to read. Journals that are not “open access” force readers to either have a paid subscription to the journal or pay a fee to view the article. That fee is in the range of $30-50 per article. Since “open access” journals do not receive revenues from subscriptions or fee-for-read, they have to charge the author a publishing fee to cover the journal’s costs of publication.
Some authors purposefully choose to submit their article to an “open access” journal because they want the public to be able to read their article for free. Publication in an open access journal is a more democratic way to provide information and provides greater opportunity for ordinary citizens to read an important article. Publication in a “closed access” journal discriminates against and disadvantages those who cannot afford to shell out $30-50 to read a single article.
In fact, it is cruel to insist that people who are desperately seeking health information must pay in order to obtain it. The entire concept of “closed access” goes against the concepts of “health equity” and “health care is a human right,” not to mention the concept of common decency. It is misleading to portray “Open access” journals as “pay-to-play” journals. Again, it is insulting to insinuate that authors choose an “open access” journal “because it allows them to pay a journal to publish an unworthy article.”
The above discussion points out the importance of evaluating the scientific quality of the article itself, not the quality of the journal in which the article is published. If the article is scientifically excellent and important, it does not matter if it is published in an “open access” journal that is relatively obscure and has a “low impact” score — especially, if another reason for the excellent article appearing in an obscure journal is that “highly reputable” journals are not willing to publish articles that challenge the prevailing narrative.
BOH Needs to Focus on Safety Signals, Not Journal Prestige
Did the physicians and BOH members take the above complexities into consideration when they discussed the Mörz article? Did they focus on the scientific quality of the article itself (which is obviously excellent to anyone who knows what vasculitis looks like or bothers to ask more knowledgeable colleagues for help)? Or did they simplistically conclude that it is not a worthy article because it was published in an lesser known journal that requires authors to contribute to the coverage of publication costs?
The facts about the Mörz article are:
This article is excellent. It is scientifically sound, and its findings are obvious and of profound significance and urgent importance.
Even though it represents a single case report, the proper conclusion is that this single report is of such great concern that it should be carefully shared with the public, should result in immediate further study, and should raise the question of whether COVID-19 vaccination should be halted until more is known — at least in children and young, healthy adults.
At the very least, the information provided in the Mörz article should become part of the informed consent process that physicians and health departments are legally and morally obligated to provide (but which is not being provided).
It is worrisome that the physicians and BOH members were not able to recognize the obvious scientific excellence and obvious significance/importance of the Mörz article. It raises questions about what else they may not be recognizing or understanding. Good, well-trained physicians are able to recognize obvious vasculitis, or ask for help if they are uncertain about the findings and quality of an article.
It is also worrisome that the physicians and BOH members were unable or unwilling to think of several possible explanations for the appearance of this article in the journal Vaccines, rather than in a “more prestigious” journal. Well-trained physicians consider more than one possible explanation when evaluating a problem. They don’t just think of one possibility (one diagnosis) and jump to that conclusion; they construct a differential diagnosis (carefully consider all plausible explanations).
It is worrisome that the physicians and BOH members concluded, simplistically, that they did not need to take any further action in response to this article: they did not need to share its findings with the public, or engage in dialogue with those who are concerned about the article’s findings, and/or change their thoughts about the mass vaccination campaign.
Good, well-trained physicians recognize “safety signals” that warrant immediate attention and further study, even if those signals might turn out to be rare, especially when the incidence of worrisome side effects is quite unclear. Good, well-trained physicians practice “anticipatory medicine” and take potentially worrisome signals seriously. Well-trained physicians thoroughly educate the public and provide true informed consent.
BOH Needs to Invite Dialogue, Not Discourage It
Let me emphasize that a fundamental principle of science and medicine is that challenges to the prevailing wisdom should be welcomed and respectful scientific dialogue should be strongly encouraged. My November 16, 2022, email represented an invitation for such dialogue. But no dialogue occurred. The BOH and its associated physicians did not even show the courtesy of responding in any way to my email. Their only response was silence.
When, two months later, I made a personal appearance to discuss the article, there was again no opportunity for dialogue. I was given three minutes to state my concerns. Dr. Berry and the BOH had as much time as they wanted to respond to my concerns; I was given no opportunity to respond to their response.
That, by definition, is not dialogue. They had all the power; I had none. That is not equity. That is not democracy. These represent gross violations of fundamental principles of science, use of power, and practice of democracy.
If a physician:
is not able to recognize obvious vasculitis on their own, or does not bother to seek help to evaluate an article that they feel unable to adequately assess by themselves;
is unable to recognize an excellent scientifically sound, profoundly important article;
does not consider multiple plausible explanations for why a particular article is published in a “low-impact” journal;
is not able to recognize worrisome “safety signals” and/or is unwilling to act on those signals;
is unable to recognize medical information that must be shared with the public, or refuses to carefully share that information with the public;
fails to fulfill their obligation to provide true informed consent;
shows no interest in engaging in scientific dialogue;
simply regurgitates the group think narrative handed to them by the authorities;
…then that physician has either not been well-trained (regardless of where they received their public health education) or is not practicing what they were taught. In either case, such a physician is failing miserably to serve the public.
Such a physician is a danger to the public and should not be in a position of power over the public’s health.
Has Mass Vaccination Prolonged the Pandemic?
Finally, let me add this: I was prepared for the possibility that the BOH’s response to the Mörz article would be: “Yes, the article raises legitimate concerns about the safety of the COVID vaccines, but we are convinced that the overall benefits of the vaccines, particularly at a population level, have far exceeded the risks.”
Those who make the above argument fail to understand that the mass vaccination campaign itself has prolonged the pandemic and made it far more dangerous. They fail to understand that in the final analysis, more lives will have been lost cumulatively (over the past 3 years and in the many months ahead) because of the COVID-19 mass vaccination campaign than if it had never been implemented in the first place — that is, if we had relied, instead, on the competency of the immune system.
The prevailing COVID narrative’s argument that “far more people would have died” if the COVID mass vaccination campaign had never been implemented, is scientifically and mathematically inaccurate. Far more people are going to end up dying because of the mass vaccination campaign, compared to the cumulative number that would have died if the campaign had never been implemented. The argument that “the benefits of the vaccine are so great that we must accept some ‘extremely rare’ side effects in some unfortunate individuals” is scientifically unsound.
Unfortunately, those who insist on promoting and obediently following the prevailing COVID narrative do not realize that this narrative and its mass vaccination campaign are based on a woefully simplistic understanding of the immunology, virology, vaccinology, evolutionary biology, and glycosylation biology involved in the COVID situation. The prevailing narrative and its mass vaccination campaign are scientifically unsound and unacceptably harmful — at both an individual and population level..
See the following companion articles for more information about the consequences of the misguided COVID mass vaccination campaign and why it continues to be far more harmful than helpful:
Over recent decades, municipalities have been shedding responsibility for various community services by creating what have been dubbed ‘junior’ or ‘special’ taxing districts. Rationales range from increased service demands to vague descriptions of ‘modernization.” Though we’re typically promised greater efficiencies at the outset, the net effect across the board has been the expansion of local governmental jurisdictions with ever-increasing budgets that further burden the taxpayers. According to the most recent data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the state of Washington ranks eighth in the nation in states with highest count of special district governments.
Mechanisms exist for these special taxing districts to avoid significant new arrangements being put to the voters by employing the guise of “consolidations” and “interlocal agreements.” A number of these have occurred here in the last twenty years, not the least of which was the Port Townsend City Council-orchestrated “Pre-Annexation Agreement,” which essentially stacked the deck in favor of moving forward with plans local administrators already had in mind for East Jefferson Fire and Rescue (EJFR).
We’ve seen similar sleights of hand in every local agency in recent years. These shell games make it more challenging to watchdog revenue streams. If the city shifted funds that were originally earmarked for Fire/Emergency Medical Services (EMS) to the general fund, who would be the wiser?
Getting our arms around the levy lid lift
The lid lift proposal, if approved, will be permanent — that is to say, it will become the fiscal floor of any future levies. There is a statutory maximum of $0.50 for EMS and $1.50 for fire services, which can only be changed by the state legislature. We could use an honest discussion around the accounting gimmick of separating out Fire from EMS (they are mutually inclusive), but that’s a discussion for another day.
Owners of a home currently valued at $400,000 are paying approximately $0.85 per $1,000 valuation for fire services ($340) and $0.36 for EMS ($144), for a combined total of $484. The new rates of $1.30/$1,000 for fire and $0.50/$1,000 will rise to a combined total of $720 next year, a net $236 increase. Yes — the Fire/EMS property tax rate will increase from $1.21 to $1.80 per $1,000 valuation — a whopping 48.7%!
These individual examples are close approximations. Actual figures are based on total district assessments — once new construction, senior citizen discounts, and timber and utility levies are calculated. If assessed valuations go up, the levy rate goes down; if they go down, the levy rate goes up until it hits the statutory maximum.
This image would be more accurate if Fire and EMS were depicted in one slice — they are hand-in-glove at 16.08% of the 2023 pie.
Fires account for less than TWO PERCENT of calls – the vast majority come from PT senior living centers, for aid cars
According to EJFR’s 2021 Annual Report, EMS calls “remained steady” at three-quarters (75%) of the districts demand. Only 1.56% were fires. At a recent town hall promoting the levy, Chief Black said there were 5,029 calls in 2022. Roughly 70% of calls are within Port Townsend’s city limits, unsurprisingly dominated by the area’s senior living centers.
A friend who works for EJFR tells me that it’s not uncommon to get two or three calls a day from Avamere alone. That facility and Victoria Place are owned by mega corporations with annual revenues between $500 million – $900 million. Why should overburdened taxpayers (JeffCo’s median household income is $57,700) subsidize these affluent outfits? We could easily create a tiered fee structure for these heavy users that recoups a reasonable portion of district costs.
Volunteer vs. career fire districts — the macro view
The International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) is the primary union in the U.S. and Canada. An illuminating industry blog article from 2017 highlights some historical tensions: [Editor’s note: this came from an unfunny April Fool’s false story posted to an industry website]
“In an incredible policy reversal, the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) has called a truce on a decades-long feud with the volunteer fire service. It’s widely known that 70% of the American fire service is comprised of unpaid or barely compensated volunteers, while the remaining 30% are career staff. The large majority of firefighters in the United States are volunteers.
It’s been a long-held position of the IAFF that volunteer firefighters take jobs away from career firefighters, thus threatening the sanctity and long-term viability of the union. The IAFF’s continued mission to grow the union has been happening at a slower pace than planned…”
IAFF President Christopher Montgomery stated that it was time to rethink the 100-year-old IAFF platform. During a brainstorming session with the executive board of directors, the idea of unionizing volunteer stations was presented… After very little discussion it was clear the decision was pivotal and necessary for the health of the union.”
The Union über alles. Too commonly the institution itself becomes the raison d’être for its existence, especially when large sums of money are involved. This is the natural trend for all governing bodies.
But it gets even darker, according to this Nov. 2021 article in The Hill…
“The ongoing challenges with recruitment and retention are compounded by the constitution and bylaws of the IAFF, prohibiting career firefighters from volunteering. These bylaws were codified in March and include “volunteering” in a list of serious charges such as embezzlement, assault of an officer, or membership in a terrorist organization. The penalty for a career firefighter donating his time to help a child who is having an asthma attack, or to respond to a car accident or participate in saving a neighbor’s home or business could be a “reprimand, fine, suspension from office, or suspension or expulsion from membership.
In states and jurisdictions with collective bargaining laws, the IAFF’s ban against volunteering is expanding past its bylaws with recommendations that are highlighted in the union’s “Model Contract Language Manual,” to prohibit a career firefighter from volunteering regardless of union membership.”
The micro view
My sources tell me that an effort to squeeze out the volunteers began in the early 2000’s, progressively leaving the department very close to 100% career (the IAFF played a role in that shift) despite the Annual Report’s claim of 30 volunteers. I’m told it’s more like 6 outpost volunteers (Airport Station, Kala Point, Marrowstone) with EMT certification, and a few support folks who can drive certain vehicles. The word is that the Union shop has not been a friendly atmosphere for the volunteers for some time, so they do their own thing and respond to emergencies as needed. If you look closely at the YES! yard signs on area lawns, you’ll see the Union logo.
What community doesn’t value its emergency responders? Ours are well trained and offer the district a high level of knowledge, skills and abilities. For that, they are well-paid, with the most senior employees earning pay packages topping $200,000 a year.
The median salary with overtime for EJFR’s 41 full-time firefighters/EMTs is $109,415, not including their generous benefits package — typically valued at an additional 40%, so roughly another $43,000+. On average, they work 8 days a month. These are 24-hour shifts where they are basically on call. They have a kitchen, showers, beds, television — most of the basic comforts of home.
In comparison, the average salary of PT police officers is $74,194. It could be argued that their job overall is as dangerous or moreso — dealing daily with homelessness, mental health, drug and alcohol related violence — and it doesn’t include nearly as many attractive perks.
What are the options?
This tax increase will have significant cascading impacts on residents with modest and fixed incomes, as landlords will be forced to raise rents for both residential and commercial occupants in an already-strained rental market. Many economists say the US (and its Western partners) are already in a recession that promises to worsen. What else could be done at this crucial moment to ameliorate EJFR’s cash crunch?
For starters, the administration and line personnel might take a 10% pay cut. Sound harsh? An average salary of $98,500 seems a respectable remuneration for a force for whom medical transports constitute three-quarters of a day’s work.
Combination departments: Restore some balance between career and volunteer crews. South Whatcom County Fire Authority (SWRFA), for instance, has a force of 21 full-time career and 35 volunteer and part-time FF/EMTs. South Whidbey Fire/EMS (SWFE) has 12 career and roughly 40 volunteers. Clallam County Fire District 3 (CCFD3) has roughly 40 career and more than 60 volunteers.
Special use assessments for high volume (eg. assisted living facilities) and high risk (eg. the mill) users.
Aggressive pursuit of grant monies, eg. FEMA’s Fire Service Grants and Funding (AFG), which provides funds for equipment, apparatus, training and salaries.
Develop your own immunity — to the scare tactics
Despite the district’s 1.5% fire calls figure, emotive images of blazing fires are employed in agency documents and marketing materials to engender empathy, support and — let’s face it — fear. So brazen is this campaign that, rather than a photograph of Chief Black and Asst. Chief Brummel on the Organizational Chart page of the Annual Report, there are pictures of — you guessed it —
Ours is already a highly fearful population who are easily convinced by these tired manipulations to demand the very solution that’s being put forward by their ‘trusted leaders’ without a drop of critical thinking. Legacy media and comment forums are peppered with snarky, alarmist replies to anyone questioning the lid lift — yeah, wait till your house is on fire! It’s 98.5% more likely that you’ll have any other reason to call 911 in the future, so perhaps take added precautions to prevent slip-and-falls, heart attacks and strokes (hint: non-pharmaceutical for the latter).
It would be great if these tax increases covered the services most needed by district residents. Nope. Should you need a ride from uptown to Jefferson Healthcare in an ambulance, you’ll get a bill for about $1,000. Cardiac issues will be swept directly off to St. Michael in Silverdale to the tune of around $5,000. Any other serious illness or trauma will be taken to Seattle by helicopter, normally from Jefferson Int’l Airport. Make that $30,000+.
I learned an awful lot while researching for this story. Insiders subscribe to these services, and suggest we do too — Airlift NW ($60/household per year) and/or LifeFlight ($75/household per year) as backup to whatever insurance you may have, including Medicare (though you’ll need A and B), so you don’t get stuck with one of those big fat bills mentioned above.
Don’t believe the hype. We are not at risk of being neglected by our first responders if this levy fails. The district could bring back to the voters a more reasonable rate increase that does not have such a deleterious impact. If both administration and line personnel agreed to voluntarily lower their wages, such an effort would go a long way in fostering support for the next round.
—————————–
Editor’s Note: The original post of this article included a math error that has been corrected.
In the spirit of offering Letters to the Editor as a traditional platform for lively, wide-ranging conversations in the public square, we invite you to write about whatever is on your mind.
Because we require comments under articles to be “on topic”, we found that readers who want to speak to other important issues, events and concerns that our small crew can’t cover don’t have a place for that. This Off Topic! feature allows readers to bring up other subjects, post news flashes, announce community events, or express concerns outside of the selected topics we write about.
A new Off Topic! forum is posted monthly. The post is open throughout the month for new letters and your responses.
How this works:
Submit your letter in the white box below CommentGuidelines at the bottom of the page containing the muted prompt “Enter your comment here…”
Either provide your own title to the letter as a top line or we will title it for you.
To respond to someone else’s post, hit the REPLY button under that specific letter or comment you wish to respond to.
Want new story notifications? Join our mailing list today!
Sign up to receive new Free Press articles (no other emails, we promise!)
