NEVADA COUNTY, Calif. April 20, 2024 – The recent announcement by the Fire Safe Council in Nevada County (FSC) that they have “suspended operations” and “furloughed staff” and the County press release proclaiming the FSC as a “high risk vendor”, coupled with the subsequent release of the Grand Jury report, have left many wondering where we go from here.

With the risk of wildfires a very real concern for every resident, we need to have the organizations that are working diligently to reduce that risk firing on all cylinders. Having the County and the FSC appearing to be at each other’s throats is not only a distraction, it also negatively affects our ability to improve our odds in the race to get ready for wildfires.

We don’t doubt that all involved have good intentions, however it’s time for all agencies and organizations to take a hard look in the mirror and find the resolve to do better. The question is “What is the path forward?”.

Perceptions

Let’s start with some of the perceptions we, the public, have.

Fundamentally, there are trust issues with both the FSC and County.

There’s no denying the FSC has its challenges. There is a perception held by more than a few that the organization is poorly managed with a top-heavy structure, lack of objective hiring practices (nepotism), an inordinate amount of employee turnover, inconsistent community relations and apparently no financial strategy.

It’s run with a command-and-control management style coupled with no mid-level managers to oversee the day-to-day operations.  Their spending seems excessive for a non-profit (trucks, facilities, salaries, etc.) and some have even questioned if they complete all of the work, they say they do.

Within the County, the Office of Emergency Services (OES) is not working with non-profits in a good faith supportive manner as partners but rather is doing a land grab to take over indirect revenue from grants and establish itself at the top of the hierarchical heap.

This creates an environment where nonprofits focused on land management have reduced capacity and can’t cover their administrative costs.

OES lacks capacity for sufficient grant oversight of on the ground fire mitigation work and does not have a grant accountant on staff which potentially leads to funding slipping through the cracks.

Furthermore, as OES has beefed up its staff and programming it appears to be seeking credit for programming that the FSC has traditionally been known for or continues in collaboration with, such as green waste and shaded fuel breaks.

Ultimately it seems there is a power struggle. Which, naturally, is driven by influence and money. Both organizations require grant funding to have the staff required to provide the services they offer.

The net result is less dollars go to the actual work being done on the ground. Which is pretty much the point of all these efforts.

Questions

  • Can the County support agencies and nonprofits working on fire hazard reduction and fire safety without necessarily managing or controlling the process?
  • Can the Fire Safe Council reinvent itself to be a well-managed, trustworthy, fair and transparent organization?
  • Will the current situation affect funding from State and Federal agencies?
  • How can the county and FSC work together to support Firewise communities?

Solutions

The above isn’t an exhaustive list of perceptions and questions. But. Let’s cut to the chase. Where do we go from here? There are (3) options:

  1. Nothing Changes: wastes money, reduce services, reputations tank.
  2. Each to Their Own: both FSC & OES fix their own issues.
  3. Take the High Road: build a system to harness all grant opportunities, ensure collaboration, transparency, no duplication of efforts and maximize impact.

One isn’t an option. Two is table stakes. Three addresses the larger opportunity.

In the short-term each organization needs to address option 2 and improve themselves:

OES:

  1. Consolidate grant accounting under the auditor / controller.
  2. Use 3rd party experts for hazard mitigation and fire safety project implementation oversight.
  3. Rework the roles of grant management and implementation to be a win-win for all, controlling less and enhancing capacity of non-profit and small agencies or organization.
  4. Accelerate the Community Wildfire Preparedness Plan, which lays out the overarching vision for the county and strategies that can coalesce everyone to the same end.

FSC:

  1. Develop and put a business plan in place that addresses sustainability, ensures costs commensurate with likely income streams, transparency and includes a plan for healthy relationships with other organizations in the community.
  2. Design a flexible organization that allows for ebb and flow of projects/revenue and provides appropriate leadership at all levels.
  3. Improve board oversight of employee management / retention and accounting practices.
  4. Ensure the Board and Executive Director get leadership training via The Center for Nonprofit Leadership and the Small Business Administration.

Take the high road!
Ideally, county wildfire stakeholders will come together to create an objective 3rd party entity to maximize dollars to Nevada County and increase the pace and scale of work done on the ground.

This entity would be comprised of carefully selected members of the county, including representatives from:

  • Local Fire Districts (East/West)
  • Land Management Nonprofits and Agencies (small and large)
  • Firewise Coalition of Nevada County
  • Nevada County Office of Emergency Services
  • Fire Safe Council
  • Firewise Communities (East/West)
  • Funders and Stakeholders: CAL FIRE, Sierra Conservancy, Tahoe National Forest, Bureau of Land Management, Northern Sierra State Park District, Nevada Irrigation District, Yuba Watershed Institute, Bear Yuba Land Trust, Resource Conservation District, Sierra Streams Institute

Goals of this group:

  • Develop strategy to increase wildfire mitigation efforts
  • Devise a grant system for decision-making and transparent, beneficial coordination
  • Ensure transparency and accountability for projects and entities

Key tenants:

  • Commitment to shared vision
  • Put whole before self
  • Equal footing for all regardless of size
  • It takes a village

Common metrics for system tracking and performance:

  • Metrics: Ratio of work on ground to expenses (Yuba Watershed Institute is a star example)
  • Accountability for collaboration / relationships
  • Financial revenues, direct / indirect costs, and implementation results

Primary tools of this group would be:

  1. Shared Project Mapping
  2. Project Dashboard
  3. Annual Report Card (including relationships)

Who spearheads this group? Perhaps it’s managed by The Center for Nonprofit Leadership.

To close, lots of money is being spent on legal issues by both entities that could be spent helping our communities. Let’s get back to what matters and work together to get Nevada County ready for wildfire.

Editor’s note: This op-ed was submitted by a group of Nevada County residents in reaction to various news stories regarding the Fire Safe Council’s issues and the County’s stance. They requested their names be withheld to put the focus on the ideas. We verified that none of them are directly involved/work for FSC or Nevada County.

One reply on “Community op-ed | Moving Forward: Fire Safe Council and County”

  1. Years ago Supervisor Bill Shultz attempted to promote a “Joint Powers of Authority Agreement” between the County and Non Profits. At the time there were vital services for Health and Human Services, CPS and our Law Enforcement community that were “only” being provided by non profits.
    And in fact very little , if any, inventory was available to define exactly who they were and what they did.
    Bill’s vision was a Joint Powers group
    that would serve to provide a formal
    “Repository” of all of the service providers in an effort to “compliment”
    And enhance the County services, while not supplanting.

    The restrictive nature of the grant requirements were such that it meant non profits had to fundraise to meet the administrative needs. Restrictions mandated that funds were for “direct service” , operating expenses, and equipment. It was not unusual to find excessive equipment expenditures at the end of a grant year. In fact a use it or loose it mentality is rampant through out the entire State.
    So many sources of OES monies do not allow carry over of pass through monies.
    This money passes through our State from Federal allocations. The intent is to evenly distribute funds through the grant process.
    Often the Counties had no opportunity to compete with non profits, leaving the funds in the hands of agencies with no County Government affiliation other that Operational Agreements or “MOU’s”.
    As long as the intent of these various agreements were honored and documented ; the systems of service worked in concert with numerous County Offices.

    OES is that current State management entity.

    It looks like nothing has changed.

Comments are closed.