Emails show dueling plans for Harlingen airport firefighting services
In the last few weeks, Valley International Airport officials' Plan A has come to the forefront, a proposal to hire Pro-Tec Fire Services, an Appleton, Wisconsin, company that's become North America's biggest provider of aircraft rescue and firefighting services.
At City Hall, airport officials' plan to terminate the city's $1.2 million agreement providing the Harlingen Fire Department's airport firefighting services is drawing opposition.
In response to the plan, the Harlingen Professional Firefighters' Association is warning it would file a lawsuit against the city if the airport's board of directors hires Pro-Tec, arguing the move could lead to a violation of Civil Service law protecting firefighters' jobs.
Meanwhile, Marv Esterly, the airport's aviation director, is standing behind the proposal to hire Pro-Tec.
While Pro-Tec is offering its services for $973,000 as part of a proposed five-year contract, the city's planning to boost the fire department's fees by 7% next year and then by 8% in 2027.
For the airport operating on a break-even budget, Pro-Tec, which serves more than 20 U.S. airports, would help save about $1.9 million during the next five years.
Esterly has also expressed concern over the fire department's federal training violations.
From 2017 to 2024, the FAA cited the department for three training violations while last year Esterly self-reported "misleading" entries raising concerns of the possibility of records falsifications in training logs stemming from two classes last June and July.
THE PLANS
An email thread helps outline officials' discussions over the proposal they call Plan A.
In response to the Valley Morning Star's request filed under the Texas Public Information Act, Esterly released emails sent from April 29, 2024 to April 16.
In a Feb. 26 email to Mayor Norma Sepulveda, Esterly addressed concerns leading him to propose hiring Pro-Tec.
"The rising cost of ARFF services is placing significant strain on the airport's budget," he wrote. "The current ARFF arrangement is unsustainable, placing significant financial stain on the airport."
Then Esterly pointed to what he described as "safety and regulatory compliance."
"FAA-mandated training standards must be met to maintain (the airport's) Part 139 certification," he wrote to Sepulveda, referring to the FAA's airport operations certification. "Given budgetary constraints and critical safety and compliance concerns, Plan A remains the most prudent and responsible path forward to ensure regulatory compliance and public safety."
Meanwhile, Plan B would consist of an overhaul of the fire department's ARFF program.
Under Plan B, the department would "implement FAA-recommended best management practices to enhance compliance and transparency," Esterly wrote to Sepulveda, adding the proposal would "address systemic failures in training oversight and establish strict compliance measures to prevent future violations."
Esterly then referred to a memorandum of understanding specifying firefighters' qualifications and requirements.
While Plan B would call for a "cost-sharing strategy" to "develop a financially sustainable ARFF plan that aligns with federal regulations while balancing fiscal responsibility," the proposal would also "evaluate the current MOU to determine necessary modifications, replacement or possible termination," he wrote.
In an April 29, 2024, email to City Manager Gabriel Gonzalez, Esterly expressed concern over what he described as rising costs stemming from fire department ARFF staffing leading to overtime pay.
"It has come to our attention that there is a recurring practice of calling in ARFF alternatives from different shifts, rather than utilizing those assigned to the current shift," he wrote. "This has resulted in increased overtime costs that area subsequently billed to the airport."
Esterly argued overtime billing violates the parties' agreement.
"According to our current memorandum of understanding, the airport board should not have to bear the financial responsibility for overtime expenses that arise due to the city's failure to maintain adequate staffing levels, including the provision of designated alternatives for each shift," he wrote to Gonzalez. "Maintaining compliance with our MOU is crucial to ensure the cost-effectiveness and regulatory adherence of the ARFF services provided."
In a Feb. 25 email, Sepulveda pointed to "legal challenges surrounding privatization," adding Gonzalez was working to address overtime costs.
Meanwhile, City Attorney Mark Sossi argued the Texas Government Code's Civil Service stance prohibited the city from hiring a contractor such a Pro-Tec.
"After review of the legal issues at hand, we believe that Chapter 143 of the Texas Local Government Code will be a legal bar to privatization of the firefighters positions," he wrote in a Dec. 2, 2024, email to Gene McCullough, the airport board's attorney. "This will also confirm that the city, as the airport sponsor, has not given its consent to the privatization of AARF functions at the Valley International Airport."
Earlier this month, Evan Mann, president of the Harlingen Professional Firefighters Association, warned city commissioners the union would file a lawsuit against the city if they didn't stop the airport board from hiring a contractor.
In an interview, Mann said the board's hiring of a contractor would violate Civil Service law protecting firefighters who could lose their jobs.
Mann also claimed airport officials were overstating FAA reports citing "isolated" firefighter training violations as part of a plan to "discredit" the fire department in order to lead the airport board to terminate the city's $1.2 million agreement providing aircraft rescue and firefighting services.
Esterly denied the claims.
In February, the FAA closed a 2024 investigation stemming from Esterly's move to report "discrepancies" in two firefighter training classes held last June and July.
"The FAA determined training and misleading entries to be directly isolated to the identified sessions and not systemic to the entire ARFF training program," Denson E. Stasher, the agency's safety and standards manager, wrote to Esterly in a Feb. 19 report closing the investigation. "In closing this case, we have considered all available facts and have concluded the matter does not warrant legal enforcement."
In its investigation report, the FAA found the fire department's ARFF program in "full compliance," Erik Ramirez, the union's vice president, said in an interview.
Meanwhile, Mann said airport officials were overlooking the fire department's five years of "perfect scores" on its annual FAA inspections.
Featured Local Savings
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
3 hours ago
- New York Times
Hong Kong Officials Harden Their Stance on ‘Soft Resistance'
The Hong Kong authorities have a new favorite buzzword: 'soft resistance.' The phrase, which is used to describe anything seen as covertly subversive or insidiously defiant against the government, is showing up in news reports, speeches by top officials, and warnings from government departments. Officials and propaganda organs have warned of the threat of possible 'soft resistance' in a book fair, music lyrics, a U.S. holiday celebration and environmental groups. The term and its widespread official use reflect the political climate of a city that has been transformed since Beijing imposed a national security law in 2020, after quashing mass pro-democracy demonstrations in 2019. Protests disappeared, and the political opposition was largely dismantled by the yearslong crackdown that followed. Now, with such 'hard resistance' held at bay, the authorities appear to be targeting what they see as the next threat: subtler, inconspicuous expressions of discontent. Officials have warned that Hong Kong continues to be threatened by foreign forces, led by the United States, that seek to destabilize Hong Kong in order to block China's rise. To the authorities, 'soft resistance' is nothing short of a national security threat, and at least a dozen senior officials have used the term in recent weeks. Warning signs include messaging that is deemed to be critical of the government or sympathetic to the opposition or to protesters, whom the authorities have described as rioters or terrorists. 'Soft resistance is real and lurks in various places,' John Lee, the city's leader, warned in June. He cited the threat of unspecified forces that 'don't want our country to prosper and become stronger,' saying that such actors had planted agents in Hong Kong to undermine stability. Mr. Lee pointed to what he described as an attempt to turn public opinion in the city against organ donations, after Hong Kong and mainland China started exploring establishing a system for doing so across their border. In 2024, after thousands of people appeared to withdraw from the organ donation system, two people in Hong Kong were sentenced to prison, accused of using fake registrations and cancellations to create the illusion that there was widespread opposition to the system. The term 'soft resistance' is being used so widely that Hong Kong's justice secretary, Paul Lam, felt the need to explain it officially for the first time, in late June. He told local media that it referred to using false or misleading information to incite the public, or to cause people to have a 'wrong understanding' of the government. But he also said that the term was hard to define, and that 'soft resistance' was not necessarily illegal. The phrase was first coined by Beijing's representative to Hong Kong in 2021. It was revived by another high-ranking Beijing official in June, at a celebration of the fifth anniversary of the imposition of the national security law. As part of the term's current resurgence, a major Hong Kong broadcaster aired a series of episodes that repeatedly warned against 'soft resistance,' pointing to perceived threats like a children's book that portrayed the police as wolves. The education secretary said that public schools had been warned against letting teachers and students participate in a U.S. Consulate Independence Day event, over concerns about 'soft resistance.' But even some within the pro-Beijing establishment are expressing concern that the government's campaign risks stifling expression and hurting the economy. Ronny Tong, a prominent legal figure and member of the Executive Council, a top advisory cabinet, said in an interview that the government's response to the U.S. Consulate event appeared to be 'overdoing it a little bit.' He said that even the word 'resistance' was excessive when applied to a minority of people who were unhappy with the government, whom he said should be dealt with using 'soft measures, not strong words.' Prominent business figures with ties to the government say that the repeated emphasis on perceived security threats is undercutting more urgent efforts to attract foreign investment and preserve the city's image as a global hub. 'We, Hong Kong's pro-establishment, must clearly understand what the top priority is — national security or the economy, that's in itself contradictory,' David Tai Chong Lie-A-Cheong, a Hong Kong businessman and a member of an advisory body to Beijing, said in an interview. 'When officials are constantly saying that Hong Kong is not safe, would you invest here?' asked Mr. Lie-A-Cheong, a former chairman of the Hong Kong France Business Partnership, a semiofficial group that promoted trade with France. He said that foreign business groups were having a hard time understanding the direction of Hong Kong's policies. Mr. Lie-A-Cheong described the situation in Hong Kong as 'heart-wrenching' and said: 'As a pro-establishment member for decades, I feel we have failed our jobs.' To businessmen like Lew Mon-hung, who was also in the same advisory body to Beijing, the government should prioritize economic development and improving people's livelihoods. He said that people had complained to him about financial difficulties, as the city's property, retail and service sectors have suffered in recent years. Instead, 'they are focusing on opposing so-called 'soft resistance',' Mr. Lew said. The approach was fueling concerns among Hong Kongers about the future of 'One Country, Two Systems,' he said, citing a policy meant to protect the city's autonomy under Chinese rule, including the freedoms of speech, press and publication. 'Everyone is asking whether they're trying to bring a Cultural Revolution approach to Hong Kong,' he added, referring to a movement in the 1960s and '70s to purge elements deemed disloyal to Communist Party orthodoxy. (Mr. Lew said he himself had fled China during that period by swimming across to Hong Kong, which was then a British colony.) That sense of ideological zeal appeared to be mirrored in Beijing-controlled media in Hong Kong, which have lauded crackdowns on what they portrayed as hidden threats. In July, the Wen Wei Po newspaper published a front-page article that said an independent book fair was 'full of 'soft-resistance' intentions,' pointing to 'anti-China and destabilizing Hong Kong' books at the event. Some even see environmental activism as a potential hotbed of political opposition. The city's development secretary, speaking to the Wen Wei Po in June, said that some criticism of government's moves to dismantle environmental protections, in an effort to reclaim land around the city's iconic Victoria Harbour, could be regarded as 'soft resistance.' She accused one organization, which she did not name, of 'deliberate provocations.' Not long after, a 30-year-old group dedicated to protecting the harbor disbanded.
Atlantic
8 hours ago
- Atlantic
Trump Keeps Defending Russia
Donald Trump loves to speak extemporaneously, and usually, he makes very little sense. (Sharks? The Unabomber? What?) Trying to turn his ramblings into a coherent message is like trying, as an old European saying goes, to turn fish soup back into an aquarium. But he is the president of the United States and holds the codes to some 2,000 nuclear weapons. When he speaks, his statements are both policy and a peek into the worldview currently governing the planet's sole superpower. This morning, the commander in chief made clear that he does not understand the largest war in Europe, what started it, or why it continues. Worse, insofar as he does understand anything about Russia's attempted conquest of Ukraine, he seems to have internalized old pro-Moscow talking points that even the Kremlin doesn't bother with anymore. The setting, as it so often is when Trump piles into a car with his thoughts and then goes full Thelma & Louise off a rhetorical cliff, was Fox & Friends. The Fox hosts, although predictably fawning, did their best to keep the president from the ledge, but when Trump pushes the accelerator, everyone goes along for the ride. The subject, ostensibly, was Trump's supposed diplomatic triumph at yesterday's White House meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and seven European leaders. The Fox hosts, of course, congratulated Trump—for what, no one could say—but that is part of the drill. A Trump interview on conservative media is something like a liturgy, with its predictable chants, its call-and-response moments, and its paternosters. Trump ran through the usual items: The war was Joe Biden's fault; the 'Russia, Russia, Russia hoax'; the war never would have happened if Trump had been president. Unto ages of ages, amen. But when the hosts asked specifically about making peace, the president of America sounded a lot like the president of Russia. The war, Trump said, started because of Crimea and NATO. Considering his commitment to being a 'peace president,' Trump was oddly eager to castigate his predecessors for being weak: Crimea, he said, was handed over to Russian President Vladimir Putin by Barack Obama 'without a shot fired.' (Should Obama have fired some? No one asked.) Crimea, you see, is a beautiful piece of real estate, surrounded by water—I have been to Crimea, and I can confirm the president's evaluation here—and 'Barack Hussein Obama gave it away.' Putin, he said, got a 'great deal' from Obama, and took it 'like candy from a baby.' Trump did not explain how this putative land swindle led to Putin trying to seize all of Ukraine. But no matter; he quickly shifted to NATO, echoing the arguments of early Kremlin apologists and credulous Western intellectuals that Ukraine existed only as a 'buffer' with the West, and that Putin was acting to forestall Ukraine joining NATO. Russia was right, Trump said, not to want the Western 'enemy' on their border. This might be the first time an American president has used Russia's language to describe NATO as an enemy. Perhaps Trump was simply trying to see the other side's point of view. He then added, however, that the war was sparked not only by NATO membership—which was not on the table anytime soon—but also by Ukrainian demands to return Crimea, which Trump felt were 'very insulting' to Russia. Trump is a bit behind on his pro-Kremlin talking points. The Russians themselves long ago largely abandoned any such blather about NATO and Crimea. Putin claimed early on that Ukraine was infested with Nazis —in the case of Zelensky, apparently Jewish Nazis—and that even if it weren't for NATO and Nazis, Ukraine is organically part of Russia and belongs under Kremlin rule. For three years, Putin has been slaughtering Ukrainian civilians to make the point that his Slavic brothers and sisters need to either accept that they are part of Russia, or die. Trump then stumbled through a discussion of security guarantees, wandering off topic repeatedly while the hosts tried to shepherd him back to the safety of their questions. And then the president of the United States showed the entire world why the past few days of international diplomacy perhaps haven't been going so well, and why a delegation of European leaders had to parachute into Washington to stop him from doing something reckless. 'Look,' Trump said, 'everybody can play cute, and this and that, but Ukraine is gonna get their life back, they're gonna stop having people killed all over the place, and they're gonna get a lot of land.' Notice how the president described people getting killed as if mass death is just a natural disaster that no one has any control over. (Later, he added that he was in a hurry to get to a peace deal because thousands were dying each week—again, as if people were perishing from regularly scheduled earthquakes instead of Russian bombs.) His comment about Ukraine getting lots of land also betrays his default acceptance of Moscow's imperial demands: The land Trump is describing already belongs to Ukraine, and any deal that does not return all of it is a net loss. The American president, however, is speaking as if Kyiv should be grateful for the scraps of territory that Trump and Putin will grudgingly allow to fall from their table. And then the discussion got worse. 'Russia,' Trump ruminated, 'is a powerful military nation.' (Well, yes.) 'You know, whether people like it or not, it's a powerful nation. It's a much bigger nation,' Trump said. 'It's not a war that should have been started.' (Again, a perfectly reasonable statement.) 'You don't do that. You don't take on a nation that's 10 times your size.' Wait, what? Who doesn't take on a bigger nation? Who does Trump think began this war? Trump's answers to the uneasy Fox courtiers summarized his belief that Ukraine, not Russia, was the aggressor, merely by refusing to roll over and hand its land and people to the Kremlin. The president seems to have embraced Putin's sly use of the term root causes (an expression Putin used again in Anchorage). When the Russian dictator says 'root causes,' he means Ukraine's continued existence as an independent nation, which Russia now views as the fundamental justification for its barbarism. Trump then bumbled into several other verbal brambles, but none of them mattered as much as this revealing moment. Zelensky and Ukraine are the problem, and the rest is just an ongoing tragedy that the Ukrainians can end by being 'flexible' and by putting their president in a room with the man conducting atrocities against them. In the end, Trump even suggested that cutting through the knot of war in Ukraine could be the ticket to salvation. 'If I can get to heaven,' he said, 'this will be one of the reasons,' because he will be recognized, presumably, as one of the great peacemakers. As for Putin, Trump knows they can work together: 'There's a warmth there,' he said of his relationship with an indicted war criminal. Blessed, perhaps, are the warmongers.
Newsweek
8 hours ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Suggests He's A War Hero: 'I Guess I Am'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump suggested on Tuesday that he's a war hero, telling the conservative media host Mark Levin, in part, "I guess I am." Trump made the comment while talking to Levin, a staunch pro-Israel advocate, about working with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to free the remaining hostages held by Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Trump called Netanyahu "a good man," adding that "he's in there fighting." The U.S. president went on to say that although some want Netanyahu to be prosecuted on war crimes charges, "he's a war hero." "He's a war hero because we worked together," Trump told Levin. "He's a war hero. I guess I am, too. Nobody cares. But I am, too. I mean, I sent those planes." Trump has never been deployed or fought in a war. When he told Levin on Tuesday that he "sent those planes," he was referring to ordering airstrikes in June targeting three critical uranium enrichment facilities in Iran. Donald Trump on Benjamin Netanyahu: 'I worked with your friend a war hero. I guess I am, too.' — The Bulwark (@BulwarkOnline) August 19, 2025 Former Republican congressman Adam Kinzinger, an ardent Trump critic who served in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, expressed shock at the president's remarks, writing on X: "Trump just called himself a 'war hero.' Wow." This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow. The Associated Press contributed reporting to this article.
