efdcapt115

ALSFirefighter! In my opinion, one of the brightest and most knowledgeable posters on the board. Thousands of posts, some of the most informative reading one can find here on EMTBravo. Congratulations on another year. Thank you for all the time you have spent sharing your knowledge with the rest of us.

Firefighter Paul Brotherton 41 Auburn, MA Rescue 1 Firefighter Jeremiah Lucey 38 Leicester, MA Rescue 1 Lieutenant Thomas Spencer 42 Worcester, MA Ladder 2 Firefighter Timothy Jackson 51 Hopedale, MA Ladder 2 Firefighter James Lyons 34 Worcester, MA Engine 3 Firefighter Joseph McGuirk 38 Worcester, MA Engine 3

Actually, you need three and there is no need to push anything. Simple majority vote passes.

I want to add in these comments about my union participation in fire commissioner elections; I personally was very involved in the process for a few years. The ONLY motivation (and I'm speaking from the heart) that drove me to work on behalf of certain individuals running for and in some cases successfully winning election to the Board of Fire Commissioners was to try and get improvements made in the delivery of service that would benefit public safety and/or firefighter safety. In my time of political activism in the fire politik, we never asked for promises, favorable contract treatment, or anything that would benefit the members financially. We/I felt an obligation to conduct ourselves in a manner consistent with the truest ideals of the democratic system. I personally believed it to be an honor and a privilege to be participating in the process. That's where the disheartening disillusionment came into focus. The activists basically came out and said that exact thing; a commissioner elected with the help of union firefighters must certainly be in office for only one reason; to line their pocket$. Their accusations were disgusting. People would entrust us to take an oath to protect and serve, yet they would jump to conclude that political activism in the process could only mean that we were "in it for our own gain." Nothing could have been further from the truth, and it resulted that the union would be loathe to ever lend it's name or support to a candidate ever again. We'd been so degraded through the process by these vindictive individuals who claimed to speak for the electorate. Truth is, WE had the best interests of the electorate in our motivations, and were dumped on so severely by these people that most of us vowed never to participate again. In my case, that's exactly what happened.

And then some Chief.

What assets are you talking about that will be redistributed? Is it the volunteer company benevolent money? They've got to have millions of dollars in there. Do they collect the 2% money like the companies do in New York? Much of the volunteer benevolent money around sits unused because of the restrictions on what they can use it to pay out for. Death benefits, period. The sad part of that is volunteer organizations that are away from controversies like Stamford, could use 2% money to outfit their firefighters and such; but the restrictions on how they can pay that money out prohibit it. Do I have that right? Edit: On second thought, can't they use the benevolent money to pay for LOSAPs?

Thanks.

What size hose is on the booster reels?

Question for Kujo: What constitutes the "Inland Empire"?

Now THAT'S what you call a commute!

That is correct. But try and find a Board of Fire Commissioners who would take such a drastic step. I'd say you'd be hard pressed to find one. I worked for a fire district. Historically, the volunteer firemen held the Board seats, and influenced the outcome of the elections. The union became politically active in trying to get Commissioners elected some years ago. But even then, some Commissioners who we actively supported and helped get elected, would change their opinions and outlook once elected. It was always amazing to observe. I think in the last few years, the union decided to stay away from the elections "officially" and the members just work on their own time trying to help somebody get elected to the board. It's too much of a political liability for a Commissioner to have the active backing and support of the union. The taxpayer revolt people end up coming out of the woodwork to give the Commission a hard time, and make the Board look bad on the local cable channel. People complain that there is not enough local participation in fire elections. The activists say when a Commissioner gets elected with union support that it is unfair to the taxpayers because of the lopsided influence a union can have when voter turnout is low. That's complete baloney and I can site one year in particular that union participation resulted in the highest turnout EVER for a fire election in the district, with over 5,000 people turning out, waiting in lines that stretched out of the polling place and down the street.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Utility_Model

Aye yie yie! http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/12/01/2010-12-01_four_loko_fanatics_flock_to_craigslist_in_frenzied_online_bidding_war_for_banned.html

Nah, I have to disagree. Since this thread is resisting going to a lighter tone (the jokes ain't workin') well then so be it. This was a very immature move to "hang" this off the rig. I mean think about it. Little old ladies, moms with kids in their mini-vans (Mom:"look at the fire truck sweetheart!" Kids:"Uh mommy what's that thing on the back of the firetruck?" Mom red-faced and p!ssed-off:"Uhhh...uh"....as she looks in her speed dial for the mayor's cell phone number) Okay so it's not appropriate for being on the apparatus. Mayor comes in (maybe he got a call of complaint about it) says "Chief, let's get that off the rig." Chief moves it to another location ON the rig. Mayor suspends chief. LIke PEMO said "National attention" for this now. NOT good PR. Any chief, volunteer or career that: #1 saw this and obviously didn't disapprove #2 received explicit instruction from the mayor to remove it #3 moved it to another location on the rig DESERVES a suspension. and if he doesn't grow up rather quickly is going to find himself OUT of his chief's vehicle. Like the other posters in the thread have pointed out, with all the problems in the country, with all the pressures on municipal services, with all the stress, THIS ITEM shouldn't have become an issue, and now that it has, this chief will forever be tagged and associated with a very stupid act.

Oh So U Friend Play Bad Juke On U? Is't U Friend Also 1 Member Of S.P.A.A.M.F.A.A. We Not Accept Silly X-Cuse 4 U Juke Gone Bad On U Now. We Tr-Eye Real Hard 2 Help U 2 And Dis How You Play Us Silly Pee-Pole On Dis Burd. We Noe Like U Juke. We De Side U Member of V.ery B.ad J.uke T.eller C.lub A.sso S.ee A.ssion U.f A.nonymous A.ce H.oles. Half A Luftley Eve Douche Neeng.

Heeeeeyyyyyyy!!!!!

Well maybe if it had brown spots.....

Yeah that's the problem with this state......No B@lls! lol

Why would somebody bother making the effort? I could see if it was humorous, but it's not even a funny post. I think what is funny is Jimmy's description of the "refurb". A giraffe? lol

Wow this really sucks.

Thank you Mark. Good photos of the radiant heat damage. That's quite a distance from the garage.

You really gotta have b@lls to put these on a rig, and then nuts to not take them off when the mayor asked you too......

Is that a Chevy or a Ford "inside" the garage?

My interpretation of this cryptic message; He bought this rig. He's looking for photos and information about the rig when it belonged to Carmel. Apparently he wants to restore it to what it looked like when Carmel owned it. Question for the poster: Show us a photograph of what it looks like now, in your possession. That should clear up whether this a joke or not. Translation fee: $0

http://nhregister.com/articles/2010/11/27/news/doc4cf088b9bae80910076263.txt