SOlsonBFDL14

Talk about a misleading headline! Nowhere in the article is there ANY evidence of "rampant misuse of sick time" yet it IS mentioned SEVERAL times in the article that the concern was mainly about swapping of shifts. Commissioner Finn made it clear to us that his main goal with this pilot program, scheduled to run until the middle of August 2015, was to ensure crew continuity. Prior to the start of the program you had guys doing straight tours (10/14 off, 10/14 3 off), first day back (14 off, 10/24 4 off) & 24's (24 on 48 off, 24 on 96 off). This is designed to eliminate the variances. Swaps are still allowed, only now you cannot owe more than 70 hours or else your ability to swap will be halted until you go below that threshold. I've already swapped two of my 24's this month due to family obligations, I've also paid the tours back so I'm at 0 as far as owing hours. Since sick time will still be taken in either 10 or 14 hour increments, I'm not sure how there will be any reduction in the "rampant misuse of sick time". The Globe does NOT like us as has written MANY negative articles about us. As always, consider the source.
And we DO go to work & not abuse the s*** out of the system. Do some research before you cast aspersions!

Talk about a misleading headline! Nowhere in the article is there ANY evidence of "rampant misuse of sick time" yet it IS mentioned SEVERAL times in the article that the concern was mainly about swapping of shifts. Commissioner Finn made it clear to us that his main goal with this pilot program, scheduled to run until the middle of August 2015, was to ensure crew continuity. Prior to the start of the program you had guys doing straight tours (10/14 off, 10/14 3 off), first day back (14 off, 10/24 4 off) & 24's (24 on 48 off, 24 on 96 off). This is designed to eliminate the variances. Swaps are still allowed, only now you cannot owe more than 70 hours or else your ability to swap will be halted until you go below that threshold. I've already swapped two of my 24's this month due to family obligations, I've also paid the tours back so I'm at 0 as far as owing hours. Since sick time will still be taken in either 10 or 14 hour increments, I'm not sure how there will be any reduction in the "rampant misuse of sick time". The Globe does NOT like us as has written MANY negative articles about us. As always, consider the source.
And we DO go to work & not abuse the s*** out of the system. Do some research before you cast aspersions!

Talk about a misleading headline! Nowhere in the article is there ANY evidence of "rampant misuse of sick time" yet it IS mentioned SEVERAL times in the article that the concern was mainly about swapping of shifts. Commissioner Finn made it clear to us that his main goal with this pilot program, scheduled to run until the middle of August 2015, was to ensure crew continuity. Prior to the start of the program you had guys doing straight tours (10/14 off, 10/14 3 off), first day back (14 off, 10/24 4 off) & 24's (24 on 48 off, 24 on 96 off). This is designed to eliminate the variances. Swaps are still allowed, only now you cannot owe more than 70 hours or else your ability to swap will be halted until you go below that threshold. I've already swapped two of my 24's this month due to family obligations, I've also paid the tours back so I'm at 0 as far as owing hours. Since sick time will still be taken in either 10 or 14 hour increments, I'm not sure how there will be any reduction in the "rampant misuse of sick time". The Globe does NOT like us as has written MANY negative articles about us. As always, consider the source.
And we DO go to work & not abuse the s*** out of the system. Do some research before you cast aspersions!

Talk about a misleading headline! Nowhere in the article is there ANY evidence of "rampant misuse of sick time" yet it IS mentioned SEVERAL times in the article that the concern was mainly about swapping of shifts. Commissioner Finn made it clear to us that his main goal with this pilot program, scheduled to run until the middle of August 2015, was to ensure crew continuity. Prior to the start of the program you had guys doing straight tours (10/14 off, 10/14 3 off), first day back (14 off, 10/24 4 off) & 24's (24 on 48 off, 24 on 96 off). This is designed to eliminate the variances. Swaps are still allowed, only now you cannot owe more than 70 hours or else your ability to swap will be halted until you go below that threshold. I've already swapped two of my 24's this month due to family obligations, I've also paid the tours back so I'm at 0 as far as owing hours. Since sick time will still be taken in either 10 or 14 hour increments, I'm not sure how there will be any reduction in the "rampant misuse of sick time". The Globe does NOT like us as has written MANY negative articles about us. As always, consider the source.
And we DO go to work & not abuse the s*** out of the system. Do some research before you cast aspersions!

Talk about a misleading headline! Nowhere in the article is there ANY evidence of "rampant misuse of sick time" yet it IS mentioned SEVERAL times in the article that the concern was mainly about swapping of shifts. Commissioner Finn made it clear to us that his main goal with this pilot program, scheduled to run until the middle of August 2015, was to ensure crew continuity. Prior to the start of the program you had guys doing straight tours (10/14 off, 10/14 3 off), first day back (14 off, 10/24 4 off) & 24's (24 on 48 off, 24 on 96 off). This is designed to eliminate the variances. Swaps are still allowed, only now you cannot owe more than 70 hours or else your ability to swap will be halted until you go below that threshold. I've already swapped two of my 24's this month due to family obligations, I've also paid the tours back so I'm at 0 as far as owing hours. Since sick time will still be taken in either 10 or 14 hour increments, I'm not sure how there will be any reduction in the "rampant misuse of sick time". The Globe does NOT like us as has written MANY negative articles about us. As always, consider the source.
And we DO go to work & not abuse the s*** out of the system. Do some research before you cast aspersions!

Sadly, it appears another new "trend" is coming out of our technology boom. It appears that a funeral is now becoming a "look at me event". Reportedly, many uniformed firefighters were taking cellphone pics throughout the processional and such. Many don't seem to understand that taking pictures for their Facebook page makes a solemn day of remembrance appear to be about the wrong people. What could and should be a large silent presence to honor the fallen and show the family, FD and community that we are one in brotherhood appears to be just another excuse to get out of town a drink and show off their hero costumes. Disgraceful. Too bad only those of us on the inside readily see the difference between those in uniform and those in hero costumes.

I, along with 25 of my Brothers spent 2 days paying our respect to Lt Walsh and FF Kennedy. I have to tell you that there needs to be a class on proper etiquette taught to the younger generation of firefighters. I can't tell you how many members I saw carrying cases of beer on their shoulders walking the streets where our Brother was being celebrated. Guys just walking by the church with 24 on their shoulder. I don't really know if they were career or volley and don't really care who they are affiliated with but their actions disgusted me as well as other New Rochelle Firefighters. If you want to have a few beers between the service and the last drive past the sea of blue please go to a bar. If you want to tailgate and party in front of the civilians like morons please go to a football or baseball game. In front of the church and on peoples lawns is not the place!!!!

Not making excuses...just an observation. If you are really concerned than call the department and ask why he was there.

We cannot discount the possiblity that it may have been there for some other sanctioned department/district business. Unless someone actually approached the operator of the vehicle and asked questions, there could be a million explanations that we don't know about.

This is something we do on a regular basis, but I have a different perspective being in a large city. We still have running cards & for M/A abide by them. On Tuesday, for example, the City of Newton (adjacent to Boston to the west), transmitted a 3rd Alarm for a structure fire. Engine 51 & District Chief 11 responded directly to the fire while Ladder 11 covered in their city. While this incident was ongoing, a 2nd Alarm was transmitted for a second (unrelated) structure fire in another part of the city. Ladder 11 responded to the fire from their cover assignment as the First Due truck & District 11 responded again. At this time, Newton requested an additional Engine & Truck from us (Engine 3/Ladder 26) for station coverage because all they had was out of town/Mutual Aid companies operating at the 2nd Alarm. So even though it wasn't on the card, they Special Called us. Same thing goes for incidents in the city. There are certain companies that due to their location always have to be covered. For example, whenever Ladder 25 in West Roxbury goes to training or is out of service for any reason, their house MUST be covered by another truck from the city. When we (Ladder 14) are out though, we generally are not backfilled. Protocol in Boston is that each District should have at a minimum 2 Engines & 1 Truck in each District (Typically each District has 3/2) and if we fall below 2/1, for whatever reason, companies must be relocated to cover in that District. Typically out of town companies do NOT respond to fires in the city unless one occurs while they are covering at a city firehouse. Mutual Aid into the city, with a few exceptions, doesn't begin until we've transmitted at least a 5th Alarm (Or equillivant) in our city

This is something we do on a regular basis, but I have a different perspective being in a large city. We still have running cards & for M/A abide by them. On Tuesday, for example, the City of Newton (adjacent to Boston to the west), transmitted a 3rd Alarm for a structure fire. Engine 51 & District Chief 11 responded directly to the fire while Ladder 11 covered in their city. While this incident was ongoing, a 2nd Alarm was transmitted for a second (unrelated) structure fire in another part of the city. Ladder 11 responded to the fire from their cover assignment as the First Due truck & District 11 responded again. At this time, Newton requested an additional Engine & Truck from us (Engine 3/Ladder 26) for station coverage because all they had was out of town/Mutual Aid companies operating at the 2nd Alarm. So even though it wasn't on the card, they Special Called us. Same thing goes for incidents in the city. There are certain companies that due to their location always have to be covered. For example, whenever Ladder 25 in West Roxbury goes to training or is out of service for any reason, their house MUST be covered by another truck from the city. When we (Ladder 14) are out though, we generally are not backfilled. Protocol in Boston is that each District should have at a minimum 2 Engines & 1 Truck in each District (Typically each District has 3/2) and if we fall below 2/1, for whatever reason, companies must be relocated to cover in that District. Typically out of town companies do NOT respond to fires in the city unless one occurs while they are covering at a city firehouse. Mutual Aid into the city, with a few exceptions, doesn't begin until we've transmitted at least a 5th Alarm (Or equillivant) in our city

This is something we do on a regular basis, but I have a different perspective being in a large city. We still have running cards & for M/A abide by them. On Tuesday, for example, the City of Newton (adjacent to Boston to the west), transmitted a 3rd Alarm for a structure fire. Engine 51 & District Chief 11 responded directly to the fire while Ladder 11 covered in their city. While this incident was ongoing, a 2nd Alarm was transmitted for a second (unrelated) structure fire in another part of the city. Ladder 11 responded to the fire from their cover assignment as the First Due truck & District 11 responded again. At this time, Newton requested an additional Engine & Truck from us (Engine 3/Ladder 26) for station coverage because all they had was out of town/Mutual Aid companies operating at the 2nd Alarm. So even though it wasn't on the card, they Special Called us. Same thing goes for incidents in the city. There are certain companies that due to their location always have to be covered. For example, whenever Ladder 25 in West Roxbury goes to training or is out of service for any reason, their house MUST be covered by another truck from the city. When we (Ladder 14) are out though, we generally are not backfilled. Protocol in Boston is that each District should have at a minimum 2 Engines & 1 Truck in each District (Typically each District has 3/2) and if we fall below 2/1, for whatever reason, companies must be relocated to cover in that District. Typically out of town companies do NOT respond to fires in the city unless one occurs while they are covering at a city firehouse. Mutual Aid into the city, with a few exceptions, doesn't begin until we've transmitted at least a 5th Alarm (Or equillivant) in our city

This article is an embarrassment to the job and more so to this disgrace of a firefighter. The article would have you believe that this is a dietary issue and that the other firefighters are making him feel like an outcast because of his dietary choices. I've never worked in that firehouse, but we all know what the firehouse kitchen is like. The kitchen is sacred in the firehouse. It's where a group of firefighters, working together for 24 hrs, come together as a unit, cook and eat. Everyone coming together is key to the cohesiveness of the firehouse. Not everyone likes what is put on the table every night and no one is forcing food down your throat. Plenty of people I work with don't eat shellfish or cheese and some guys ARE cutting down on their meat intake for health reasons. That's fine, but everyone still pays and everyone still cooks. If nothing else, it's a highly important symbolic activity. We have a rule, if you're "out on the meal" then that's it, you're out.
Don't be fooled by the NY Post rhetoric or this guys nonsense story. The trouble didn't start because one person decided to change their diet. It began when that one person decided that the whole firehouse and a sacred aspect of it's culture had to change for him. We drill together, we laugh together, we eat together and we put ourselves in harms way together. You can't shun one of those things and expect everyone to maintain the same level of respect for you.
If any serious credence is lent to this story, it will be one more slide down the tube for society.

Date:Tuesday September 4, 2012.
Time: 2307hrs
Location: 26 Cooper St, District 3. Box 1212 (Cooper St @ Endicott St)
Units Operating: Engines 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 14, 17, 21, 22, 33, 39, 42, 50, 51 & 56; Ladders 1, 3, 11, 15, 17, 18, 24 & 26; W12, W25, H2 K6, K7, M5 & TCU; Districts H1, 1, 3, 4, & 6; C6 Deputy Chief Joseph Finn; W1a Acting Deputy Chief Kevin Brooks; K1 Deputy Chief Bartholomew Shea.
Weather Conditions: 74F & overcast.
Description Of Incident: 26 Cooper St, 3 story brick 20' x 40' OMD. FA was receiving calls on this prior to arrival. Heavy fire showing on arrival. Heavy fire all floors, through roof. Defensive operations for a time. Very tight, congested area of the city. 8 LSO. 1 F transported to MGH by BEMS in serious condition with severe burns, reportedly ran from flr 3 to street through flames.
2307 Box 1212 By FA E8 E4 E50 L1 L24 TL17 R1 D3 (Ops) C6 (IC) H1 (Safety)
2307 RIT & Rehab By FA E39* L18* W25 D6 (RIT)
2310 2nd Alarm By L1 E10 E7 E3 L3 W12 TCU D1 (ACT) D4 (2nd Alarm)
H2 K6 K7
2316 3rd Alarm By C6 E22 E21 L15 X1a (Rehab) K1 (FIU)
2321 RIT Team By C6 E56 L21
2334 4th Alarm By C6 E42 E51
0113 Detail By C6 E33 E17 L26
0228 All Out By D3
0444 Detail By D3 E14 L11
0745 Detail By D3 E50 (Day Crew)
0914 Clear (Building turned over to ISD)
Reporters: OLSON

GREAT Fire!!! We got a LOT of work at this one! Fire started in the basement, 4 story masonry OMD. Extended up through the walls & front staircase. Heavy fire on floors 3 & 4 through the roof. We were forced to withdraw from the building for a little bit when conditions on floor 4 became untenable. Mutual Aid was as follows:
BOSTON: Engines 3, 37 & 51; Ladders 14 & 26; District 4. Engine 21 covered in town.
CAMBRIDGE: Engine 2; Ladder 1; Squad 2; Air Supply Unit; Deputy Chief
NEWTON: Engines 7 & 10; Ladder 2; C2.
WATERTOWN: Engine 1
SOMERVILLE: Ladder 3 for coverage
DEDHAM: Engine 1 for coverage
MetroFire District 13 Air Supply Unit.

GREAT Fire!!! We got a LOT of work at this one! Fire started in the basement, 4 story masonry OMD. Extended up through the walls & front staircase. Heavy fire on floors 3 & 4 through the roof. We were forced to withdraw from the building for a little bit when conditions on floor 4 became untenable. Mutual Aid was as follows:
BOSTON: Engines 3, 37 & 51; Ladders 14 & 26; District 4. Engine 21 covered in town.
CAMBRIDGE: Engine 2; Ladder 1; Squad 2; Air Supply Unit; Deputy Chief
NEWTON: Engines 7 & 10; Ladder 2; C2.
WATERTOWN: Engine 1
SOMERVILLE: Ladder 3 for coverage
DEDHAM: Engine 1 for coverage
MetroFire District 13 Air Supply Unit.

Firefighter James Rice of Peabody MA Engine Company 5 made the Supreme Sacrifice yesterday afternoon while operating at the 3rd Alarm at 5 Hancock Street. The building was a 3 story wdfrm 6 family OMD. The preliminary cause appears to be electrical in nature. He went into cardiac arrest between floors 1 & 2 and was removed & rushed to North Shore Medical Center in Salem MA where efforts to resisitate him were unsuccessful. Jimmy was an 11 year veteran of the department & leaves behind his wife & 3 children. Arrangements are pending at this time. FF Rice's passing comes on the heels of the LODD of FF Jon Davies of the Worcester MA FD just 15 days ago.

Firefighter James Rice of Peabody MA Engine Company 5 made the Supreme Sacrifice yesterday afternoon while operating at the 3rd Alarm at 5 Hancock Street. The building was a 3 story wdfrm 6 family OMD. The preliminary cause appears to be electrical in nature. He went into cardiac arrest between floors 1 & 2 and was removed & rushed to North Shore Medical Center in Salem MA where efforts to resisitate him were unsuccessful. Jimmy was an 11 year veteran of the department & leaves behind his wife & 3 children. Arrangements are pending at this time. FF Rice's passing comes on the heels of the LODD of FF Jon Davies of the Worcester MA FD just 15 days ago.

Date: Tuesday December 6, 2011
Time: 1921hrs
Location: 197 Marlborough St, Back Bay. District 4. Box 1575 (Beacon St @ Dartmouth St)
Units Operating: Engines 3, 4, 7, 10, 22, 33, 37, 39 & 52; Ladders 3, 15, 16, 17, 18, 24 & 26; Rescue 1; W12, W25, H2 & TCU; Districts H1, 3, 4a, 6 & 7; C6 Deputy Chief Richard DiBenedetto.
Description Of Incident: 197 Marlborough St, 4 story brick OMD. Heavy fire basement rear, extended via walls to floors 1 & 2, Two civilians rescued over ladders. Both RIT Cos. put to work.
1921 AFA Alarm By FA E33 L15
1928 Box 1575 By L15 E7 E22 TL17 R1 D4a (Ops)
1929 RIT/Rehab By FA E3 L18 W25 D3 (RIT)
1935 2nd Alarm By D4a E4 E37 E39 L24 TL3 W12 H2 TCU H1 (Safety), D6 (2nd), D7 (Act) & C6 (IC)
1937 1 x RIT Team By D4a E10 L26
2046 Detail By C6 E52 L16
2056 All Out By C6
2224 Detail Terminated
Reporters: OLSON

Date: Sunday December 4, 2011
Time: 2038hrs
Location: 34 Clifton St, Dorchester. District 7. Box 1734 (East Cottage St @ Batchelder St)
Units Operating: Engines 3, 7, 14, 17, 21, 22, 24 & 37; Ladders 2, 4, 7, 17, 18, 23 & 26; Rescue 2; W12, W25, H2 & TCU; Districts H1, 4, 7, 8 & 9; C7 Deputy Chief Robert Dunderdale.
Description Of Incident: 34 Clifton St, 2.5 story wdfrm OMD. Heavy fire in basement, B side. Extended via walls to all floors. RIT Truck put to work, new RIT assigned.
2038 Box 1734 By FA E21 E14 E17 L4 L7 R2 D7 (Ops)
2040 RIT/Rehab By FA E37 L18 W25 D9 (RIT)
2041 2nd Alarm By E21 E24 E3 E22 L23 TL17 W12 H2 TCU H1 (Safety) D4 (2nd) D8 (Act) C7 (IC)
2049 1 x RIT Lad By C7 L26
2153 Detail By C7 E7 L2
2353 All Out
2353 Detail Terminated
Reporters: OLSON

Date: Monday December 5, 2011
Time: 1056hrs
Location: 161 Sydney St., Savin Hill section of Dorchester. Box 1841 (Dorchester Ave @ Victoria St)
Units Operating: Engines 2, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24 & 39; Ladders 3, 4, 7, 17, 18, 19 & 23; Rescue 2; W12, W25, H2 & TCU; Districts H1, 4, 7, 8 & 9a; C7a Acting Deputy Chief Miller (District 9) & C2 Chief of Department Steve Abraira.
Description Of Incident: 161 Sydney St, 2.5 story wdfrm OMD with 1 story wooden addition attached in the rear. Careless disposal of cigarettes into trash barrels adjacent to D side of 1 story part of building. 1 story part fully involved, extended to all floors rear, through roof. Extended to 159 & 163 Sydney St, siding melted by radiant heat.
1056 Box 1841 By FA E21 E17 E39 L7 L19 R2 D7 (Ops)
1058 RIT/Rehab By FA E2 L18 W25 D9a (RIT)
1059 2nd Alarm By E21 E14 E24 E18 L4 L23 TL3 W12 H2 TCU H1 (Safety) D4 (2nd) D8 (Act) C7a (IC) C2
1157 Detail By C7a E22 TL17
1246 All Out By D7
1246 Detail Terminated
Reporter: OLSON

Date: Tuesday December 6, 2011
Time: 1921hrs
Location: 197 Marlborough St, Back Bay. District 4. Box 1575 (Beacon St @ Dartmouth St)
Units Operating: Engines 3, 4, 7, 10, 22, 33, 37, 39 & 52; Ladders 3, 15, 16, 17, 18, 24 & 26; Rescue 1; W12, W25, H2 & TCU; Districts H1, 3, 4a, 6 & 7; C6 Deputy Chief Richard DiBenedetto.
Description Of Incident: 197 Marlborough St, 4 story brick OMD. Heavy fire basement rear, extended via walls to floors 1 & 2, Two civilians rescued over ladders. Both RIT Cos. put to work.
1921 AFA Alarm By FA E33 L15
1928 Box 1575 By L15 E7 E22 TL17 R1 D4a (Ops)
1929 RIT/Rehab By FA E3 L18 W25 D3 (RIT)
1935 2nd Alarm By D4a E4 E37 E39 L24 TL3 W12 H2 TCU H1 (Safety), D6 (2nd), D7 (Act) & C6 (IC)
1937 1 x RIT Team By D4a E10 L26
2046 Detail By C6 E52 L16
2056 All Out By C6
2224 Detail Terminated
Reporters: OLSON

Date: Monday December 5, 2011
Time: 1056hrs
Location: 161 Sydney St., Savin Hill section of Dorchester. Box 1841 (Dorchester Ave @ Victoria St)
Units Operating: Engines 2, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24 & 39; Ladders 3, 4, 7, 17, 18, 19 & 23; Rescue 2; W12, W25, H2 & TCU; Districts H1, 4, 7, 8 & 9a; C7a Acting Deputy Chief Miller (District 9) & C2 Chief of Department Steve Abraira.
Description Of Incident: 161 Sydney St, 2.5 story wdfrm OMD with 1 story wooden addition attached in the rear. Careless disposal of cigarettes into trash barrels adjacent to D side of 1 story part of building. 1 story part fully involved, extended to all floors rear, through roof. Extended to 159 & 163 Sydney St, siding melted by radiant heat.
1056 Box 1841 By FA E21 E17 E39 L7 L19 R2 D7 (Ops)
1058 RIT/Rehab By FA E2 L18 W25 D9a (RIT)
1059 2nd Alarm By E21 E14 E24 E18 L4 L23 TL3 W12 H2 TCU H1 (Safety) D4 (2nd) D8 (Act) C7a (IC) C2
1157 Detail By C7a E22 TL17
1246 All Out By D7
1246 Detail Terminated
Reporter: OLSON

What Rod Fraser has tried to do to this department is contemptable. He only says what Mayor Menino tells him to & he talks out of both sides of his mouth. For example:
1. In the article he states, “We want someone who can stand up for the betterment of the department against the union,’’ Fraser said in a phone interview Friday. “It’s difficult for someone who’s been in the union for 30-plus years to take themselves out of that.’’ HOWEVER a couple of paragraphs later he says, "The dozens of deputy chiefs and district chiefs within Boston Fire will not be excluded from consideration, Fraser affirmed. He said he has sent letters to them inviting them to apply. So far, only one has, he said.
OF COURSE ONLY ONE HAS! YOU'VE ALREADY TOLD THEM THAT THE "FIX IS IN"! THAT FOR ALL INTENTS & PURPOSES, THEY HAVE ZERO CHANCE! WHY WOULD ANY OF OUR DEPUTIES APPLY?!?
2. Taken from above, “It’s difficult for someone who’s been in the union for 30-plus years to take themselves out of that.’’
If that truly IS the case, why did you go before the CIty Council & attempt to keep Chief of Department Ronald Keating, a member of IAFF Local 718 for THIRTY-NINE years (1970-2009) for FIVE YEARS past the MANDATORY retirement age of 65? And when that failed, instead of acknowledging that the reason Local 718 opposed the measure is because it would set a precident that could be used again down the road to circumvent the MANDATORY retirement age, blather that the reason we opposed it was because, "Keating is a thorn in the side of the union - a rare example of a Boston firefighter who climbed the uniformed ranks only to break with the department’s insular culture and embrace his role as a no-nonsense, non-union manager." (Larry Harmon, Boston Globe 08/06/11)
Again from the Harmon article, "In an April letter, Menino asked the city council to raise Keating’s retirement age to 70. “It is vital that the department be allowed to retain an experienced manager and operational specialist in order to preserve its morale and effectiveness,’’ wrote the mayor, who further described the department as at a “critical crossroads.’’"
Chief Keating was 63 years old at the time of his appointment in 2009. The fact that he would be forced to retire in October 2011 when he turned 65 should have come as no shock to anybody. Harmon writes, "But given Keating’s capabilities, it makes plenty of sense to keep him in place for another six months or a year. That would allow Fraser to mount a thorough search for a replacement, preferably a candidate from outside the department." What has Mr. Fraser been DOING for the past TWO years?! Commissioner Fraser and Mayor Menino KNEW that Chief Keating HAD to retire in October 2011. Why did they not start the search sooner & have a replacement in place? If he hasn't managed to find a suitable candidate in the past two years, why should we believe that he would be able to with six additional months to do so?
I'll get off my soapbox now, I KNOW that the Globe is a rag not suitable for wrapping fish in, yet somehow I STILL manage to get annoyed by their biased reporting.

What Rod Fraser has tried to do to this department is contemptable. He only says what Mayor Menino tells him to & he talks out of both sides of his mouth. For example:
1. In the article he states, “We want someone who can stand up for the betterment of the department against the union,’’ Fraser said in a phone interview Friday. “It’s difficult for someone who’s been in the union for 30-plus years to take themselves out of that.’’ HOWEVER a couple of paragraphs later he says, "The dozens of deputy chiefs and district chiefs within Boston Fire will not be excluded from consideration, Fraser affirmed. He said he has sent letters to them inviting them to apply. So far, only one has, he said.
OF COURSE ONLY ONE HAS! YOU'VE ALREADY TOLD THEM THAT THE "FIX IS IN"! THAT FOR ALL INTENTS & PURPOSES, THEY HAVE ZERO CHANCE! WHY WOULD ANY OF OUR DEPUTIES APPLY?!?
2. Taken from above, “It’s difficult for someone who’s been in the union for 30-plus years to take themselves out of that.’’
If that truly IS the case, why did you go before the CIty Council & attempt to keep Chief of Department Ronald Keating, a member of IAFF Local 718 for THIRTY-NINE years (1970-2009) for FIVE YEARS past the MANDATORY retirement age of 65? And when that failed, instead of acknowledging that the reason Local 718 opposed the measure is because it would set a precident that could be used again down the road to circumvent the MANDATORY retirement age, blather that the reason we opposed it was because, "Keating is a thorn in the side of the union - a rare example of a Boston firefighter who climbed the uniformed ranks only to break with the department’s insular culture and embrace his role as a no-nonsense, non-union manager." (Larry Harmon, Boston Globe 08/06/11)
Again from the Harmon article, "In an April letter, Menino asked the city council to raise Keating’s retirement age to 70. “It is vital that the department be allowed to retain an experienced manager and operational specialist in order to preserve its morale and effectiveness,’’ wrote the mayor, who further described the department as at a “critical crossroads.’’"
Chief Keating was 63 years old at the time of his appointment in 2009. The fact that he would be forced to retire in October 2011 when he turned 65 should have come as no shock to anybody. Harmon writes, "But given Keating’s capabilities, it makes plenty of sense to keep him in place for another six months or a year. That would allow Fraser to mount a thorough search for a replacement, preferably a candidate from outside the department." What has Mr. Fraser been DOING for the past TWO years?! Commissioner Fraser and Mayor Menino KNEW that Chief Keating HAD to retire in October 2011. Why did they not start the search sooner & have a replacement in place? If he hasn't managed to find a suitable candidate in the past two years, why should we believe that he would be able to with six additional months to do so?
I'll get off my soapbox now, I KNOW that the Globe is a rag not suitable for wrapping fish in, yet somehow I STILL manage to get annoyed by their biased reporting.