FFPCogs

Then why are we in this mess? Because one side (the City) saw something as wrong even when the other side (the VFDs) didn't and tried to change it unilaterally. Until such time as the Charter is changed the views of boths sides must be taken into account and honored regardless of the "rightness" of either view, otherwise there will be no resolution. Working together means accepting that both views are legitimate and, through our leaderships acting on our behalf, building something cooperatively from them. Not an easy task to say the least and one sure not to garner 100% support, but if the end result is a better service in which we can all operate and thrive, which it will be, then we have done our duty and it will be the community that benefits. Cogs

You are correct, the union ultimately will not have the final say in anything, but they can influence everything, just as volunteer members can. So in regards to having no say then one must ask: what about Stamford Fire Truths? (which by the way is a very influential public forum in which the union unrelentingly bashes volunteers and the Mayor's plan). Amazingly this very same forum could be used to express the union's misgivings about the "BP" which every 786 contributor here has stated exist...after all, that very influential site is all about telling the "truth" isn't it? Wouldn't the claims made here by 786 members stating that neither the Brown Plan or the Mayor's plan are "the answer" and that "most SFRD members feel the same" be considered the truth? Shouldn't the public and the SFRD administration be made aware of that truth? Couldn't that truth along with the same from volunteers expressing the misgivings about the plans currently on the table then influence the BoR and thus the outcome of the pending decison on them? Isn't it even remotely possible that in turn that truth could then stimulate the formation of a new plan, one more suited to our situation? The fact is if the union has no say than there is no need for Stamford Fire Truths and radio ads and banners and billboard trucks now is there? No one is union bashing, I'm simply pointing out inconsistencies. Maybe the union can't implement anything but it sure as hell can have a major influence what gets implemented, wouldn't you say? So yeah in the end the attitude is my way or the highway. Actions speak louder than words my friend and each of us have had the opportnity to act. In spite of all the statements made here and in the public about wanting to "work together" the actions of the union in regards to this whole situation have been loud and clear. If in your eyes pointing that out is union bashing than so be it. Cogs

I wouldn't expect that you would see the "BP" as being wrong, but if one "side" has that view of it then in fact it is, since we all must contribute to it's success. And that goes for the Mayor's plan as well. One weak link in either and both plans are wrong for Stamford. I believe that, when taking into account the realities of our circumstances, these plans could have merit, but there needs to be revisions to them both for them to actually work as intended No we may not be changing anything...yet. Our discussions on the merits (or lack thereof) of each and other options as well allow for an examination of all of them which in turn has the potential to change everything. Cogs

I have read the "BP" and based on that I do have issues with it...there is nothing personal or anti-union about those issues either. Can these concerns be addressed? Well I would hope so, but it has been up to this point that the union has supported the "BP" as it is and NOT even acknowldeged that it may well need revision before it can be implemented. So we are left with a "my way or the highway" proposition about working with SFRD...again. Funny that argument about having "no say" is much the same one many in 786 have about the Mayor's plan. Let's get down to brass tacks here shall we? Both plans are wrong for Stamford as they are, on that can we at least agree? So if that's the case then both the career side and the volunteers side need to step up and say "whoa this ain't right...neither one of these plans are gonna work boys, time to go back to the drawing board". It's been awfully quiet out there save for a few lone voices in saying that. At what point will the members here, career and volunteer, who freely voice their concerns about BOTH plans on this forum step up and speak up? I and a few others already have publically and in our Department meetings...have any of you? If the union truly does have concerns about the "BP" or believes that a combined form of both plans may be better then now is the time to speak up and do something about it...after all it is ALL of our futures and that of the public we all serve that are at stake. Cogs

While I see your point, from MY perspective I think one very important aspect of this situation is being lost. We, the Belltown Fire Dept, do provide a valuable and effective service to our community and the City, on this I think most will agree, but the simple fact is we can only continue to do that because the City Charter grants us that abilty. One of the key components of the "BP" is a Charter change eliminating the Vol. Fire districts. Now in and of itself this step is not necessarily an operationally bad thing per se, but as history has shown we do face the very real possibility of extiction should the Charter be changed... and with that our residents will lose. How so you might ask, and to that I will simply refer to the situation that began this mess. Malloy sought to withhold our funding and in effect starve us into submitting to what was a flawed plan on a number of levels. This attempt failed due to our legal right as Belltown's AHJ as granted by the Charter. Had that proviso not existed we would not be having this discussion. Unfortunaely the "BP" does not incorporate any specific means by which the volunteers, including Belltown, will be represented in terms of funding, operations or administration as they are under the Charter and it provides no means to redress any situation which may arise involving them. Without specific sageguards in place what's to stop another despot in a month, a year or a decade from cutting off the tap once again for any number of reasons having nothing to do with our operaional capabilities and forcing our demise? To me the risks to our residents and my department in aspects both financial and operational are just far too great to accept the "BP", which provides no such safeguards, as is. In effect as far as I'm concerned this is a matter of our very existence and the benefits that continued existence means for Belltown's residents. As I see it until such time as the BFD is either unable to provide a high standard of responsible, professional and committed service to our community or we are guaranteed representation at every level by binding agreement because of our ability to meet those standards, we must look for other alternatives while continuing to serve our district. Cogs

And here is my reply from that other site: You know where I stand on this whole situation...or at least I hope you do after 80+ pages... . And while I and many of my BFD colleagues stand by our beliefs we do not do so to the point we are unwilling to explore and accept other plausible and mutually beneficial options to better serve the public. While there is still a real divide I do believe that some of us, career and volunteer alike, have made great strides in respect to a willingness to at least listen to what other possibilities exist...and that's a far cry from the situation 3 years ago. And let me reiterate that for as long as I live and breathe I will do everything in my power to ensure that the BFD remains to serve the people of Belltown and beyond professionally, responsibly and to the level they deserve in a manner befitting our history. Cogs

Even though i do not support it in it's present form I agree that the "Brown plan" deserves a fair hearing and scrutiny...i have a few questions I'd love to ask...and from what I'm told it may very well get that opportunity. And quite honestly I wouldn't throw any of the plans away out of hand as they all have at least some points of merit...IMO anyway. But that said i also think that a better, far more suitable and jointly developed option lies just beyond the horizon that combines some new ideas with the best and most workable aspects of all the proposals brought before the Task Force. As best I can tell there will be no decision until some time next year,...it would be a shame to waste that time dwelling on what's wrong when we would all be much better served by buildiing on what's right.. And we don't need anyone's approval but our own to begin that process. Cogs

As far as the plans go, I can only say that i find fault with both current options. Whether or not the Mayor's plan will succeed is now up to the BoR, but in the event it doesn't IMO we should have an alternative in place other than the SFRD one. To do that requires a cooperative effort now. If there is no system in place looking for a compromise than we must create one...and in doing so show the public, which has been bombarded with nothing but tales of discord in THEIR fire service, that we all can work togerther for them. Cogs

As do I for the most part. The goal of a unified, standardized and integrated fire service in Stamford is one we should all be looking towards....it is the inability to compromise that has thus far obscured that vision. I may misunderstand you and if so I do apologize. The examples cited in my previous posts were just that examples. Obviously there will be certain aspects of unifiying that will be non negotiable from both perspectives. Things like involvement in labor issues. I don't think volunteers as a whole should be involved in any labor negotiations between the City and 786, other than to lend "moral support" to our union brothers. Conversely I don't think 786 et al. should be involved in any volunteer incentives negotiations either, again other than to lend that same moral support. But I do believe that most operational aspects should be developed by both sides since it will be both sides that will be providing the service. And while I'm fully aware that there will be differences of opinion in terms of what constitutes effective operations, in the end through the process of examining the merits or lack of them of each of the "sticking points" those tasked with integrating the services will come up with what works best for Stamford. To that end I would say everything should be on the table and open to objective scrutiny. I mean no disrespct when I say this but career firefighters do not have a monopoly on either concern for the public's welfare or the anwers on how best to provide for it. To build an effective combined system, the one the people of Stamford deserve, will take the combined efforts and knowledge, experience, dedication and desire of people from both sides of our fire service coin. To that end it would be in eveyone's best interest to keep the attitude of "we won't" to a minimum by keeping one of " we can and will" as the driving force from the outset. Cogs

Although I disagree if this is indeed a fact then they must remain seperate.

Then apparently you don't understand it. It should be niether the SFRD/Union way or the volunteer way...it should be...it MUST be...both. That you continue to see this as an us against them "battle" belies the fact that it is you who does NOT want to work together. With all due respect it seems that for many career members it must be their way or the highway just as it was under Malloy...remember him he's the guy who started all this. Unilateral action didn't work then and it can't work now if the public is to be served, why is that such a hard concept for some to grasp??? Cogs

Ahh yes CONTROL that is a major part of all this and always has been from the beginning...for both "sides" These are a very valid questions that unfortunately do not have simple yes or no answers. IMO in a nutshell, unless the volunteers are guaranteed representation in terms of command, training, SOP/G development, basically all operations and administration along with probably most importantly input into and guaranteed portions of the budget, I don't see how we could enter into an agreement. Would you work for the City without a labor contract? And if the volunteers go it will be the taxpayers who suffer no ifs, ands, or buts. Again IMO if we just relinquish "control" we will be left at the mercy of the City administration and that of SFRD and the union, all of whom it can be argued, have within their ranks cadres of individuals who want the volunteers gone. To use a modified version of a very old notion in our Country....no consolidation without representation. This is not about being anti-union, or putting the public last, far from it. This is about building a truly integrated service that benefit the community and, based on the outcome of similar "mergers" elsewhere, protecting ourselves and continuing to serve our neighbors. For both SFRD/union and their volunteer counterparts that means coming to terms with the fact that control must be shared by both "sides". For the volunteers that may mean things like more oversight, higher, standardized and more stringent training and response standards and an acceptance of SFRD personnel in "the house". For SFRD it may mean things like cross staffing and working in a command structure that incorporates volunteers at every level. There is of course much more to this than that and much work to be done in getting there, but I think you get the idea. Maybe it's time for some to wrap their heads around the idea of shared control, instead of keeping them planted so firmly up their collective as*ses. Stay Safe Cogs

16 year old EMTs has worked well in CT to the best of my knowledge and I see no reason why it wouldn't be so in NY as well . When it comes to firefighting on the other hand in CT 18 is them minimum age for FF I and II certifcation and thus interior operations. Now I joined at 16 in 1980 and went right to work so I really don't see age as a problem there so long as all the parental/legal permssions are in place. Unfortunaely the State Labor Board and OSHA see it dfferently and because of that I am now a advocate of 18 years as being the age to join a VFD in an active capacity. That said though I am a firm believer in Juniors or Cadet programs that are seperate, but complimentary for VFDs that keeps all training and activities of those under 18 within the legal framework while stll allowing tem to particpate. Cogs

Hey for once we actually agree on something.

The call volume I'm not certain of but I'm sure someone will chime in with that info. As for EMS I believe most if not all SFRD guys are EMTs and they are dispatched as first responders along with the VFDs where applicable, to all serious medical calls citywide save Long Ridge. Cogs

No nor should there be. Now I'm not saying Stamford's volunteers are where they should be, and no offense intended, but requiring by law that a City have a career dept because of it's size or population is tantamount to extortion. By that logic if a City's volunteer FD(s) are to be able to handle the needs of the City it wouldn't matter because the taxpayers would be forced to pay for a career service they don't need whether the want to or not. And conversely should there then be a law requiring Cities and Town with say 30,000 or less to have volunteers exclusively? Not very practical or prudent either way if you ask me. As a point of reference there is a well known all volunteer FD (except the Chief) that covers a City of about 150,000 near Houston TX and while I'll be the first to admit they are probably the exception rather than the rule I would bet my last dollar that the residents there are quite happy with that arrangement. Stay Safe Cogs

No more so than the notion of a "no cost" redistribution of SFRD resources. I'll grant that at the outset there will be no additional expenses for SFRD personnel, but there will be a cost, just not a monetary one. The cost will be to the residents of those areas affected by the redistribution of those apparatus and crews in the form of the inevitable reduction in service they will be recieving. It's easy to move fire trucks around a map and assure everyone there will be no change, but the fact is those moves will have an impact...a cost...they have to, unless of course those units are an unnecessary operational asset now. I find it impossible to believe that the disappearence of an aerial in the South end will not impact the service level there...or citywide for that matter as SFRD goes from 3 aerials with all their equipment to 2, not to mention the loss of those skilled and highly proficient truck crews as they move over to an Engine and are sent North to be replaced at least some of the time by an Engine Company acting as a Truck (and please don't try to tell me that an Engine crew is just as proficient at truck work as a dedicated Truck Company that performs those skills every day...that would be an insult to the truck guys at the very least, if not an outright lie). Then of course there is the issue of response times. Woodside would see an increase in the time, those critical few minutes with the fire doublng in size and severity for every one of them, that it takes an Engine Company to get to that now Engine deprived first due area from 1s 2s or 3s, even without traffic, there's no way around that fact. And it would be the same for those in the South End stuck waiting for a Truck (or Engine acting as Truck) Company from elsewhere to arrive that few potentially fatal minutes later than it would have taken if T-2 still existed. These are very real possibilities that need only happen once to cause an unnecessary or preventable tradgedy from occuring...is this not the same argument so often cited against volunteers? Will a paycheck prevent these lapses somehow? No I think not and as a result at least 32 of those hypothetical 40, along with their apparatus, will be needed in very short order to offset these deficencies and bring the level of service back to what it is now in those areas. So just as with the Mayor's plan there will be monetary cost increases with the Brown plan within the first few years as well to fix the operational deficiencies created by it's implementation. If you want to go on believing and propagating the fantasy that there won't be that's fine, but don't expect that others will blindly follow suit and not question the obvious...to do so is ludicrous and quite frankly as far as I'm concerned an insult to even the most marginally intelligent person. Stay Safe Cogs

We must be having a misconnect then because I have mentioned in just about every reponse that incentives would be tied to performance standards as this is a major and non negotiable component of my proposed solution to this debacle and has been since day one. While you may think I'm missing your point or misunderstand you the fact is I'm not and I don't. I get it...it is the volunteers who in your eyes would be the villians, but it is not quite so simple, nor should it be treated as such. While I realize that the Brown plan does not specifically call for the elimination of volunteers it seems you are missing my point on what is the liklely outcome should that plan be implemented and why. Like I mentioned earlier* it is not as simple as volunteers simply shirking their responsibility, there is far more to it than that...with all do respect, to think otherwise is not only niave but irresponsible. When considereing what the impact of such a momentous change would be we must consider all angles not just the ones that support our beliefs. The implemenation of this plan would be akin to trying to force a complete revision of SFRDs labor contract down the union's throat with provisions like no overtime, ever (a common practice in the business and corporate worlds with salaried employees), no sick leave, no paid vacation, and a drastic reduction in benefits and expecting the union to just accept it. Not a realistic expectation is it? What the Brown plan does for volunteers is viewed by many to be much the same, as is the reaction of the volunteers to it is much the same as would be the union's towards such unrealistic changes in their labor contract. *Here's an excerpt with some editing of an earlier response as a reminder of the why: Stay Safe Cogs

Then my friend I must again refer to you in jest as ye of short memory. While that may be so as the previous post explained the end result will most likely be no volunteers Fair enough hence if past practices are no longer working then new methods should be tried. Cogs

Incentive supported Volunteer night duty tours similar to those in use and successful in communities in MD, VA, PA, TX, NC, SC, AZ, CA, OR, WA, WI, and as well as the retained system in the UK and a few other I can't recall at the moment off the top of my head. Pay per call is one component of an overall program, Duty stipends, which requires a commitment to be in the FH for those scheduled tours,being another . Yes some may call it a "part time job" and maybe it is, but the bottom line here is that no current SFRD employees walk and the city is covered by a minimum of 4 personnel at each fire station 24/7 at a reasonable cost to the taxpayers. Agreed performance has to improve, but with an increased demand for performance must come the means to achieve it. Cogs

Here's the deal from my personal perspective. Niether plan adequately supports the volunteer sector and as such I am a vocal..maybe the most vocal...proponent for the development of a third cooperatively developed option that realistically addresses the needs of, perfrormance of, and costs of each sector and then integrates them wholly and in a mutually beneficial, representative and cost effective fashion to best serve the community we are all charged with protecting. The 40 additional SFRD personnel scenario was to illustrate what the bare minimum hypothetical costs of SFRD providing full citywide coverage might be, and how those same funds could be used to support and enhance the volunteer sector (in conjunction with the full integration of both sectors) in a more effective way. Cogs

I do believe the money would be better spent on volunteers and would achieve the kind of integration I have repeatedly advanced here. Why? Because the cost would be far less than the cost of the minimum 40 new SFRD personnel in question, in fact it would be less than the cost of one single career company, and that integration you seem to be concerned with is a key part of that program as well. Then maybe you do not understand that should the "Brown plan" be implemented there is the very real probability that there will be no more volunteers (or at best not an adequate number) or their attendant equipment, apparatus and properties within 3- 5 years for SFRD to rely on. What then? Only one option...raise taxes to hire and purchase more. So that hypothetical 2 million goes up even more very quickly indeed. And you can say all you want about a lack of dedication of volunteers that would quit because they "didn't get their way". But in light of the fact that under this proposed plan they would be left with no representation, no districts, no collective voice and would always come second in terms of budget ect. to the needs and demands of the union, with I might add no recourse to address such a situation, is there any wonder why. Plus as history has clearly shown, in most instances where this type of forced "integration" has occured the volunteer sector as an effective firefighting component has disappeared in relatively short order. The concern is very real one and it is so for valid and historically proven reasons. Hope this helps Cogs

Thanks I stand corrected.

Oh ye of short memory... My answer to integration is scrawled on page after page of this thread. And while yes there is no guarantee incentives will acheive the necessary volunteer numbers there are precedents that strongly suggest they will. Beyond that there is no guarantee that the theoretical bare bones minimum SFRD manpower will sufficiently cover either since it would still rely on volunteers for addtional Truck Co.ops and water supply, not to mention storm and disaster coverage as well...unless of course we're just going to call back career personnel every time there's a fire up north, a storm or other disaster thus adding to the overtime budget strain. Cogs

This is a response of mine from another site I bring over to stimulate our discussion here: While we're on the subject of theoretical augmentations to SFRD to cover "up North" I felt I should throw my two cents into the fray in terms of costs. As I see it to fully cover the entire City inclusive of the current VF districts would require the following bare bones minimum additions to SFRD: Long Ridge: 2 additional FF per staion per shift for a total of 16 2 ffs x 2 stations x 4shifts = 16 One additional Truck Company which, although I believe it would be pushing it, I'll keep within the Capt's parameter of "back-up rescue tools could be accommodated to any Truck Company". That's another 16 4 ffs x 4 shifts = 16 plus another Deputy and their aide that's another 8 2 ff x 4 shifts = 8 So at a bare minimum we're looking 40 additional personnel. For the purposes of this discussion and simplicity's sake I'll keep it to just new FF salary even though the fact is the price tag would be substantially higher with Company officers depending on rank and the Deputy/aide. I'll also throw in the rigs and stations at no cost, we'll just assume that these personell will be riding existing rigs out of exisiting VF stations to simplify it even further: A first year SFRD FF makes a base salary of just over $48,000 annually but we'll just round off to 48K for simplicity again to illustrate the point. 48,000 x the standard 30%($14,400) in benefits = $62,400 annually. Ok so $62,400 x 40 = $2,496,000 but as we all know the actual number is substantially higher. The point here is, that absolute bare minimum of $2,000,000 plus could be used to fund a number of programs to recruit and retain volunteers while mainaining SFRDs current ranks...it then becomes a matter of distributing those career and volunteer personnel effectively to best serve the needs of the community as a whole. Everyone knows my theory on how best to achieve that, but there is still a window of opportunity (at least hypothetically) to explore others...give it your best shot based on the $2,496,000. Take care Stay Safe and Happy Holidays Cogs