FFPCogs

If implemented quite alot will change actually. SFRD will no longer be present anywhere outside of their current fire district (which includes Glenbrook for the foreseeable future, but who knows). No more Engines 7, 8 and 9 in Vollywood. As for as responses go I believe there will be some automatic mutual responses along the district lines but beyond that it will be SFRD downtown and SVFD up North exclusively unless special called. This is how the northern resident will see a tax reduction while those downtown will see an increase. Since they will no longer be paying for SFRD in North Stamford those costs will then have to be absorbed by the downtown residents or cuts made to SFRD. So yeah there's quite a bit of change afoot regardless of what plan is finally decided upon. Cogs

A very good question to which I can only specualte the following 1) Not all members are interested in a full time paid position, in fact for many such a move would be financially irresponsible 2) Not all members will pass any written exam and will therefore be ineligible. But let me clarify that not passing a written civil service exam does not preclude one for being a volunteer firefighter so long as they are capable of passing the State certification process to become EMTs and FF2. Some are just not good test takers as the thousands who do not get hired onto career depts because they were unable to pass a written civil service exam shows. If memory serves SFRD does have a history of hiring some with dismally low written test scores by the way. 3) As far as I understand it the process will be an open competetive one in which out of town applicant will be involved. So again even if all Stamford volunteers were to take the test the odds that all will pass above the hundreds if not thousands from out of town that also take the exam are extremely remote at best. 4) Another possibility is that the hirings will be based off of the civil service exam of last year. If that is the case there are many many current violunteers that did not even take that test therefore they won't be hired 5) Most importantly a ongoing concerted and well supported recruitment and retention effort should increase the ranks if the programs of other successful departments are followed Under the SFRD plan there will no longer be any seperate fire diistricts, only one. I have seen mention here earlier that "everyone' want one Chief, one department. Ok fair enough. To achieve that will require concessions from each "side" regardles of what process achieves that result since no one wants another GFD situation. It was mentioned earlier that Chief Brown "did NOT say no" to volunteers riding citywide, so in an effort to clarify the personal opinions of the L-786s members who contribute here that will vote on any of those concessions, (including volunteers riding out citywide), I will ask the following questions of my esteemed colleagues from SFRD: 1) Do YOU support allowing volunteers to ride on every rig from every station citywide when scheduled and certified to the FF2 and EMT (or other specialized level such as Recue or HazMat tech)? 2) Do you support the addition of volunteer staffing as a means to offset personnel costs and thus save taxpayers money? 3) Do you support equal standards for all personnel and for all ranks? 4) If so above, do you then support working under volunteer officers since they will have met the same requirements? 5) Do you support integrated training under certified volunteer training oficers? 6) Do you support the complete integration of the career and volunteer sectors in terms of the administation and decision making process? 7) How far are YOU personally willing to go to help create a truly integrated combination fire department to better serve our City? I've answered all of your questions, now I look forward to your answers . Cogs

The plan recognizes the career minimums that those who created it accept as viable, anything above and beyond that will be decided upon as we progress. But it is a safe bet to assume there will be a mix of career and volunteer staffing at least to some degree in some if not all stations. Cogs

Apparently for the time being yes, but it is my understanding that once implemented next year SFRD's presence up North will be drastically reduced to an as needed basis. That remains to be seen, but you are of course entiltled to your opinion. Obviously I hope you are wrong, but should you be correct I can assure you some of us will be at the head of the line in working to correct any deficiencies that may arise. Again that remains to be seen. GFD on the other hand is NOT what some at SFRD tout it to be and that is simple fact. The article outlining GFDs "success" was entertaining to say the least especially the comments about GFD volunteers regularly riding out on E-6. Either someone is dreaming or lying when putting forth that information. To me trying to force feed that "model" to the public is no different to me than your assertion that the Mayor's plan of "smoke and mirrors" will be forced. Shortcoming abound regardless of which "plan" you believe is best, but with the agreement to merge the course of my FD has been set. As a dedicated member I will support it to the best of my ability while, if possible, trying to improve upon that which I believe needs improvement. Cogs

Under the proposed staffing guidelines that may be correct as they are the minimum, but it is entirely possible that those staffing guidelines will be subject to change based on the availibility of guaranteed, scheduled volunteer staffing. Alternate guidelines remain a possibility and have recieved a number of modifcations to allow for 4 man staffing in each station 24/7. As has been said before this will be a work in progress and as such little is cast in stone at the moment. If or when some of the other programs associated with recruitment and retention bear fruit it is even more likely that residents of North Stamford will actuially see an increase in staffing per rig to 6 or multiple units staffed per station to better serve them. Given continued supprt from 888 the residents of North Stamford will see a far greater return for their investment than they have in the past or would with the proposed SFRD plan. Cogs

And you rightly deserve it.

The department response numbers I'm sure are readily available through dispatch records. As for NIFRS, well that takes a little more doing, but I believe an FOI request can probably yield the information you seek. Agreed. There is much work to be done, and I for one will do all I can to see a successful outcome that benefits the community first. You can believe that or not, but above all else that IS my motivation. Cogs

Come now. Yes I was at that meeting, but there was no commitment from SFRD on volunteers riding out of every station citywide as an integral part of the system. My recollection is that we were told that particular point required union approval. On to exam points, yes a 5 point bonus on SFRD tests was offerred but 5 points on EVERY civil service test was not. Why because that would allow people who recieve 5 points on a garbage collector or police officers test to remain an active volunteer firefighter. On the other hand, as we all are well aware, once hired by SFRD with those 5 points one's abilty to volunteer as an active firefighter disappears. As far as other incentives go such as tax breaks, LOSAP, stipends and the like, all have met with vehement protests right here on this very site and thread, among other places, as turning volunteers into paid staff. Fact is the LAW allows for certain incentives while maintaining volunteer status. Just because that may have a negative affect on filling potential future but currently non-existent paid positions does not mean that we as an organization should not pursue them. And if in fact there was a serious consideration by SFRD to enhace the volunteer sector then they would be embraced. There has been no copmromise on these plain and simpe even though some do have a proven track record of success in increasing volunteer ranks....or in other words as an incentive to join and stay. What about integrated command? Cross staffing.?..well to be fair Chief Brown did at one point say this was possible, but again it would be contingent upon union approval...the very same union that specifically cites LRFCo, ToR, SFCo and BFD as rivals by the way. I'm not so sure everyone agrees that there should be one Chief, but I ceratinly do given the right conditions. And it is here that the true colors are shown. There are some of us that have called for an INTEGRATED command comprised of both career and volunteer officers and Chiefs. Again and again and even with the stipulation that all must meet the same criteria and standards as well as take the same exams there has been no acceptance by SFRD or L-786. Why? Who is it that really wants control? To be "in charge"? So much so that they are unwilling to help create an integrated system, a true combination system that utilizes such an approach? I can say with 100% confidence it is not the VFDs. therefore it must be SFRD and L-786. This option, this real step towards a middle ground, has been repeatedly brought forth and rejected. Why? Why can't we work towards a one chief department by starting with 2 (or 3) instead of the curent six and go from there? As you say this will be a work in progess, and from 6 to 2 is a realistic approach under the circumstances and truly is progress. Why the resistance? Cogs

What is truly amazing is that anyone would question why GFD is being singled out based on their performance. As much as some may want to divert attention away from the truth, the fact is it is GFD that is a problem, not the "model" solution some espouse it to be. As has become readily apparent to anyone with eyes, GFD under the tuteledge and supervision of SFRD has become a completely non functional organization. Yet even in the face of such a blatant example of failure it is still held in high regard by some as the model for our future. Sorry but that is a future we don't want, nor do many on the Board of Representatives or the public. This is evidenced by the fact that even under the unrelenting assault by L-786 and the previous administration no Charter change or specific ordinances were passed to abrogate the status of the VFDs. Why do you think that is? Because a clear example of what lies ahead under the SFRD plan is staring everyone right smack in the face in the form of GFD no matter how much smoke, mirrors or wiindow dressing some have tried to obscure the truth with. Besides Stamford Fire Lies.com and some members of L-786 have done a marvelous job of relating the response numbers of the other VFDs (sans BFD's 100% of course) to the public, the Board of Reps and the contributors here so there was no need for me to cite them yet again. Chirp chirp Cogs

Yes it's always the vol;unteers that create problems isn't it? Why it's a well known fact that Stamford's VFDs (sans GFD of course) specifically cite SFRD as a rival organization. Oops sorry I got that backwards. it's L-786 aka SFRD's membership that regards the volunteers as rivals. And of course such a view would never carry over into the interactions between the career and volunteers in their firehouses now would it? Tell me just how wiilling is SFRD to work with the volunteers to create a true combination system in such areas as an integrated command system? Alternate staffing options? Cross staffing apparatus? Volunteers riding ALL SFRD apparatus in every station? Volunteer incentives, or as many like to mislable them, compensation? Seems to me willingness to work together has to be a two way street if it's to be successful and BETTER. Unfortunately as of yet I have neither seen nor heard of any aquiesciences on the part of SFRD to any of these or other such ideas. Or maybe I'm mistaken because such an unwillingness to compromise on the part of SFRD would never happen now would it?

The numbers don't lie. GFD does not respond to the vast majority of their calls no matter what kind of window dressing one wants to put on them as a "model" VFD. That's not my fault that's just how it is. As far as the responses of the other VFDs go, well I can really only speak for one of them which, as most already know, has responded to 100% of their calls and more often than not returns SFRD units to service since sufficient staffing is on hand to handle the majority of our calls. But even if the others are lacking in numbers they do at least respond with far greater regularity than the "model" GFD. Personally I don't think the taxpayers would want to fund four more such "models" of efficiency. It's quite possible that they may yet call for a better accounting of GFDs purpose based on such a low return on their investment. Regardless, with things now progessing there will be changes coming which I'm sure some will not take well to. Cogs

In fact I'm 7000 miles away back working in the sandbox my friend, much to your dismay I'm sure, so news comes to me via a variety of sources including little birdies.

I believe CTFF is closer to what a little birdy told me was in the works for later today. As for Glenbrook, well it's wonderful to read that such a good "working" relationship has developed from their situation. Unfortunately with a response record of only 12% of their dispatched calls, one has to wonder just how much work they are actually doing. That record by the way is one that is far worse then even the most abysmal response from the other much mailgned VFDs in town. Frankly many tend to see Glenbrook and it's relationship with SFRD as more akin to that of a "puppet regime" to it's master. They have been repeatedly touted as the "model" VFD to support the SFRD vision for Stamford's future. With that 12% as a model is it any wonder the others have chosen a different route. Cogs

As expected I tend to see the term advice differently, or maybe it is wording which states that the BoR can change it with 2/3 majority WITH the advice of Chiefs. of both SFRD and each VFD district affected. My understanding is that the term "with" when used in this context usually denotes a requirement. And quite frankly if all that was needed was a 2/3 majority or enacting an ordinance this would have been settled long ago. But as our former mayor found out the fact is the VFDs have to agree to ANY changes to their districts. Events should begin to move now as there is an announcement pending today about this. We'll see. Cogs

Excellent advice above B, hopefully they will be able to follow it.. Cogs

I will revisit what I stated above earlier in the thread. In the end progress, be it consolidation, hiring, mutual aid ect ect ect only happens when the majority of the membership of the department(s) are on board with the necessary changes. There is no such thing as a one man fire dept therefore while a Chief may have the greatest, most practical and ultimately best plan for the public safety, if the members don't support it it ain't gonna happen. This goes for career and volunteer FDs alike. Case in point: I can think of at least 3 all career or combo depts off the top of my head that brought in outside Chiefs, new thinkers, to "progress" their depts in which that Chief ended up resigning or not re-signing their contract. Why? Because the career staff did not suppport the changes called for. This lack of support ranged from "blue flu" to union intervention to outright refusal to enact the policies to "prove" the changes didn't work. This is even more evident in the volunteer sector where members vote with their feet. If 1/2 or 3/4 of a dept quit or simply refuse to follow the program what then. All the tough talk in the world about how the fire service is paramilitary, and "let em go if they don't want to follow the program" blah blah blah doesn't solve the problem of a dept that can no longer function without it's membership.....i.e.the people that will actually have to do the work of all those great theories. Change is a process and one that relies on the willingness of those who will actually do the work to do it. Force feeding doesn't work especially in the volunteer sector. Those that have been successful in incorporating changes and making them stick are depts that have the majority of the membership firmly behind those changes. To get those who will do it behind the theory IS the process and that takes alot of dedicated work, perseverance and a good salesman. In my travels to find solutions to Stamford's mess there has been a recurrent theme. Those that have been successful in addressing their shortcomings have been so because the core members and the members that have earned the respect of their fellows have sided with the need for change and supported the efforts. This, in my experience, is how long lasting and successful change happens. Cogs

This is absolutely true. The public in general wants the most for the least of their tax dollars and since most people seldom if ever think about the Fire Department until they need them, convincing them to pay more of their hard earned money to pay more firefighters is an extremely tough sell at best. And of late we have seen a dramatic upsurge in anti-union, all unions, sentiment nationwide which would further complicate a drive for more $$$$$ to pay more firefighters that most of the public does't think really work all that hard to begin with since they rarely need them. Cutbacks are the order of the day and volunteers even if inconsistent or expensive are precieved to be cheaper than an all paid force for something most people think they will never need. There's also the numbers game. Putting yourself in John Q. Public's shoes think of it like this, he drives down the street past the local volly house and see 6 big shiny red rigs that he helped pay for sitting in the bays ready to roll. Now you tell him that you're going to put one rig with 4 guys that have to be paid with more of his tax dollars there in it's place. Which do you think he'll choose? Perception is 99% of the story regardless of the facts, so in fact it falls on the VFD (or fire district) itself to request and then sell the notion of this additional money for personnel to provide an adequate level of service to Mr. Public. For that to happen the volunteer's concerns, needs and circumstances must be taken into account, otherwise it's a losing battle since as with most things in life money talks and Mr. Public doesn't want to spend any more of his on us Cogs.

Yes there are indeed many creative options out there, but with all due respect it is not only the Chiefs that must embrace them. This type of cultural change also relies on the the rank and file to enact and carry out those changes, especially in VFDs where members often vote with their feet. As most are well aware and as CTFF has pointed out, this dilema is not confined to Westchester by any means. And just as that is so, so to is it that those aforementioned creative option do exist for those that are willing to look for them. It has been my experience that when those who have let the problem develop try to "fix" it they often fall back on what they know and refuse to look outside their box. It really is rare for progressive thinking to just pop up in the established order, Stamford (on all "sides") being a case in point (as sixty plus pages of another thread amply attest to). It takes a determined and unrelenting drive by committed members to move things forward from within, but for those with the stomach and perseverance the struggle is usually well worth the effort. If you believe that change is necessary than you must fight for it, but in doing so you must also be prepared for the assault you will most assuredly endure from those who remain stuck in the status quo or those seeking to push their own agendas. Cogs

RIP FF Esposito. Condolences to the family and Baldwin FD. Cogs

Great cause. These men, my father (RIP) and all my uncles among them, were and are indeed the greatest generation. They fought and died the world over so that we can live the lives we do and for that they deserve our most heartfelt and sincere thanks. THANK YOU to all who served in World War II. Cogs

Progress is here: Tradition is here:

Well again I find myself shaking my head in disbelief. In yet another sign of the impending apocalypse I find myself in almost total agreement with one of my usual nemesis on these boards.... Chief all joking aside and the comment about the myth of volunteers saving money notwithstanding, I too think that a move towards a retained system would be a benefit, not only to the public we serve and the coffers of those communities, but also to the dedicated men and women that engage in firefighting as a second career (and yes for many volunteers that is exactly what their service amounts to). Of course such a move, while looking good on paper, would entail some major changes to the culture to which most of us are accustomed, but in the end I believe the results would be well worth the effort and expense. Who knows maybe others on both sides of the career/volunteer divide will see the wisdom of such an endeavor. Cogs

'200 years of tradition unimpeded by progress". Many of us are familiar with this phrase and most I'm sure can apply it to at least one aspect of their FD. Without doubt tradition is a powerful force within the American Fire Service. It can act as a catalyst for progress or in some cases, as an impediment to it. To me there are some traditions, some inviolate cornerstones, born at the inception of organized fire protection in this country, that are in fact the very foundation on which our service rests. Things like putting those we serve above ourselves, courage, honor, dedication and the desire to do our duty in spite of the obstacles. The noblilty of what we do and all that makes it possible is rare indeed in the world today and that is a tradition that thankfully has withstood the passage of time and changes to society. But when tradition impedes progress, when the steadfast refusal to "get with the times" causes a FD to stagnate, it is not only a disservice to those we serve but dangerous. For many "we've always done it that way" suffices because it is comfortable...that is until tradgedy strikes. Change...progress...is always difficult because it takes people out of the known, out of their comfort zone, and beyond that the call for change, for "progress", usually implies that something is wrong...and who among us likes to be told they are wrong. As with most things in life the trick is to find a balance between what works and what needs to change. Technology will always evolve and that progression will ultimately create changes in tools, tactics and our knowledge of the enemy. For some the ability to get on board with these "new" tangibles is not always easy, or practical, but it is almost universally inevitable. And this is how is should be. But with these new tangibles of tools, tactics and training comes a responsibility to not let them overtake or undermine the traditions that have made us who and what we are. Progress should never eclipse the intangilbles of courage, honor and dedication that make the American fireman what he is at his core. For each of us and our FDs progress should strive to find the balance that best suits our needs and more importantly those of our community. Neither progress or tradition should be allowed to impede the ability of us to effectively do our duty, for it is both when in balance that allows us to do it well. Cogs

While not an expert on the subject by any means I do know that many European countries rely on volunteer fire services especially in smaller communities and rural areas. Germany, Austria, France. Italy, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Finland, Russia, Ukraine, Hungary, Romania and I think Sweden all have active volunteer fire services that operate in much the same way as it is here. And if I'm not mistaken there are some combimation systems as well in these countries. The UK is another matter entirely and their retained system is unique. That system grew out of the needs imposed by WW2 and the Blitz, and while it has been modifed and problems have arisen over the years, it has and continues to serve the UK well. Cogs

Welcome to Afghanistan. These types of "firehouses" are the norm on most bases over there including the one I worked at, Camp Leatherneck. The only problem is Ringling Bros. wants them all back by summer... Cogs