FFPCogs

Have we really become that much of a nation of whiners and publicity hounds that even an event as justified as the elimination of an avowed terrorist and virulently anti-American murderer causes some to be "offended" and get on the news? Let's put this in perspective There are some upset because his codename was Geronimo. It's just a commonly used phrase and well known name, easily recognizble by everyone, not an anti Native American slur. Do people really have that much free time on their hands that they can sit and dwell on the meaning of a code name? C'mon get real will ya and go find something better to complain about. Now an even hotter topic, whether or not he was armed...WHO CARES!!! Did this hero of so many radical Islamic murderers care whether or not the thousands he has or had murdered were armed or could defend themselves? NO he didn't, as a matter of fact he relied on the fact they weren't and preyed on the innocent just as all terrorists do. A clean quick kill for this coward is almost too good an end to this waste of human flesh. I'm quite sure many of us would have liked to have seen a much slower and excruciatingly painful demise for this "leader". To those that have a problem with the manner of his death, get over it and be thankful it was quick and he wasn't given a more fitting final few years of suffering. And now on to his burial at sea. Again he was afforded much more respect than he ever gave to any one of his victims. Did he care that thousands were simply obliterated at Ground Zero, with no trace for the familes? NO again he counted on that. So he sleeps with the fishes, big deal. He got his immediate burial of his cleaned corpse as is Muslim custom, he got much more respect than he ever gave others or deserved. Stop whining and rejoice that he is DEAD, DEAD DEAD just as he shoud be. And finally for all those who see his rightful removal from the face of the earth this as an increase in the risk that we, as Americans, face in this world...WAKE THE HELL UP!!!!. Osama bin Laden did not invent anti Americanism, radicalism or terrorism, he only benefited and gained notoriety from them. His death will have no great impact on the desire of those radical and militant elements in this world that want to harm us. To Osama bin Laden GOOD RIDDANCE SCUMBAG and MAY YOU ROT IN HELL FOR ALL ETERNITY Remain vigilant America and remember freedom is not free. Thank you Obama Thank you SEAL team six and all that serve our nation in the Military And God Bless America Cogs

Having seen firsthand the effects of bin Ladens handiwork and "inspiration" both here at home and abroad, I can tell you that to me it doesn't matter one iota if he was armed or not or even if they were weapons within a hundred miles of him, he got what he deserved. Now it's time to go down the list and give the rest of his associates a nice strong dose of the same lethal medicine. The sooner they're all DEAD the better and the sooner the terrorists of the world will learn the lesson that you DON'T F#%K WITH THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA and live. I guess I'm too much of a hawk but to me, no cost is too great and no time passage too long to dole out the justice deserved to terrorists. As far as I'm concerned no mercy should be shown until the last fetid corpse of those who seek to do us harm is rotting in a festering worm and rat infested hole somewhere. Like the Israelis after Munich, no rest until those responsible have paid their due in full to the souls of those they murdered. Cogs

It has been reported that past Chief Robert Bennett of the Long Ridge Fire Company in Stamford passed away this morning. Unfortunately no further information is available at this time. My condolences to the family and LRFCo members Cogs

His body is going to be "disposed of", hopefully by scavenging animals or better yet put it in a pig sty and let them have at it.. Maybe he can't eat pork but I'm sure the pigs would enjoy the scrawny bearded feast. In the end there will be no grave, no tomb, no martyrs shrine...no physical trace that this scumbag ever existed and that too is justice. The end to Osama bin A-hole is not the end, but mearly a step on the road to destroying those who seek to harm us. God bless the U.S. military and a hearty Thank you for a job well done. Onward boys to victory!!!! I hope every American wakes up and supports the efforts to make our world and nation safe. We must remain vigilant. We are at war and every American is a part of it whether they like it or not. We didn't start it but by God as history has shown we WILL finish it. Bin Laden got his, now let us not rest until the rest get theirs. Cogs

I hope his 70 virgins are all men and he "recieves" what he deserves for eternity.

Thanks for the mention G but our "plan" is not under consideration.....yet. Point of fact: different schedules yes, but same pay for all plus promotions for some. Cogs

I think Chief Brown did a great job of presenting SFRD's vision of the future for Stamford's Fire Service, but it was not a knock out punch by any means. Along with the info requested by the BoR there are some other points that need further clarification such as: the disposition of the VFD fire districts which in the original version were to be eliminated the expected differences in response times once units are moved the costs involved should other facilities be required union endorsement or lack thereof volunteer participation in developing all aspects of operations and others. Personally I don't think either plan currently on the table is a sure thing. To that end maybe, as Rep Pia suggested, all the Chiefs will end up in a room and not leave until another mutually acceptable plan has been developed. Or maybe another option will yet be presented to the BoR for their consideration. I guess only time will tell. Cogs

You're looking in the wrong place Just a few points on that option: 1) There are aspects that are not fully covered, such as the pay figures. We were not able to get all the info on SFRD benefits and overtime when it was compiled, but the base salary info was taken directly from the CBA, page 44 I believe. 2) The "plan" has been reviewed by a number of outside parties, including Fire Science staff and students at UNH and regional FD personnel. While it needs work (something which we who compiled it stated from the outset) all have found it to be a viable plan overall and a good foundation for the future. 3) As was stated at the task Force meeting and as is indicated within the material, it was and is a foundation on which to build and includes a reasonable and more importantly realistic time frame of implementation. 4) Presently there are some revisions underway which address current developments. BTW the offer still stands for you or anyone to sit down and examine it in it's original form since you find it so interesting. We welcome further scrutiny as this will allow us to modify the content to better reflect the situation as it now stands as opposed to 2 years ago when it was originally compiled. Cogs

All I can say to this is that most involved have a much better understanding of the situation than you may think. Kool aid aside, the closer one looks at what's been proposed the clearer the picture becomes. Cogs

Well I think we both can agree that we won't be seeing that anytime soon. If in fact we can do nothing than we must ride the rollercoaster to it's end while doing our best to provide for those we are here to serve. I guess this will go the way it's going to go then. Whatever happens and contrary to the popular belief of some I, like you, am here to serve and regardless of the outcome I will continue to do so to the best of my ability. I do believe that this sentiment is shared by all who are firefighters here. Cogs

I have said that I disagree with a few elements of the current plan, and what those elements are are no secret, but be that as it may the Mayor's plan IMHO is still far better than the other alternative presently on the table and thus I will continue to defend it. As for getting together, well, read back a few pages or many of them in fact and you will see that I have put that offer out here many many times in the past only to be told "we can't go against City hall" or " we can't go against our admin on the 3rd floor" or "we can't go against our union". Well if that's the case who is going to get together then? A great plan would be a great plan no matter where it came from or who from each "side" put it together would it not? I will repeat a sentiment I shared with a SFRD Captain and put here quite some time ago, and one I still believe is possible. I can envision the day when we all, career and volunteer alike, stand shoulder to shoulder instead of toe to toe. Unfortunately it seems I am a minority of one who believes that scenario to be possible. Cogs

Copies were provided at the task force meetings...ask around a little farther. Otherwise PM me and I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you or anyone interested at a mutually acceptable time and place.

That all depends on how one looks at it. For some it could just be that they believe that the Mayor's plan is the best one at this time, not that the VFDs are favored. Not much different than it was with SFRD a few years ago under Malloy. I must say it seems to me that sour grapes have led to a massive increase in hypocrisy on this issue. Cogs

Thank you. On that note and just to reiterate I do hope you realize that I do not speak for my department, the vounteers or anyone else when conversing here. Oh and before I forget...to allay some of the fears some may have on such a development rest asured that I already meet the standards I so often call for in others, such as Instructor I, Health and Safety Officer, Incident Safety Officer and Fire Officer I and II along with various others from the DoD On to the meat of your post: Just as I was taught by good ole Mom, I didn't say two wrongs make a right , what I said was that some should practice what they preach Cogs

Well see here's another big problem for those who are short of memory. When the previous administration force fed it's plan to the VFDs and then withheld their operating budgets to attempt to force compliance any dissenting opinions of that abomination were silenced or dismissed out of hand....that is until a judge ruled. Why should dissenting voices be heard now when any dissention was inappropriate then? And for those who think the Brown plan is the answer remember that is a matter of opinion at this point, nothing more. Meaningful changes can take place and would be much more meaningful if they were agreed to by all parties involved through compromise. Trying to determine what will be the best overall solution is what some of us are trying to accomplish. As far as a side by side...that side by side comparison already happened and a choice was made. Again just as with the actions of Malloy why won't some here do what they demanded of the VFDs then...buck up and deal with it. Cogs

With all due respect and I mean that sincerely, there is no probably about it. And yes while you did not say the volunteers are "wrong" in so many words that is the insinuation of much of what has been said and written. In some respects yes, I suppose our legal standing could be considered a "bargaining chip", but for that to matter there has to be willing partners to bargain with. In another respect one could say that the "bargaining chip" is currently being used by the fact that the VFDs are excercising their legal authority to merge and are therefore possibly infuencing the outcome. Again the same coud be said of the SFRD and Union leaderships. What steps have they taken to show that they are "seriously interested in definitively solving the matter" with, not in spite of the VFDs? And I am well aware of the process for a Charter revision and in no way use that as an excuse. The fact is a 2/3 majority can be a difficult thing to achieve and harder still when there is no unity shown by the parties affected on what that change will entail or ultimately cost. Here again I know for a fact that offers have been made by the VFDs to sit down and discuss a compromise of the "control" issues. Those offers have gone unanswered and the same response forthcoming, SFRD must be in control period. There is another aspect to this when talking about control. The VFDs are not seeking control or a role, they don't need to...they already have it legally. It is the other "side" that seeks to change that fact. It has been stated many times by various members of the volunteer sector that the idea of standardized requirements is not a new one nor is it one the volunteers are opposed to. In fact that will be the case once the 4 become 1. But for that standardization to work the volunteer officers must be an integral part of the command structure of whatever department(s) emerge, not just in "control" of volunteer personnel only. Equal standards equate to equal responsibility do they not. I agree that there must be compromise but that must come from both ends. Thus far it hasn't. Cogs

I don't blame the rank and file, nor do I think any of them asked for this. And I have maintained all along that it was Malloy's ill concieved merger plan that started this. But there are some questions that have gone unanswered which maybe can be addressed here. 1) When or where did the SFRD and Union administrations sit down with their volunteer counterparts in regards to this mess since 2008? 2) What if anything came out of those meetings? 3) What negotiated and mutually acceptable initiatives were implemented from those discussions? Or even passed along to the City Administration for consideration? 4) Who among the SFRD or Union leaderhips publically protested the previous Mayor's plan, it's violation of the Charter or advised against the chosen course of action as they are doing now with our current Mayor? 5) If they didn't fight the mayor then because he was the Mayor and their boss, why is it ok to do so now? 6) Why was a plan that put SFRD firefghters in every firehouse in town, included promotions and new hires, ensured all employees retained their jobs and pay scales and integrated career and volunteers in every facet of this City's fire protection (with little or no cost increase) dismissed by both the SFRD admin and the Union? and 7) At what point did the $500,000 in overtime savings which was the stated reason for the merger and mitigating factor in it's implementation cease to be important to both the SFRD and Union leaderships? Regardless of rank or affiliation there is an old adage which applies here: "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" We, all of us, can either be part of the problem or part of the solution, the choice is ours to make. And we make that choice through our actions or lack of them as well as our words. Cogs

Fair enough. Sorry if i misinterpreted your query. Couldn't the same be said of SFRD? Why is it that the volunteers are wrong in this and we should "be the bigger person"? We did not start this nor have we been unwilling to work on a compromise. And let's be clear in that volunteers do work for the community and do so for far less than our career counterparts which in and of itself is also a benefit to the community. I am sorry but I do not and will not subscribe to the belief that only career firefighters have the insight necessary to solve his mess and that as volunteers we should "be the bigger person". IMO this can only work if both "sides" take the public into acount first..over districts, control, jobs or whatever. Cogs

In what sense? If you are referring to the recent letter written by a TOR Chief, in which he expresses his views? Well that is no different than a website devoted entirely to undermining the public's confidence in ALL volunteers in Stamford by "enlightening" them to the "truth". Or could you be referring to the constant derision put upon anyone that disagrees with the notion that SFRD must be the sole command authority in all matters fire related in Stamford? Because there is in place a legal framework in the form of the City Charter and each VFDs State Charter that have been dismissed and ignored repeatedly throughout this situation. A point proven by a judge's ruling. That the Charter would change to reflect any negotiated outcome is not the issue, that SFRD has repeatedly ignored the Charter as it now stands in dealing with the VFDs is. The conditions are that the VFDs are here, they are the legally recognized AHJs by both the City and the State of their delineated districts and any changes to those districts must have the approval of the VFDs to proceed. This is the current legally authorized and recognized process by which TRFD, SFCo, LRFCo and BFD are working towards a merge and which SFRD has sought and continues to seek to abrogate: ab·ro·gate verb \ˈa-brə-ˌgāt\ ab·ro·gat·ed ab·ro·gat·ing transitive verb 1: to abolish by authoritative action : annul 2: to treat as nonexistent Until such time as the Charter is changed by a 2/3 majority vote, (a lengthy and unpredictable process itself), and whether or not I or anyone agrees with the process that's in place the fact is it IS the legal process by which change must happen. Therefore IMO and as I have said many times before there can be a solution that benefits all...FDs, the City and most importantly the community... only when SFRD abides by the rules as they are to change them to what they could be. Cogs

Thank you for the response. As I was sure was the case for all intents and purposes we are in agreement on about 90-95% of what needs to be done. It is the other 5 -10% that calls for negotiation. And you are right that much of this is out of our hands, but we both, as members of our organizations (you 786 and me BFD) have a say within our meetings. Maybe there are others that agree but have hitherto been reluctant to come forward. All change starts with a few that see the need and work despite of the obsatcles to make it so. Cogs

My understanding is that the participation level is down since the arrival of E-6 and that is what i base my opinions on. FYI that comes from some older members of that FD.

I didn't blame SFRD for Glenbrooks ills in the sense that there is a policy to discourage volunteer particpation, nor do I in any way think SFRD is big and bad, but the fact remains that since the introduction of Engine 6 there has been a dramatically negative effect on their participation. I do not know the reasons for that either, but as you speak to them maybe you could find out. In terms of Belltown, I cannot and will not speak for other members but I can assure you that I will remain regardless of what happens. In case you haven't noticed like a rash I'm not that easy to get rid of.... You are right, but I have been told that one of the deal breakers in 2008 was the SFRD demand that the BFD hall be turned over to create living quarters for the SFRD paid staff. Upon a little research this claim was backed up by a number of different sources in and out of Belltown. How is that making it a house we can all take pride in? I personally would be fine with SFRD in house so long as they understand that due to the schedules of volunteers there are people in and out at all hours...which of course for members is their right, they don't seek to dictate the policies or operations of that house or it's members, and they are wiling to abide by a unified chain of command which includes volunteer officers of all ranks. Well as was already mentioned for BFD and TOR at least, the previous administration at 888 made a unilateral decision in violation of the Charter. Specific to TOR is the same tactic in regards to the 1999 management agreement. Let me just clarify something at this juncture. I have absolutley no personal issues with SFRD or it's members and as best as I can tell neither does anyone else for the most part. We work well together on a regualr basis and at least on my end will continue to do so come what may. The problems for me arise from the constant unrelenting bashing of volunteers, and what IMO is the official unwillingness to negotiate in good faith from a clean slate to integrate the services under the conditions and legal framework that exist. Now we've gone back and forth with the point - counter-point for quite some time and come full circle. As I've said repeatedly I am fully aware of your concerns and those of other SFRD members, and even if I don't fully agree with them I respect them. I have respectfulIy addressed your and their concerns as best I can and directly answered every question put to me as to how best to proceed. Unfortunately IMO I do not seem to have been afforded the same respect in return which is part and parcel of what I''ve been saying is one of the stumbling blocks. So I will ask once again : From your point of view what points are open for negotiation or are common ground? Cogs

The demands all center on the reduction of the VFDs and their personnel to support functions. Call it control if you wish but the fact is the previous administration (and one could argue SFRD) have disregarded the legal and duly authorized Charter unilaterally, as the courts have determined. This in and of itself has caused much mistrust of the motivations of SFRD and the ultimate future of our organizations should we come under that umbrella. Some see it as an end to volunteer firefighting in Stamford. A view that IMO has merit based on discussions with SFRD personnel past and present. And yes these demands do apply to GFD. As far as how that has affected them ...well a 6% response rate speaks for itself. I hope you realize that they have been touted as a model for the future of the volunteer fire service in Stamford. Frankly that is not a future many of us see as viable or productive in the least for this City or our service. No one is disputing ICS or it's place on the fireground, only the place of volunteer officers within it. I have already stated that to me a standardized criteria for officer selection is long overdue and that point I know for a fact is one many within volunteer community readily accept as a necessity for the future. Same for training and certifcation standards. When either have been proposed though they has been dismissed as unworkable by many on the career "side". Some believe that this is because this would still allow volunteer authority over career personnel. I'm sorry to hear that you've had such problems with some of you assignments, this is truly unfortunate. Be that as it may an officer must be an officer across the board. If in fact all were trained and certified to the same levels than a volunteer house Captain should have authority over a career Leiutenant in his house or visa versa with a career Captain and a vollie LT in that same house. Coupled with that would be the need to have a process in which grievences can be objectively and completely resolved in the best interest of the FD not either "side" of it. To me it seems that to think that there would be two seperate commands on or off the fireground one career and one volunteer is to be diametrically opposed to what ICS and a chain of command is. All officers must have the authority to act within the responsibilities of their rank. IMO this is what we should collectively be willing to accept and work towards Agreed the sooner we work together in building bridges the sooner we can work together to build the best possible fire service for our City. One that increases our similarities, utilzes the strengths of both sectors and reduces our differences. The olive branch has taken a beating on many fronts in the past few years but thankfully it is durable and always ready to grow.

Putting myself in your shoes I can appreciate your view and see how you have come to the conclusions you have based on some events that have taken place. I can even go so far as to say that I respect them as well since we are all entitled to our opinions based on the facts as we understand them. But my view, my understanding stems from what IMO has been an intransigence on the part of SFRD to negotiate since this mess began in 2008 under our previous Mayor. I think all can now agree that the tactics employed by the former adminstration were at best ill conceived and in large part have led to the current impasse. Since then though there have been ample opportunites to sit down and willingly compromise to achieve a real and lasting solution that takes into account the interests of all of the parties involved. To date and to the best of my knowledge, in my opinion SFRD has refused to budge on any of the demands they have made since 2008 while seeking compliance of those demands from the VFDs which is not theirs to demand, even if they are "right". Unfortunately this has led to those opportunities being squandered in the pursuit of what some, including me, see as a failed agenda. Now of course I do not speak for the BFD, the volunteers as a whole or anyone other than myself, just as you do not speak for your dept or union, but tell me what is it in your opinion that will make this a two way street? For me it involves serious dialouge on how incident command will work and include competent volunteer officers determined as I have previously outlined in this thread. Along with that goes in house staffing and who it is that employees/staff will answer to when off the fireground. For me each dept Chief must be the nominal supervisor of the employees/staff in their houses as they are the man on the ground for each and all of them must answer to yet a higher authority in the form of a mutually acceptable Chief or the DPS. These two take prominence to me based on them being what most see as the major obstacle...control. Control must flow down from a central authority that is objective and will work for the betterment of both "sides" of our fire service, not one over the other, hence that controlling entity must be mutually acceptable. As we move on I am fully in support of standardized training and certification, SOP(G)s where applicable, combination staffing, perfomance standards and in fact true and equal integration of all firefighters in Stamford. All of these points have been brought forth on numerous occasions (some by me personally) and each time they have been dismissed by SFRD out of hand and without even an attempt at discussion. Nor has any other alternative come forth from SFRD that takes into account the reality of how things work here in the legal sense. As best as I can tell it was and continues to be do as SFRD demands or nothing. From my perspective this attitude is not conducive to compromise and makes the idea of entering into negotiation with SFRD on some valid issues of concern impossible to entertain. Now I'm sure you see thing from a far different perspective and that is to be expected. But what, if any, of the points listed above would you consider negotiable or better yet common ground on which to build? Cogs

I suppose that depends on what one considers an asset. Or maybe more precisely what type of asset. We already have a clear indication of just what type of "asset" is envisioned by one of the plans and what that will mean for volunteer firefighting in Stamford. Having the districts or first due response areas reduced to the property lines of each VFD, which is part of what the "Brown" plan calls for, relegates each to a support status. Now while support functions are an asset, IMO this concept is not only a waste of our resourses, but ultimately counterproductive as it will result in all the VFDs becoming like the "model" currently in place. On a personal note I do not believe that I or my department is deserving of such a reduction in our function either, as we consistently do our job. In fact of all the plans submitted to the Fire Service Task Force only one had any real specific steps to integrate all the components of Stamford's fire service and recruit and retain volunteers. And this was in conjunction to staffing and had the costs factored into the plan. Of the two others, the front runners, neither seems to have specific plans for the recruitment and retention of volunteers or the costs associated with that process because both are predicated on career staffing with any volunteer activity being secondary. IMO and quite frankly what seems to have been overlooked by many involved in all this is that our current and any future volunteers are an investment, not an expense. To achieve a long lasting, vital and integral volunteer component, a true and fully functional asset, it is the fervent belief of some of us that they should be treated as such by all parties involved regardless of what plan or combination of plans emerges. In the end the future of the volunteer fire service in Stamford will be directly related to what the City is willing to invest in it.