FFPCogs

Agreed a hundred times over. Competent firefighters are just that competent. It matters not who they serve with or how. We are dedicated to the same mission and when the sh!t his the fan I could care less what color your coat is or whether or not you're paid or volunteer, we have a job to do and duty to perform. I can assure you of one thing though, if it ever happens that someone is injured or worse due to negligence stemming from this mess...God help those who cause it no matter where they're from. Fair enough. To me though the biggest stumbling block to date has been the unwillingness of SFRD to enter into any meaningful negotiation with the VFDs on how best to begin to solve this. I say begin because just as it took years to get here it will take some time to get out of it....although with a little compromise that could be relatively soon. Cogs

That is my understanding as well for GFD and SFCo.

No I'm not. time served but it is one of the quantifying factors that can be used to help determine a candidates readiness for promotion in conjunction with testing, certification and interviews. The experience level of any firefighter is based on the number of incidents at which they work and we have no control over when or how many incdents there will be, nor do career depts for that matter. There are some depts or groups within a career dept that are simply not as busy as others,or even some VFDs, that is the nature of the business. Are these FFs to be prevented from seeking higher rank because of their assignment? So long as standardized methodologies are used for training, testing and the interview the basic needs will be met to assume a higher rank. After that it is dependent on call volume. As for election well that is just a personal choice based on my experiences. As I see it the turnover rate among volunteers is considerably higher than a career dept because this is not their livlihood...not that that makes them incapable of performing the duties associated with any rank. Therefore a regularly scheduled process needs to be in place to ensure the positions are filled. Along with that most VFDs operate under the direction of their memberships through their elected official much like our Nation. Elections are not a problem so long as a process exists to establish qualified candidates as this reduces the "buddy system" considerably. Also many appointments of career officers are done by commissions which in fact vote amongst themselves to decide which candidate best suit the needs of the department... hence the reason some officers with lower scores but other mitigating factors are promoted over those with higher test scores. How about an answer to the question as to whether or not this is an acceptable compromise? Cogs

You seem to be saying you condone Stamford volunteers operating off city rigs if they arrive on a scene without a rig but with their turnouts and SCBA (under the assumption they are qualified to at least FF 1 and EMR [MRT] of course). Is this correct? Are you speaking in terms of your opinion or is this SFRD policy? Seems like this might be a good start at turning things around and this development would clearly show that SFRD does indeed want to work with Stamford's volunteers to best serve the public. Cogs

Around and around and around we go. Let us step off the merry-go-round for just a minute shall we? Now we all know that this forum is is just a place to share our views, but maybe some good can come from all this bickering and back and forth after all. Why not try a different approach on what seems to be a major stumbling block to progress in an effort to determine if there is any common ground on which to build. If only for the sake of discussion in that vein I will put forth this question. Would the following criteria be an acceptable compromise in regards to officer qualification/selection and thus the "control" issue? Each candidiate for promotion would have to successfully complete: 1) A minimum amount of time served in the department or at a lower rank 2) Standardized State certification classes for each rank 3) A standardized promotional exam for each rank 4) An oral interview conducted by a board consisting of servng officers both career and volunteer from outside your department and now the divergence 5) Eligible candidates appointed by Commission for SFRD / Eligible candidates elected bi-annually by membership for volunteers Cogs

I don't think there's a contributor here or sane person in Stamford that would disagree with this statement, it most definitely is time for a change, but IMO the "Brown" plan is not the change that's needed. Cogs

Do you mean this excerpt? [04/20/2011 19:26:44 : pos4 : KSCHULZE] CALLER JUST CALLED BACK TO SAY THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS RIGHT DOWN THE STREET AND THEY SHOULD BE THERE BY NOW....SHE WAS ADVISED THAT THEY ARE VOLUNTEER IN THAT STATION AND THAT THE STATION IS NOT MANNED AT ALL TIMES.... According to your own post at no time does she specify which fire station she is referring to. The dispatcher advised her that it was a volunteer station. Anyone who lives in that vicinity is well aware that a SFRD station is located at Vine and High Ridge...or in this case right down the street. Either way no units volunteer or SFRD were on scene in a timely enough fashion for this concerned caller, otherwise she wouldn't have called back looking for them now would she? BTW while I like IKE since that's not your intent, are you always this arrogant or is it that you simply can't stand differing opinions and ideas? Cogs

Ditto my friend for SFRD vis a vis the VFDs. Cogs

Was she talking about TOR or that other fire station right down the street ...SFRD Engine 8 at Vine Rd & High Ridge?

How exactly do we get more? And yes our water is fantastic. Cogs

That's all well and good but until such time as that change happens we all must work within the system that is. Cogs

Technically yes the VFDs Chiefs are in charge at most scenes,especially in Belltown, although I personally have witnessed and heard times when the VFD chief's authority has been usurped by the SFRD Deputy...the 511/DC "incident" a few months back being a case in point. As far as questioning the competency of the VFD officers, no I don't blame SFRD for that stance, in fact I would expect nothing less. You are preaching to the chior in many respects with much of this. But be that as it may, what some fail to accept is that like it or not this is how the system currently operates. It may not be "right" it may not be fair, but in the end it IS the way it is. Unfortunately niether you, me, SFRD, the union or anyone else has the authority to unilaterally change it. There is a process. Let me put it like this, would you, your Department or your union stand idly by or simply aquiesce to the demand of say the volunteers unilaterally requiring 2 seats on each rig for volunteer personnel at every station because that will offer a higher level of service, it's what we want and it will save money as less units would be dispatched per call? I think not. To have such a scenario play out would require negotiations, possible legal actions, and ultimately the support of the majority of those affected. While the example cited is absurd what we are facing now is the same. SFRD cannot demand anything of the VFDs, they don't enjoy that right. But they can choose to work with us in developing alternatives that solve the problem. Cogs

You have hit upon the magic word...compromise. For anything of substance to come from all this will require compromise from all parties involved...period...end of story. Cogs

The topic at hand was not the proposed SVFD plan but rather a view of the "Brown" plan. So while you've done a good job of outling your views on the faults of the SVFD plan you have been unable or unwilling to address the specific points and questions put forth in my post regading Chief Brown's alternative. More specifically though let's take a look at this particular opinion. You may be correct in that this is all about control, but who is it that's having a problem with that control? After all it is SFRD that refuses to accept anything other than having their people in charge? Now while I can see how and where this attitude stems from under the current circumstances, fact is that when offered the standardized officer selection criteria as a means to rectfy this issue it was dismissed out of hand. Why....? Let us also remember that as it stands now SFRD is NOT the legal authority having jurisdiction in the volunteer districts and as such they have no legal claim to the control of them or the personnel of VFDs. I can fully appreciate how this is a troublesome situation, but none the less it is a FACT supported by a judge's ruling. So yes this is all about control, but that desire for control is not the legally recognized VFDs alone. SFRD could just as easily make a comrpomise as well now couldn't they if they wanted it to work. Cogs

I was sure someone would jump on this particualr point and as usual I wasn't disappointed. As it now stands, from a LEGAL standpoint each VF district is an independent entity and it's officers are the representatives of that AHJ. Therefore even if the officers don't meet the same criteria as those of SFRD the fact is, unpalatable as it may be to many of us, they DON'T HAVE TO. That said there was put forth a "plan" which called for all fire officers in the City career or volunteer alike to be required to serve the same amount of time, be certified to the same standard and pass the same exam to be eligible for promotion for each rank. Whle not perfect it would remove much of the inconsistencies that currently exist. This method also complies with the current LEGAL parameters of the situation that some seem to wrongly think they can just dismiss. I for one, having authored much of that "plan", still adamantly and staunchly continue to advocate for that eventuality for the proposed new FD while, as a training officer, practicing what I preach in my own FD. As I stated earlier there are alternatives that deserve further scrutiny. Cogs

Everyone is entitled to their opinion so I will chime in with mine on this statement, but before I do let me just preface this post with this: I have known Chief Brown for many years, and I have the utmost respect for him and for his service to the City. That said IMO the plan put forth, while in keeping with the "cost neutral" mandate has some major flaws. Chief (no pun intended) among them is the fact that the redistribution of personnel and equipment will lead to less not more fire protection overall. Implementation of this plan will see the Woodside (Scalzi) area lose it's Engine Company as that unit would be moved north into the current TOR district, leaving only the busy and often out of quarters Rescue Company to cover that area in a timely fashion as a first due Company. What is the expected delay in getting Engines 2, 3 or 1 and their all important water to alarms in that area? What happens when these units are out on other calls, which as we know is a very real possibilty based on Stamford's call volume? Next comes the disbandment of Truck 2 thus leaving the South End devoid of a Truck Company and SFRD with one less Truck Company overall. SFRD's current distribution of apparatus is the way it is for a reason is it not? What is the justification for decreasing it's efficiency to the residents and businesses of the South End and in reality downtown as a whole? I for one would not want to be the officer that has to tell Mrs. Jones to hang on in that window with her baby for just a few more minutes as we wait for another more distant or already committed one of the two remaining Truck Companies to arrive on scene...would you? Let's return to that call volume. As we know Stamford is a relatively busy department. Once units have been shuffled and the run cards updated to reflect these changes how often will these redistributed units be available to respond in their first due areas? A quick look at Engine 6 gives us an indication. Engine 6 responds to calls downtown far more than it does in Glenbrook or even the current volunteer districts. With this redisribution of SFRD units Citywide and the loss of an Engine and Truck Company downtown those units will have to come from somewhere to make up the shortfall especially downtown, and where would that be from? From their new first due areas in Vollywood that's where. Once these units are pulled out of "up North" to respond downtown what is left to cover those areas? The volunteers who's districts according to this plan will be reduced to nothing more than their property lines? On to the volunteers. As stated this plan calls for reducing the VF districts to their property lines. OK fair enough, but what impact will this have on those FDs. Again the "model" VFD Glenbrook provides us with a probable answer. While I do not have the exact figures at hand it is my understanding the this "model" FD has responded to approximately 6 - 12% of their calls...thats SIX to TWELVE percent...since Engine 6 has made it's home in that district.. From another perspective we can safely assume that this redistribution would also have a negative effect on the number of volunteers in the system. Why? Because who would want to be part of an organization that serves no real purpose. Although it has been said that there would be volunteer particpation the fact is in most areas where this type of plan has been implemented the volunteers have withered and died, or worse been relegated to support functions. Coupled with that is the demotion of volunteer officers. According to the plan volunteer Chiefs would be ranked equal to career Captains, while the junion ranks of volunteer officers would serve only to "manage" any volunteer FFs that may arrive at a scene and that only if the VFDs are even dispatched to it. . There is one more point to all this and that is the is the "cost neutrality" of this plan. To be cost neutral would require that the VFDs willingly turn over their facilities to SFRD. This is highly unlikely at best. So if the redistributed SFRD units don't have homes, ones have to be built for them do they not? What is the cost of two or three more trailer parks? Better yet what is the cost of building 5 (1 in Springdale, 2 in TOR and 2 in LR) more permanent stations? I don't see how that is even remotely "cost neutral". And before anyone gets on their high horse decrying the VFDs intransigence remember that as private organizations they are not bound to agree to a plan that does not and will not take their interests into consideration. Nor should we. There is more on "cost neutral" as well. Even if the VFDs agree to house SFRD, the cost neutrality is only temporary at best. As the South End continues in it's redevelopment the fire load and occupancy will increase dramatically. This will need to be addressed in the very near future in terms of coverage. In short order additional units will have to be placed back into service to cover that area and the rest of the City as well as the shortfalls of this redistribution become apparent. With this comes tax increases to pay for it and in the end it is not cost neutral at all, it is simply costly. There are other alternatives that deserve scrutiny and there may yet be an alternative that truly "solves" our problems, unfortunately IMO this is not it. Cogs

Agreed. If inaccurate information has been presented than it should be addressed and refuted with the verifiable facts. Cogs

Thankfully this speech has resurfaced. To me this speech should be a mandatory part of every firemen's training. Here's the links. I suggerst that if, like me you believe as the LT does, you save it before it is again disappears under the assualt of the safety zealots. Part 1 http://www.4shared.c...ue_Values_.html Part 2 http://www.4shared.c...ue_Values_.html Thanks LT for saying what needs to be said. Cogs

From the Ragvocate this morning. [The Department of Public Safety suffered the largest cut, totaling about $1.5 million. $500,000 from police overtime and $600,000 from fire overtime were cut. Board vice chair Mary Lou Rinaldi, a Democrat, said the move was symbolic of the desire to monitor public safety overtime. "I think the whole point of last night's actions was to get a better sense of how things are managed," Rinaldi said. "At the end of the day, those cuts won't stay. I think those items will be put back in contingency funds." The board also eliminated a $360,00 matching grant from the city to fund hiring of firefighters in volunteer districts] (not sure if it's 36,000 or 360,000, since as usual the Rag writers don't proof read their entries...but the point is made) And so the saga continues......... Cogs

Well B, I can't believe I'm saying this but I actually agree with you on everything you've said..... Holy sh!t!! I guess 2012 really will mean the end of the world.... Cogs

Found this story about a Japanese FF that made the ultimate sacrifice during the tsunami and his comrades. I think it shows that firemen are firemen the world over. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110405/wl_asia_afp/japandisasteraccidentnucleartsunamifirefighter Cogs

It is the irony of our service that when things are at their worst, we are at our best and that is a universal trait among firemen. RIP to our lost Japanese comrades. Cogs

I just have to add the same $.02 here I posted on another site. There's only one "CF" and it ain't a Pierce.

This is ALWAYS time well spent and I highly recommend guys take advantage of the opportunity to learn. Not only that but your donation goes to the Burn Foundation. Capt Morris is a member of my FD and a good friend. I can tell you he is an excellent presenter of a wealth of useful info. I don't know Lt. Klett but have it on good authority he's the man when it comes to Engine Co ops. Chiefs Geraghty and Hart I do know and they have done this presentation for me before. It is a good one as well. All in all it is a great day spent with other firemen from the area supporting a great cause so get up off your a$$es and get to "the Rock" on Saturday. See ya there!! Cogs

Johnny, Good post and as much as I personally agree with it we must remember that this site is for all types of emergency service related discussions ...even those seemingly unimportant to us. I tend to involve myself with the tactical discussions, those that deal with career/volunteer interaction...or lack thereof, or topics that are locally specific to CT. And that's what works for me. Others have different interests and this forum is their's too. They are free to express and share those interests here...just as we are free to disregard those which do not interest us. I will say that I personally would love to see more in terms of tactical discussions but one of my pet peeves with those topics is that they usually degenerate along one of two lines. First is what I consider nitpicking. This is where members here feel they must critique the inconsequential aspects of a contributors video or photo posting. It never ceases to amaze me when the topic at hand is something like "what would you do if...." or "you pull up on this, now what" and we end up in a discussion on the color of an FDs turnout gear or some such nonsense completely unrelated to the tactical or strategic discussion. The other 'problem" I see is that many threads here ultimately become a career vs volunteer debate...many times brought about by those very same inconsequential detours mentioned above. Be this at it may this site and others like it are great resources and they serve us all well best when we take what we want (or need) and leave the rest. If there's one thing I've learned in my time in the fire service it's that not everyone thinks as I do...(no matter how "right" I am)...but more importantly nor do they have to. This forum is an open one and as such all opinions and interests are welcome just as they should be. Cogs