FFPCogs

I can see your point and even agree with it to an extent, but in the end to me it is 6 of one half a dozen of the other. Which is one of the reasons I am not in favor of this option at this time, but as I said if we were to begin planning for that eventuality now in 5 or so years the concept may be viable and the cross staffing crews could then be assigned to quints. And strike three at this point Cogs

No my concern is that more career firefighters will have to be hired because the volunteers will have been allowed to wither and die. And with those additional hirings comes an increase in taxes that we who live here will be forced to pay. We've developed alternatives in terms of staffing that reduce...yes reduce not eliminate...the number of paid personnel necessary to ensure adequate protection in Vollywood, but those alternatives require an investment on the part of the City in the volunteer system..an investment by the way which costs millions less than a paid citywide option. Let's cut to the chase here, I know full well where the volunteer system stands as a whole but I am also confident of what we are capable of given the support from 888 that has hitherto been lacking. And while we're being frank let me say that I am also fairly confident that there is a cadre within SFRD that wants the volunteers gone, done, over and will settle for nothing less. And these factors also play a part in my concerns and in how they are addressed. Cogs

Now now T, I'm not really THAT stupid. Anytime a rig is dispatched and becomes committed there is a shortfall and units must then backfill or cover more area where necessary. The difference here is that Stamford already has an abundance of apparatus at it's disposal which cross staffing can effectively make use of. Why buy more when we have firehouses full of rigs just waiting for crews to man them. And let's get to another point here, the major complaint with the Mayor's plan is not cross staffing but the number of staff assigned and this we know because we have been repeatedly assailed with how dangerous the plan is by providing substandard staffing. I don't think 2 cuts it either but 4 per rig offers double the bang for the same buck so long as volunteers pick up and guarantee the same level of coverage at night. No matter how you slice it, SFRD Engines in VFD houses, Quints, cross staffing, whatever...anytime a rig is dispatched with a crew that rig and crew will be committed therefore there will always be times when areas are not "covered". And just to remind everyone because it has been thrown at me constantly..this is NOT New York , Chicago or even East Bumblefrok for that matter, so what they do doesn't matter and won't work here. Cogs

I don't think there's every been a call that has gone unanswered either and that's because we have mutual aid and backfilling for station coverage by volunteers. But if you reduce the overall resources of SFRD by distributing them citywide, as opposed to what they are currently able to cover effectively as they are now downtown, it becomes a very real possibility that there will be major delays in responses. Also take note that right or wrong the level of volunteer participation decreases not increases once SFRD is in the house (ala Glenbrook) so the helpful hand on which the Brown plan depends will, if history is any guide, fall short. Especially when some want to relegate volunteers to support functions or demand that volunteers by virtue of the fact that they are volunteers be subordinate in all cases to SFRD. This will lead in very short order to a city full of Glenbrooks where volunteers will see no benefit to serve. And a city full of Glenbrooks will not be the cure you tout it to be by any means and 12 calls responded to in a year amply demonstrates that. So we come back to the necessity in a very short time of having to hire more career firefighters to staff more apparatus to cover the whole city. It's really a no brainer here guys.

My impression in answering G was that we were talking about a St. Louis type system where basically every (or most actually) rig in town is multi-use thereby "doubling" their efficiency while reducing the overall operating, maintainance and personnel costs. This is why the concept was developed and how the St. Louis or the TQ concept is meant to work (and part of the reason I despise the concept). An all quint system here would mean every firehouse including the VFDs has a quint and each box would get the closest available units as either an Engine or Truck based on a predetermined response matrix. It seems to me that what you're suggesting is not really much different than what I'm suggesting by cross staffing. Putting Quints in every VFD house and then dispatching them based on the type of call is the same as cross staffing the existing rigs based on the type of call, except we have to buy a few more quints. The crews will still be gone with their rig as either an Engine or Truck thus leaving that area devoid of that piece in the matrix and the volunteers would still have to respond with what's left to the scene or staff the remaining rigs to answer addtional calls. If we were to get to the point of say MD or VA in which volunteers cover shifts and staff particular apparatus then yes I could definitely see the value of this idea since this would offer the paid rigs the flexibility to respond citywide as needed per call while reducing the overall staffing levels and costs necessary to cover the whole city. But in all honesty this is not something I would advocate for a number of reasons which I'd be happy to share with you via PM. Cogs

G, The idea of quint based operations is not a bad one even though I personally despise the concept of quints to begin with...(for me an engine is an engine and a truck is a truck ect., mixing them just reduces the capabilities of both). The one major problem I see with the concept here and now though is the cost. For a St. Louis or Richmond, VA type system to work here would require the entire fleet of apparatus (paid and vollie alike) be converted to quints (or multi use rigs) which would cost a fortune and I don't see that as feasible at the moment. There is also the potential effects an all quint system would have on staffing and manpower which may negatively impact SFRD more so than the VFDs so I don't know how well the concept would sit with the union...(not a dig guys just a well documented concern of career FFs everywhere this concept has been explored). In all fairness though in looking towards the future (say 5 - 10 yrs) I would grudgingly have to admit the idea has merit and could conceiveably work if we began heading in that direction now. To that end I believe that strategic planning of this type would be invaluable in helping to achieve much of what needs to be done and also quite frankly in avoiding the circumstances that created the current mess, but at present I think it would be almost impossible to accomplish on a citywide basis. BFD has a strategic planning committee and we do explore and recommend many different approaches to the meet the needs of our FD now and in the future. On that note does anyone else do something similar? Cogs

In reference to the last 3 posts 1st: Yes absolutely it is manpower not rigs that puts out fires. 2nd: I never said "split the crews". That is a misinterpretation of what I propose. Crew integrity would be maintained only the rigs on which those crews respond would differ depending on the nature and location of any given call. 3rd: While "musical fire trucks' may not be standard practice it will allow for an adequate initial response of fully staffed and appropriate apparatus to incidents with the manpower that is available, and it will do so without depleting the resources of downtown as is currently the case. Cogs

Interesting read and very well written too. But ...ah yes the infamous but...there are a few points that could stand a little scrutiny. Let's start with the taxing district "It shall be the obligation of such legislative body [in this case the Board of Finance and Board of Representatives] to impose such levy as a municipal levy, and such levy shall be in addition to the regular municipal levy, and it shall be the obligation of the municipality to collect such a levy for the benefit of such district." This is absolutley true but what this letter fails to mention is that anyone that will pay this "additional levy" (fire tax) will also see a corresponding reduction in their property taxes. In other words if I pay $5500 annually in taxes now, once this goes into effect I will still pay $5500 overall in taxes but it will be split based on the pre determined mil rate calculation of the cost of fire protection. i.e. $5000 in property taxes and $500 in fire tax. So yes there will be a new tax but not a tax increase. And now on to the "Brown Plan". Although this has been cited before I guess it bears repeating since it was omitted from the mailing. While the plan is cost neutral the redistribution of SFRD units and the susequent loss of a truck co in no way increases the overall effectiveness of SFRD but diminishes it. It also limits the type of apparatus that will be available to respond in any given area or any given call when needed. There is also the 800 pound gorilla of the fact that the introduction of SFRD has without fail reduced the level of volunteer participation in the fire houses in which they are present. It may not be right, it may be entirely the fault of the volunteers (although I highly doubt that) or it just may be that that's the way it is, but whatever the reasons the fact remains and has been proven that this IS the way it is. Also there is the omission of the comments made here in which a number of ranking SFRD members freely admit they have reservations if not an outright aversion to this plan. So yes the plan is cost neutral but it begs the question...for how long? Nice touch in having former volunteers sound off as well. I can say with all candor that the SFRD members that remain as member of the BFD are NOT on active status and therefore are NEVER counted as a part of our active membership. But to be fair there is some truth to some of their statements which fortunately the Mayor's plan does address in terms of centralization of command (1 paid Chief), standardization ect. And we can definitely agree that volunteers are indeed a valuable asset although some of us see that value as being far more than a support role. Another interesting note is the citing of instances of volunteer "failures" in the mailing and on firetruths.com from areas far afield from Stamford. I find it odd that only the failures (if indeed that is what they were) of volunteers are useful for comparison while the successful operations of other VFDs outside of Stamford are not. As I've been told time and again this isn't city "X" or County "Y" when citing them as models to emulate so then by that logic neither should these "failures" be germain to Stamford. There is also the many references to Long Ridge and their recent incidents. Were there mistakes made? Yes there were and every citizen has a right to know about them. Part of the problem though is that the resources that were available "up North" are no longer there in terms of the flexibility of responses. An engine is still an engine and SFRD crews are tied to that engine. When a tanker or Truck is necessary but there is no crew to staff it because they are tied to only one rig there will be a problem. Previously when paid personnel were at every station cross staffing was the norm so necessary units could be dispatched as needed, when needed, where needed. This ties into the major failing of the Brown Plan as well..not enough variety of units available "up North" when they're needed. Remember too that at all of these incident SFRD were there as well. Other than that it was a very entertaining read. Cogs

That may very well be true, chuckling included, but for some of us it's better to try and fail than not to try at all. Cogs

Don't union members have a say in how their union proceeds? Isn't the union's job to protect it's members from this type of "intimidation"? Aren't union member free to do as they please on their own time? It would seem to me that by not allowing the free exchange of ideas to take place it would be the SFRD administration and by extension the union if they endorse the plan that has pre set conditions and an agenda to fulfill. Unless an individual has malicious or self serving motives it wouldn't be undermining but simply exploring other alternatives to bring to the attention of the powers that be for their consideration. And like I've said before crossing the "party lines" unofficially has the very real potential to have them opened officially thereafter. In the real world of which you speak people stand up, take risks and work together to solve problems..otherwise they don't get solved and we're stuck with what we get. Cogs

0000000000 Thanks Cap Yes with each post the answer to this long standing riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma is closer at hand. ps I had to look up obtuse...is this about right...LOL Cogs

I have made my views of the plans offered obvious for all to see...and hear if they choose to listen...at every opportunity. I have also repeatedly requested that a grass roots or more precisely a rank and file effort to produce something better be undertaken. The silence to that request has been deafening!!. You say all parties should be "banning together against this plan"..well where the hell are you then? Since there has been absolutely no effort on the part of anyone to move towards a cooperative effort I and a few others in Vollywood that believe something better is possible, continue to work to develope options that we believe will better serve the new FD...since that is the only area in which we have a say at this time. We may not succeed, but we are at least trying!! Just what exactly have you done? Cogs

Well you know what they say about opinions. As far as me "toeing the party line" goes, I think it's safe bet to say that there's a line of people up here in Vollywood that would disagree with that assessment. And finally you can believe what you will, but my "line" is about trying to provide the best possible service to our City by integrating the talents, experience and dedication of all of Stamford's firefighters to better serve the community....not ourselves, and that is clearly evident to many far beyond these pages. Cogs

And your point is?

Well upon reading through your posts I can see you're well versed at "toeing the party line" yourself. Just another thing we have in common I guess. Cogs

But did he when he was appointed? No he was given the opportunity to serve before judgements were made. And let me see, I think I may have been in Kuwait at the time which low and behold has internet access so the news from home was readily available. Cogs

You'll have to ask someone downtown as this distribution is the SFRD plan. And it is BFD not GFD that goes "empty". Cogs

Good work indeed and useful to boot, Thanks Bnechis, your work will not be in vain, it will be a great help in developing a response matrix for the "new" FD. Unfortunately though no plan yet proposed distributes the available resources to meet NFPA or ISO standards effectively. Cogs

Since the position was established under Malloy no Public Safety Director has been a public safety professional and all have been political appointments. From all I can gather none of them faced the ire seen towards this one though. Cogs

RIP

It was proposed before the Fire Service Task Force last year, although since it was proposed by 2 FFs from BFD and not a Chief I don't know how "official" that can be considered. But I know for a fact that it was proposed publically because I was one of the 2 that proposed it. Matter of fact I've been proposing it here for 2 years!!! Cogs

An alternative option that increases the overall staffing would at least merit consideration, after that who knows? I never said otherwise. Most VFDs are facing serious recruitment and retention issues. I have found that only the progessive ones have any success. Those trapped by tradition and close mindedness do not. For our circumstances I think that consolidation is one part of a solution, incentives another, along with the introduction of paid staffing when and where necessary. I believe that 24 guaranteed is better than 18 during the day and 12 at night that is on the table now. Under the other plan considered by the Task Force I believe the paid staffing would be distributed as such TOR = 8: Sta.1 - one Quint, Sta. 2 - one Engine SFCo = 4: One Engine LRFCo = 8: One Engine in each station BFD = 0: 0 apparatus for a grand total of 20 guaranteed on duty FFs in Vollywood. How is this better? And where do the Truck and Rescue Co.s come from in light of the fact that SFRD would be reduced by 1 Truck Co? Challenge is putting it mildly. Make no mistake I'm fully aware of the potential for failure, but I'm also fully aware that there is also the potential for success...the only way to know is to try because "failure to try guarantees only one thing...failure". I found that by calling some Dept.s that were referenced such as Rockville MD and Louden County VA, coupled with the interaction I had with FFs from these area as well as others while working overseas I have been able to find some successful programs. Some of these have led me to other successful ones. In all fairness though there have been many that have had only limited if any success, but it is the successful ones that should be emulated if possible. OK I stand corrected, thank you. Unfortunately Stamford is not in the position to staff 2 rigs per station citywide, or even outside of the current 4 downtown at this time. What then will allow for an acceptable minimum response of men and material to an alarm other than utilizing the resources available as I have described? As we see above the other option does not even provide the bare minimum of 24 on duty "up North" . Nor does that option take into account the very real potential of having those resources committed outside of their response areas on a regular basis i.e. Engine 6 due to the fact that 2 of the 4 downtown stations referenced above will become one unit stations. Cogs

Do I? Gee whiz that's great to know. Yep you are 100% correct I'd be 'ramping" all about it as is my and everyone elses right to do. I don't want anyone to do anything except to work together to come up with something better if they don't like it. I'm not telling you anything. I just accept the fact that the choice has been made You really think so? Wow I had no idea some of my career colleagues had such high regard for me...I'm honored by the show of support. Thanks Cogs

I am aware of the qualifications of one of them as for the others no I am not. I'm sure there were candidates that would have been excellent choices and it is very possible and maybe even probable that they were in fact considered and not simply precluded. In the end though it is the Mayor's perogative to appoint who he sees fit for whatever reasons he sees fit is it not? No matter who had been chosen there would be those who would find fault with the choice especially in the climate that exists here. It is done, time to move forward....or backwards I suppose depending on your point of view... Cogs

What choice do we have? Should we all go down to City Hall with torches and pitchforks and demand his removal? Maybe a lynching is in order? Or here's a novel approach, maybe we give the guy a shot at the job that he's already been appointed to before making up our minds one way or the other. Whether or not Mr. Valentine is a "zero" as a Public Safety Director remains to be seen although I'm sure some have already made up their minds due to his previous position as the Chairman of the Mayor's Fire Service Task Force last year. On the other hand your assessment of the previous holder of that position is on the money. Cogs