FFPCogs

At this point it really doesn't matter since he's been appointed. I'm sure he'll do at least as good a job as the previous administration's choice for far less money. Cogs

No!! Tradition and money on the VFD side, jobs and money on the career. And before anyone decides to climb up on their high horse here take a minute to remember that although you may not agree with what drives another it's a safe bet to say that they are just as committed to their beliefs as you are to yours. In the end when talking about any consolidations we must make every effort to take ALL factors into account before moving forward. There is no other way if there is to be a mutually beneficial and successful outcome that results in better service to the community. Cogs

That's more fire apparatus than you'll find in some third world countries I've worked in.... The idea of self sufficiency dates back to the inception of each VFD and in it's time that method served the City well. But as we all know that is no longer practically applicable and hasn't been for quite some time. I remember helping to develope some of BFDs mutual aid protocols as a Capt back in the early 80's. And the idea then was never to have all of those rigs on hand so that driver's would swap between them all. We always designated one Engine as the in district 1st due engine and another as the outgoing mutual aid engine, the Truck on the other hand always went where ever it was needed. All of the other rigs of the fleet were meant to serve as the remaining assignment for a box or as resources left in district to handle additional calls in keeping with the self sufficiency tradition. While the idea of that tradition has held over, in some cases it's practical application has not. I personally would have no problem with a consolidation that produced a reduction in the number of rigs in town, along with the expenses of maintaining them, so long as adequate resources remained to allow for cross staffing and a ready reserve on hand in Vollywood. And I would venture to say that both Long Ridge and High Ridge Rds have their fair share of major truck traffic as well. Cogs

Yes it is indeed. Whatever version of consolidation we end up with let us hope that there will be a corresponding reduction in the amount of redundant resources. Cogs

What I'm suggesting is that a portion of the money that is to be alloted to paying career firefighters be used to fund incentive programs. If those programs should fail after a realistic but definitive timeframe then the only other option would be to eliminate the program(s) and pay for full time career coverage round the clock. And while a LOSAP is definitiely one such program under consideration there are others that have proven more successful right here in CT such as tax abatements, paid per call and stipends...Greenwich has had a measure of success at least on paper and according to their recruitment officer with these other programs. So have depts in Montgomery and PG Counties in MD, Louden County VA and one outside Killeen TX and Fort Lee NJ to name a few. There are a number of others nationwide as well. It may be that you are not looking in the right place or your criteria of success is restrictive. Success to me and to those that I've dealt with in regards to such programs means ensuring that there is enough qualified members available and accountable to meet the needs of the department. More specific to my thinking is programs that will provide staffing in each VFD house to the level of 4 personnel during the volunteer duty tour rotations. Obviously the more members there are the less the strain on the individual. Remember also I'm not talking about 100% volunteer coverage here but rather a combination of career and volunteers to provide 24/7 365 coverage. There are a number of departments nationwide that do manage to do this effectively as I have described or by combining career and volunteer personnel on every shift. My suggestion would be to do as I did, Google successful volunteer firefighter recruitment and retention programs and start dialing. I have explained how it can work based on how it has worked elsewhere such as those places mentioned above. While you are correct that there is the possibility of delays one could argue that regardless of what rig a crew responds on that potential always exists. If Engine 1 responds to a call than Engine 1's response area is no longer covered is it and another unit must take in any calls in that area right? Same for truck or rescue companies in their assigned areas. Don't the same "rules" apply with cross staffing? When a rig and crew are out of the house they are out and another must fill in right? So by always having a crew assigned to a particular type of rig the potential for failure still exists does it not? To alleviate that potential would require an enormous amount of staffing and apparatus to be available to answer every potential call always and no City has the resources to pay for that. Nor is that the intent of the standards. There is a point where a line must be drawn and the run cards assigned by what's available at any given time. That's why we have mutual aid, callbacks, relocations ect. An engine or truck staffed by SFRD in a VFD house will still be gone when called out will they not? And it will still fall on the volunteers to backfill the house and respond with additional resources or as I'm sure it is with your FD the remaining in service or mutual aid units relocated to cover. Well thanks for giving me the credit for at least having the intelligence of a 10 year old but the fact is she will buy whichever item she wants more at the time she wants it won't she because that is what she wants at that time. Finite resources are just that finite and we can only do with those resources what they will allow based on what's available at the time they are requested. In our cimcumstances cross staffing works because of the availability of the various types of apparatus already in service and the flexibility that this allows in assigning responses. Cogs

Well I'm getting pretty damn hungry waiting to find out where we're going to eat so I'll get the ball rolling here. I absolutely agree that crews should have a place to call "home" when on duty but to achieve that "hominess" requires compromise from all parties not just one side. It falls to each to make the necessary adjustments that allow for a good working environment. To be fair I was not present during any negotiations that may have taken place prior to SFRD personnel staffing the VFD houses although it is my understanding that in Belltown's case there was a request from SFRD to convert our hall into the SFRD living quarters had that plan gone through. That doesn't sound like a cooperative venture to me if from the beginning there was the idea of segregating the crews. Unlike career houses volunteer ones generally find people coming and going or manning the house at all hours for a variety of reasons, that's just the nature of the volunteer service. To me it is unrealisitc to think that that would or should change. And quite frankly it would be the height of arrogance to demand it. I'm sure enforcable rules can be enacted to reduce the strain on the career personnel but there needs to be an understanding and a willingness to compromise on the part of the career personnel assigned to accept the nature of our side of the service if there is to be cooperation. I'm a firm believer that certification should be ONE of the requirements to serve as an Officer and have been for quite some time (maybe that's because I hold a number of them). But the fact is as it now stands time served (another criteria I would encourage) is the only prerequisite used by SFRD to determine eligiblity to test (yet another of my ideal criteria) for a position. I'm not a big fan of the current selection process used by any FD in town either, unfortunately I cannot dictate any more that you can what the selection process entails for other FDs. As such time served is the only realistic and quantifiable factor that we can use at this time to judge officer candidates. As I said before BFD's Bylaws require that members pass an in house exam which deals with our SOGs, Bylaws, tactics and stategic considerations before becoming eligible as a candidate to run for a Line position and that has been in place since long before the 30+ yrs I've been associated with the Department, I would have no problem with VFDs electing their leadership if the process were to include Time served: to gain some level of experience, Certification: to quantify a standard and Testing: to ascertain the expertise of a candidate. But again that decision is not up to me alone Personally I have no problem with honoring such a request as long as that is a reciprocal arrangement. I also have no problem with stating the crew size when signing on as this was standard practice in 2 or the 4 VFDs I have had the priviledge to serve with. Again though that is not my choice alone to make and I cannot and will not attempt to explain or defend the rationale of those whose choice it is. My position on staffing is clear and has remained steadfast throughout this "debate". 4 personnel 24/7 365 (or 366 in a leap year) in every VFD firehouse. The differences lie in the composition and duty tour hours of those crews. I do believe it is possible to staff the VFD firehouses in the manner in which I have proposed in spite of the national trends. I am equally convinced that this can be accomplished by embarking on an aggressive recruitment effort coupled with introducing an incentives plan which although costly would be far less so than hiring ANY new FFs. I have a number of such plans which have been thoroughly researched that have a proven record of success on which to base one for Stamford. Just yesterday another BFD member and I visited a 100% volunteer department in a NJ city that has not only maintained it's membership but actually grown it to serve it's diverse urban (factories, taxpayers, hi rise [10-20 story] apartment and office buildings, multi-family and row wood frame dwellings, as well as single family PDs) district. It has done so by investing in volunteer recruitment and retention, something that hitherto has not been the case in Stamford. How can anyone refute programs which have not been attempted here without first trying them? Stamford has a long and proven record of utilizing cross trained personnel to respond to calls on the appropriate rigs. Setting aside crew size for a moment can you cite me any examples when that system failed? (Not being sarcastic here maybe I'm wrong). What I propose would still maintain crew integrity it is just that the crew would not be tied to only one rig. From a financial standpoint this make perfect sense does it not? Especially if as you say the unreliable volunteers don't respond or staff the house in addition to a career crew to get that much needed rig on the road when it is the closest. Would this not lead to the necessity of hiring yet more career firefighters to staff specific units to ensure their timely response? If the firehouse is staffed as I have proposed then the closest appropriate unit would be dispatched from that house and there would be a crew in house to staff it Mileage is not the only issue here. As we have seen E-6 is responding downtown far more than it is in Vollywood. With a reduction of the available resources downtown it is inevitable that the northern units would also be taken out of their assigned areas on a regular basis, which leads us back to the necessity of having to hire more career firefighters to staff additional rigs to cover the city effectively. I never said amateurs Amateur noun 1. a person who engages in a study, sport, or other activity for pleasure rather than for financial benefit or professional reasons. 2. an athlete who has never competed for payment or for a monetary prize. 3. a person inexperienced or unskilled in a particular activity nor do I think that of SFRD, I said novice Novice [nov-is] –noun 1. a person who is new to the circumstances, work, etc., in which he or she is placed. 2. a person who has been received into a religious order or congregation for a period of probation before taking vows. 3. a person newly become a church member. 4. a recent convert to Christianity. There is a difference between the two words and their definitions and it is an important one. I don't think SFRD are amateurs at all, what I think is that being new to their circumstances there is room for improvement. While there has been improvements to the rural water supply capabilities up North more are needed. Chief among them at least to me is a Tanker Task Force preplan similar to that in Westchester County and then constant training on it's implementation. Another component might be to add rural water supply operations training to any officer requirement, a move which the training division at BFD is considering. I'm still hungry!! Cogs

I'd be happy to buy the meal so that you, I and a few others could sit down and delve a little further into the above to see what if anything can come from it. As far as where we meet well it really doesn't matter where, it's a safe bet that we'd be in the crosshairs from both sides of the fence anyway so the building burning down around us is just icing on the cake. And it makes landing the shot that much easier...no walls left to get in the way. Cogs

Well there has already been a number of lawsuits brought before a series of judges, none of whom thought to bring such an injunction. Why? Most likely because the State's role here is very limited due to the home rule provisions of the General Statutes. Fair? No. In the public's best interest? Maybe not, but again like it or not that's the way it is. And let me just say that even I find many of the same obstacles extremely frustrating as everyone once else here, but they can't just be ignored because we don't like them. Ignoring or disregarding established ordinaces and laws is a slippery slope indeed. What's next? Ignoring the Charter is no different than if the labor contracts were to be arbitrarily and unilaterally ignored by an administration for say financial reasons. How well would that sit? Do you think the union would go to court over such a move? So maybe instead of all the finger pointing, chest thumping and foot stomping the situation would be better served and more importantly so would the public, if the union accepted the fact that they will have to deal with the volunteers as an integral part of the process not a subsidiary one. Cogs

I think the idea of health, wellness and fitness programs are long overdue in the volunteer sector, but I also think that there are limits as to what you can reasonably expect volunteers to do out of pocket as a requirement for membership. An entrance phyisical abilities test is not at all unreasonable and one can be run along the CPAT guidelines by the departments themselves at little or no cost (other than the gym equipment) to either the department or the applicant as a part of the membership process. After that as far as I'm concerned if you're going to require any standards in term of fitness it is up to the department to foot the bill. The volunteers have already made the commitment to the department to give their time, energy, experience and dedication so anything above and beyond that the department should provide if they are going to demand it as a requirement to remain a member. Cogs

You are entitled to take my comment any way you choose and in all fairness maybe my wording seems to mean what you think. That is not the case. What I mean by those statements is that "off duty" volunteers would ride any apparatus assigned to a call to fill out the assigned crew as a matter of course...or policy if you prefer. I welcome unity based in mutual respect and the desire to serve the community nothing more...or less. As it stands now SFRD personnel live in seperate quarters (either by choice or due to circumstances) do they not? Where's the unity in that? How or why would it be different in the future? Why should we pay for people to staff a firehouse for hours that volunteers could do it to the same level? As to your question, there are a really just about as many varieties of methods used to combine personnel as there are departments that combine them. Some in MD and VA use the guidelines I have described to a large extent based on volunteer availability although there are some stations which are more akin to what you describe below. In CA and OH volunteers are paid per call or recieve stipends to fill duty shifts which are completely legal and fall within the definition of a volunteer under their laws. A few Depts rely completely on volunteer personnel to provide their staffing but they are, as you can well imagine few and far between. I'm not opposed to such a system in theory although I find it far more flexible to allow crews to cross train and staff apparatus as needed. I think operating in such a manner does give more bang for the buck since crews would not be limited to only one type of apparatus thereby limiting their usefulness. Thank you, hopefully there will be areas of agreement should you find one. Well we all have our crosses to bear and obstacles to overcome. I believe a grass roots effort would produce a viable alternative but I am fully aware of the circumstances which make such an effort extremely difficult to embark upon. This may be hard for some to believe and almost impossible to envision but we all want the same thing in the end, a fire service that meets the needs of the community. Cogs

I think this debate started when a unilateral plan was introduced by the former Mayor, everything since then has only compounded the situation. Cogs

Well you got me there. It could come to pass that members would only meet at shift change but since the houses belong to the volunteers they can come and go as they please when not assigned for a duty shift. Same with the rigs, we own em therefore we ride em when we're there once qualified to do so. Also under such a "plan" during the day the paid crews would ride whatever rig is dispatched from the fleet, not just one engine that they would be assigned to. In theory it would work something like this: for in distict calls volunteers would be responding from the house with the paid crew on the assigned rig if there aren't enough volunteers in house to staff another rig or on other apparatus from that house when full crews are available to staff them in house. At night the same applies except all staffing is volunteer. This was spelled out in the proposal. A similar system has been up and running for over 20 years in MD and for at least half that long in parts of VA, PA, DE CA, TX, NH, NJ and OH to name a few off the top of my head. Google combo systems, the info is there for all to see. As far as training goes weekend sessions could be scheduled that would be comprised of both "sides" to foster unity. By the way what would be the composition of these combination crews in the volunteer houses? For any type of integration to work there would need to be compromise on both sides and a willingness of all to be "a family". Even now the SFRD members working in Glenbrook and Springdale are in fact coming into someone elses house, at one it appears they get along...although it does beg the question do GFD members regularly attend all the "training, eating meals together, cleaning the station together etc..Ya know, working together" that you speak of? As for the other house...well we all know how well that's working out. Let's start with all the members present at the Task Force meetings. The proposal was read and questioned addressed. There was silence in the gallery save for one or two questions from one SFRD member. Beyond that I cannot say as nothing was ever said either way. Have you read the proposal? What are your objections? On what point(s) would there be a willingness to compromise in the interest of building a unified and integrated system to better serve the community? I am always willing to reevaluate and correct any shortcomings to come up with something better to bring to the powers that be...hence the call here to meet and get started. Elected at BFD. Our members must, like SFRD, pass an in house test to be eligible for consideration after that unlike SFRD it is up to the membership to decide. You talk about legalities relating to fireground action...or lack thereof...CT is an OSHA State not an NFPA one therefore in court those standards carry only a limited amount of weight legally. Of course in all fairness they are considered an "industry standard" and a jury may be influenced by them. Look back a few pages it's there. I am a member in good standing and as such I have the authority to look for alternatives to bring to my membership for their consideration. Any changes of such a magnitude come before the membership for their approval, just as it was at the beginning of this mess. Ultimately though it is the Chief that enacts those changes the membership approves. Cogs

Perhaps. I am personally for round the clock coverage at the best possible price to the taxpayers. Daytimes are the real problem for volunteers and everyone can agree on that, but it IS possible to staff houses with volunteers at night and with that comes a savings to the taxpayers. What are the benefits to 24 hr. combination coverage? I don't because they weren't. Our proposal had it's fair hearing before the Task Force and it wasn't that committee that dismissed it out of hand, it was SFRD. I don't have access to those records for the other VFDs, but I have already given a rundown on BFDs membership's interior certification. As far as following the orders of an IC, well who determines they're level of experience or what the quaility of their training is? If they have been to numerous fires/incidents and handled them what then is the problem. Do you really believe a piece of paper certifies someones qualifications? If so than that is extremely dangerous. In answer to you question, yes I would follow their orders until such time as I was given an order that my experience leads me to question. That is the ICS after all. Cogs

Funny I thought we were trying to work together, but I get it you want to just ignore the volunteers again. I guess you're right though this is a waste of time. Well at least we tried on our end and it's clear just how much you want to "work together". Cogs

None of this would have been necessary had SFRD and the previous administration tried to work with the VFDs instead of dictating to them THREE years ago!! Easily fixed by requiring all officers to meet the same mutually agreed upon and nationally recognized standards to hold rank and all firefighters to meet the same training requirements. It's been offered and ignored. Negative. A four person crew able to respond on the apparatus needed per call will reduce the number of employees required overall thus saving tax dollars. This is especially true when the career staff is only assigned during the day and volunteers cover nights in the current VFD districts....as has also been proposed and ignored. Cogs

Can you??? It's been two weeks since I asked to meet with anyone from SFRD to try and develope an alternative to the two "plans" currently on the table. Thus far the silence has been deafening and quite honestly very telling as to the sincerity of some in regards to wanting to "work together". How about answering the question posted above this morning. Why was the only alternative that sought to integrate career and volunteer personnel ignored by SFRD? Cogs

I think the record will show that GFD has an abysmal response record...far worse than any of the other VFDs. That to me is most definitely a downside and does not bode well for the volunteer system or the taxpayers should all the VFDs go the same route. As far as command goes what you suggest is not the plan on the table. SFRDs "plan" calls for SFRD to be in command of all scenes, volunteer Chiefs to be ranked equal with SFRD Captains, and volunteer officers to be in charge of volunteers only i.e. two commands, as well as the removal of two peices of apparatus from downtown to provide coverage up North. As I said earlier such an arrangement will decrease not increase the overall efficiency of SFRD and the coverage citywide. And another look at Glenbrook shows this clearly, as the majority of E-6s calls are not in Glenbrook or even Vollywood, but downtown. Houses staffed by a combination of career and volunteer personnel cross trained to operate all the apparatus of any given station and respond with the ones needed per call provides the best bang for the buck. Cogs

I have always maintained that a unfied system would be ideal so long as the volunteers were afforded the opportunity granted them by the Charter to be an equal part of that system. Not only because of the legalities but because volunteers offer the residents of this city a number of benefits such as reduced taxes, community service, neighborhood indentity and others. But above all else we do provide for the public safety along with these things. There are problems with the current system without a doubt and never have I said otherwise, but since we live under the circumstances that prevail we have no choice but to build upon what we have. Even if I wanted to dismiss the legalities involved it is not that simple. Frankly while the threat of lawsuits is a consideration, it has been my experience that SFRD does not want to integrate, they want to create a two tiered system and that has been the major stumbling block as far as I'm concerned. I will say again that we put forth a proposal that integrated the "sides" along the lines of equal standards and distributed the personnel and equipment in a manner that guaranteed the public safety. Not only that but it also called for performance standards for the VFDs and the onus to achieve them was put squarely in the lap of the volunteers themselves. If they were unable or unwilling to attain them the alternative would have been career staffing by SFRD exclusively. Now while that proposal did need some work and some negotiation to serve everyone's needs it did provide a viable foundation on which to build. That proposal was ignored by SFRD. Why? For me and me alone, off the fireground I find it difficult to extend a hand to those that have repeatedly slapped it away. That being the case I and many others on our "side" have taken to the task of building a department that will serve our community without SFRD as a willing partner. It needn't stay that way, but that is not up to me. Cogs

You may be right that it's time for a reexamination of the Charter but be that as it may the City Charter is a legal document that requires a specific process to be changed and it's provisions must be adhered to while that examination is underway. Should anyone wantonly disregard any of the rules, policies, regulations or procedures of their department if they don't agree with them? Should they disregard them while they were under review? Should they disregard the process to change them? Would anyone advocate simply ignoring the process and doing what they want? My bet would be no. Yet that is exactly what is happening here in regards to the Charter. While the previous Administration may have turned a blind eye or one could argue even encouraged such action, it appears the current one will not. It simply comes down to this, right or wrong, for better or for worse to the public and for Stamford's firefighters as a whole, the City Charter stands. If anyone doesn't like the way things are then they need to follow the process to change it, but until such time as it is changed we are all still bound by it's provisions. As "tired" as you, I or anyone may be with that or with hearing about it, the fact remains that we don't have the right or authority to disregard it. And that has nothing to do with paid or volunteer, it's just a matter of following the law. Cogs

I cannot nor will I even attempt to explain the rationale of another person and it is also not within my authority to question the decisions of the Chief of another department. SFRD may well be obligated to follow their own SOGs ect but they must do so under the direction of the designated IC of the scene when out of district. Negative. It is SFRD that is obligated to adhere to those of the "host" department. Conjecture, and even if this presumption were to be true the legal authority still lies squarely with the VFDs. Rule are rules are they not? I will ask again what is the legal justification to suborn the authority of a volunteer Chief in their own recognized and specified district? Or are you advocating that there should be more than one command on a scene? Again the willingness to work together cannot be dependent upon everyone agreeing with that objective because not everyone does or will. The process is undermined when there is no freedom to explore alternatives for those that seek to find them. And let's be honest here, it is not only the volunteer side that has an anti cooperation faction, and it seems by your statement above that even you agree with that assessment. To achieve a mutually beneficial outcome we must work to achieve that goal because of those factions not in spite of them. Cogs

Be serious, you're asking me to explain the rationale of a Chief officer from another department. I can no more do that than I could explain yours in any given situation. As I said before I have answered this in terms of my opinions as to what happened. You will get nothing more or less It's not a question of whether or not I believe he has the authority..he does. The 5 voluneer FDs in Stamford are under absolutely no obligation whatsoever to adhere to any standards, SOGs, rules, regulations (other than CT OSHA), certifications (other than FF I ), policies, procedures or anything else from SFRD and it is the State of CT that says so, along with our City Charter. This is what baffles me above all else. How is it that SFRD members think they can dictate anything to an independent VFD? By what means are they so entitled? By virtue of what statute are they entitled to disregard duly authorized ordinances of the City and State at a whim? It doesn't matter what you, I or anyone else thinks about the validity of such a set up because in the end that IS the system that currently exists until such time as the BORs of this city changes it. You are not really implying that it is the volunteers alone that are against the goal of "working together" are you? I can say with all confidence that the utter silence and complete lack of interest from all the SFRD members here that have refused to accept the offer to sit down and try to work on a solution together speaks volumes more than my defending the system that, right or wrong, is legally in place and has been since before most of us were born. Cogs

I always love a good laugh and thanks for this one. Like I said I can't speak for him as to why he has or hasn't cancelled any other Chief, and that's not backpeddling it's simply a fact. And even if I could it wouldn't matter, he is the Chief of that district and legally that is his decision to make as he chooses. And while I'm sure you do indeed have much to add in terms of finding ways to resolve this mess, the fact is there can be no meaningful dialouge if you are unwilling to respect and work within the legal framework that currently exists while seeking ways to change it. I think that demonstrates a level of credibility as well. Of course my offer still stands to work together on a grass roots level to try and come up with a viable alternative that integrates the departments. It is unfortunate that you feel this way. If this is the prevailing attitude then that makes the situation that much more difficult to resolve. And would these "more intelligent and experienced professionals" be SFRD alone? If not who else fits that bill in your opinion? Are there any volunteers that merit your consideration? I suppose it's quite possible that you will get your wish. Although many of us would welcome a true integrated system, that cannot be a one sided arrangement. Therefore we must and will work tirelessly to ensure the best possible outcome should the Mayor's plan become reality. Cogs

Back to moving forward. While this has been a nice diversion it really isn't helping. What happened happened. It's done, so now what? Shall we wallow in it or is anyone ready to move forward together?

To the best of my knowledge there hasn't been a situation where a Chief officer had to be cancelled directly. Once recall has been sounded they return to service. That isn't what happened here and in regards to that see my diatribe above relating to AHJs. Back to moving forward. While this has been a nice diversion it really isn't helping. What happened happened. It's done, so now what? Shall we wallow in it or is anyone ready to move forward together? Cogs

Since we're all in a questioning mood, tell me who here is going to answer my question Cogs