FFPCogs

How is it that you expect me to speak for someone else? I have given you a clear description on what I saw and heard and what my opinion is of those events. To get the answers you seek you will need to speak to that Chief . As I said I'm not defending anyone personally, just pointing out that not everyone has the same view of the events in question. Cogs

For all the talk of "Unity" of command it seems that there can only be such a thing if it is SFRD that is the command. Unfortunately from a legal standpoint that is currently not how the system is set up. The City Charter, which some seem so willing to disregard, clearly delineates the fire districts of this City and as such the State considers each of those districts and their duly authorized agent..i.e. Chief...to be the Authority Having Jurisdiction of that district. It doesn't specify how many of that district's FF must be on a scene to allow that districts Chief to act as IC, it says that the Chief has the authority to BE the IC in that district if they so choose. The Charter and State statutes does not say the a mutual aid Chief must remain on scene at their own discretion if X number of "their" FFs are on a scene, it says that the Chief of that district has the authority and right to decide who is on that scene by virtue of them being the AHJ no matter what a labor contract of a different department may state. So long as SFRD remains adamant that only their officers can command at any scene at which they are present there will be no unity. The only way to achieve a single department is to integrate the command by standardizing the requirements to serve, not divide it by whether or not the FFs are career or volunteer. Cogs

I cannot say for certain that he would have, but I can tell you with a very high degree of certainty that if he or any IC had cancelled my Department's Chief, our Chief would follow that direction. Yes as I understand it he does, as does the Chief of any fire district in which they are the authorized Command. In fact it was always a general rule that unless a second or greater alarm was sounded it is our Company Officers that act as the command authority for MY department"s personnel on an out of district scene under the direction of the "host" department's Chief. Our Chief's primary responsibility is our district. Of course circumstances sometimes dictate otherwise and as a department our SOGs retain the flexibilty to allow our Chief to act as the situation warrants. Cogs

Well now Cap I think I do more than just talk as evidenced by my recent posts here within the last week or so, but you are of course entitled to your opinion. In regards to "blindly following your Team" I beg to differ since I was there and heard what transpired for a good part of this situation. In the end though it really doesn't matter, there is and there will continue to be animosities until members on each "side" step across the lines. I've already made it abundantly clear the I'm willing to, in fact I think it's readily apparent that I would relish the opportunity, but alas as of yet it has been strangely silent from your "Team's" quarter. Yes if the incident were clearing. Can't the junior officers handle their own crews to clear a scene? Isn't it the job and responsibility of a company officer to manage their crew under the direction of an IC? I find nothing wrong with a Chief responding or staying on an active scene to monitor their personnel when that's the case, but in this case recall had been sounded and the scene was clearing. I do have a problem with a Chief or any officer from any department unilaterally disregarding the directions of an IC. What would be the reaction if the roles were reversed and a volunteer Chief were to appoint themself a safety officer on an SFRD scene after the DC put in a recall? Let me be clear here in that I fully realize what the situation is. I'm not defending anyone personally, I'm taking exception to the what led to this "incident". The players are irrellevant, but the attitudes are not. No one involved in the ongoing mess that is our fire service is an angel by any means nor have they been for quite some time, but in THIS case there was no need for the escalation that took place. All of this could have been avoided by simply returning to service when recall was sounded. Cogs

I tried like hell to leave this one alone as I am one that truly believes it's in everyones best interest to work together, but I was on scene at this particular call and the actions of the DC were not professional on this occasion. The bottom line here is that there is ONE IC on a scene and in this case it was the Springdale Chief. And yes he does have the authority to release units, hold them or whatever else he decides as the IC in his authorized district, which this was. Approximately 7-8 minutes into this call 511 put in a recall holding one or two units and that should have been it, but it wasn't...and that was not SFCo's Chief's fault. Upon recieveing the recall the DC decided to remain on scene after making some rather derogatory remarks over the radio on the fireground channel, remarks by the way which were heard by everyone on our crew. So even though he had been released and had no authority whatsoever from that point forward he stayed on scene and appointed himself the safety officer which was neither called for by the IC or necessary as the incident was coming to a close. He was informed that there was already an safety officer on scene which the Springdale Chief had appointed as is his right and authority to do. Yet the DC remained and then approached SFCo's Chief in the driveway of the home and began questioning him about the "quailifications" of the safety officer. A verbal exchange then took place since 511 is under no obligation to be dictated to by anyone in his own district. At this point 511 called for the police to remove an insubordinate FF on scene. I did not witness events from that point forward as we were returned to service by 511 and following his directive left the scene. Was there an "assault"? I don't know but it seems that 511 thinks there was. Without fail I can agree 100% that this incident was all about personal animosity, but that animosity is not 511's alone and acting upon such animosity is not in the least bit professional no matter who it is that is doing it. We all have our personal feeling about what is going on here and we all have every right to share them, but when those feelings carry over on to the fireground and it doesn't matter who carries them over, it is a dangerous precedent indeed and one that must STOP !!!!! Cogs

Happy New Year everyone.

Amen !! Bad press is bad press and all of it does none of us any good. Cogs

Absolutely CT everyone should be involved, but we have to start somewhere don't we? To paraphase a movie about another pipe dream "if you build it they will come". Maybe it will take some of us "breaking ranks" so to speak to get the ball rolling and the rest will follow. The truth is a good plan would be a good plan regardless of who develops it and it would be a far better plan if people from both "sides" were involved in it's creation. Idealistic? Naive? Possibly but as I've said before what have we got to lose? We can go on bit*hing and moaning or we can step up and at least try to come up with something better..if indeed something better even exists. And just to reiterate another aspect...cooperation even on this small scale has the potential to relieve at least some of what divides us and show that there really is the potential to find and build on common ground. From there anything is possible. And that as far as I'm concerned is, in and of itself, worth the effort. Take care and Stay Safe Cogs

What I am advocating is exploring every possible option to best serve the community. That really doesn't require facilitation by anyone other than those that are willing to do it. If and I'll be the first to admit that it is a huge if, a viable alternative emerges it can then be presented to all parties for their review and possible endorsement. This is not to say that the Mayor's plan is flawed or that I disagree with it, it just means that there may yet be an option that is better. If nothing else getting together may at least dispel some of the rhetoric inspired animosity that exists....build the proverbial bridge if you will. No need to wonder any further. I support it and can assure you that I will work faithfully to ensure that the best possible department is the end result under the Long Ridge structure. That being said I will also always keep an open mind and a willingness to work to find what may be a better arrangement. Cogs

FD, I'm not a complete fool or simply idealisitc, I realize that ultimately it is the powers that be that will decide, but up to this point they have seen no attempts by anyone on either "side" at any level to "cross party lines" or build bridges. What faith can they have based on our..yes OUR... past performance to think that there will be any cooperation in the future? So then what choice is left..they must come up with something and since there has been no collective effort on our part, be it from the top or the bottom, to truly work together and develope an alternative it comes down to chosing one "side" or the other. Our previous Mayor generally sided with the union, it appears our current one will not as readily. To me that means it is up to US to give him something to work with that proves cooperation IS possible and that proof can come from any level. As hard as this may be to believe based on page after page of my ramblings I (and some very experienced and dedicated others) are not just talkers...we are doers. I for one am willing to put in the effort knowing full well it may fail on the slim chance that a workable and mutually beneficial "plan" may emerge and be given it's chance. What is there to lose for the effort other than some time?.......Nothing !! Cogs

While we are all at the mercy of our leaderships the fact is changes can and do begin with individuals. I have repeatedly stated that I (and I can think of a few others) will work with anyone who's willing to develope an alternative, yet no one has responded to that offer. Frankly that leads me to question the sincerity of some when it comes to wanting to actually "work together" to resolve this in a mutually beneficial way. Let me ask it clearly. Who among those that visit here would be willing meet with me and possibly a few other Stamford VFFs to explore our options and begin rebuilding the relationships that have been obliterated? If you don't want to answer here PM or email me at ffpcogs@yahoo.com. As with most incidents there is alot of Monday morning quaterbacking going on. The district in question is one that has some real operational handicaps in terms of water supply, scene access and the like. My colleagues at SFRD are all professionals and experienced FFs, but even now a few years into this they are still basically novices when it comes to rural firefighting..as am I so that's not a dig. Some of the considerations that apply "up North" are quite different than those in well hydranted areas where response times are faster and assets are more readily available. This is not to say that there hasn't been some command "mistakes" or a shortage of intial personnel at times, but one must consider all factors not just the ones which support their arguments if we're going to find solutions. In regards to this specific incident since I wasn't there I can only go by what I've been told by those that were (volunteer and SFRD alike) and that is that it was a very difficult job due to the fires location and the ability of the crews on scene to get to it. Questions abound as to the motivations of many of the players here, and by and large most views about those motivations are based on some pretty misguided beliefs on both "sides" of the fence, including my own I'm sure. How do we overcome the ignorance? By sitting down as professionals and respectfully examning the situation and what we can do about it. If the leaderships can't or won't do it then maybe it's high time the rank and file did..after all it is all of us that will be most affected is it not? Food for thought I hope......... Happy New Year Cogs

Point taken CTFF maybe mandate is the wrong word. I guess a better way to put it would be to say that to me the Mayor's plan is the direction that has been charted for the volunteer FDs.

As I've said we (career and volunteer alike) share many of the same views so in fact we have much more in common than not. I have no doubt that this is true. Yes we do and it is from this common ground that we should build.....and should have from the beginning. Cogs

T, I thank you for your views regarding BFD, we work very hard at maintaining our long standing reputation as a good FD and we will continue to do so. As for our volunteer colleagues in town, each faces some unique challenges but those challenges can and I believe will be overcome as things move forward. As it stands now we (BFD) are prepared to enter into the proposed merger with the goal of building an effective FD to serve our community and having made that decision we must now take the steps necessary to ensure it's success. This is not an anti-SFRD or anti union stance, it is simply the mandate we have been given and as such we will make every effort to see it through. On the topic of your challenge I can only say that I have answered you as best I can. On this I have to say that I have a somewhat different view. I was on T45 and on scene at this call. The scene was running smoothly until recall was put in. I won't disrespect anyone other than to say that in my opinion what occured was not only unnecessary but also unprofessional. To me and this is my understanding of how our system works (or not), 511 be he alone or on scene with 100 SFCo FFs is, when in Springdale, still the Chief of that department and as such he is the authorized IC in that district when he's there. Now that may not be palatable, it may not be fair, it may not even be what is "right" but at the end of the day it is the way our system is currently set up and no one has the right to disregard that simply because they think 511 doesn't meet their standards. In essence this is what I've been saying all along. To me it really doesn't matter what criteria is used so long as it is standardized and mutually agreed upon and respected. Anything else is inherently destined to fail. Putting up or shutting up has been my mantra for quite some time. This view has not endeared me to some but it is how I came up in the fire service and I thank God every day for it. I'm in some very good company that share this view as well. Whatever my personal views may be in the end they don't matter. What does matter is that I and I would hope all involved, take what we've been given and build from it what the community not only needs but deserves. Bottom line here is that I will work with anyone that wants to work with us to build a unified department beyond the fireground. Frankly though from my perspective it seems that this was not and is not SFRD, but I and others remain open to changing that. A very Happy New Year to you and all as well. Cogs

Although you didn't directly answer my questions that is to be expected in this climate. What is important is that, as you say there seems to be a willingness to at least explore other options. Many volunteers felt that as a group we were excluded from the process that began under Malloy, so I can relate to that view. And it may be that since the view of the union did not prevail as it once did that many feel they have been ignored. As far as I was concerned the plan put forward by Chief Brown was I believed at the time, the one the union endorsed. Now I can't speak for anyone else but to me the union and it's leadership is just doing what unions do...looking out for the welfare of it's members and trying to increase it's political voice, so to me it's not about being the "bad guy". My problem with the union is that it considers me and the rest of my volunteer colleagues as rivals and views us as a threat to the livelihoods of it's members. And that simply is not the case. Truth be told the only jobs that might have been threatened were ones that didn't exist. We can go back and forth with what could've, should've and would've, but that will do us no good now. I do agree that under the current circumstances a "meeting of the minds" is probably highly unlikely, but if a plan were to be mutually developed by some rank and file members from each "side" maybe it could merit the consideration of those minds. As I always say failure to try guarantees only one thing....failure. In a nutshell while I do not believe the Mayor's plan to be "smoke and mirrors" I do harbor some real reservations about it. I will also tell you that alternatives are being worked on that some believe can provide a higher level of service under the two department mandate. Whether or not they will gain a "seat at the table" remains to be seen. For me I believe that come what may we, the volunteers, have to build the foundation to move forward with or without SFRD and that is not by choice but by circumstance, and that is exactly what we are trying to do. Let me close by saying regardless of what you or any of your union brothers may think I don't want to see anyone lose their job. I think the rank and file are much closer than it may seem, and if there were ever a time to cross the lines now is it. Cogs

You ask some very pertinent and legitimate questions which unfortunately I cannot answer with any certainty....I don't have access to that information either. And yes I've worked a number of working fires and many calls with SFRD and have not seen any real issues at least as far as Belltown is concerned. We work well together and I am sure we will continue to do so, as I believe we all have a professional attititude towards performaing our duty. Now on the higher levels of command, yes there are some issues from each "side" which complicate matters, but neither you or I are in a position to solve them on our own. We cannot change the past and in that vein whether or not a person is "qualified" in the positions they currently hold is not something we can change at this point. What WE (meaning all fire service members in Stamford) can do is develope standardized criteria for officer selection at each level and provide access to the training necessary for all to meet those criteria in the future. To this point that option has not been well recieved by SFRD and in all fairness by some on the volunteer side of the fence either. You have emphasized the word trust above. While it may not be much let us start small: Do you (or any SFRD members) trust that I mean what I say in regards to actually trying to build a viable integrated system to better serve our community? Do you trust that I am willing to put in the effort to make it so? I can say in all candor and with all sincerity that I don't know if I trust any of you in that regard, but I would give you the benefit of the doubt, and work tirelessly to achieve it, if in fact there was a true willingness to reach the goal of a unified integrated system. Take this for what it's worth to you....A few months back during a conversation with an SFRD Captain I said and meant it, that I can envision the day when Stamford's career and volunteer firefighters stand shoulder to shoulder, not toe to toe on issues involving the fire service here. I believe that through negotiation and mutual compromise it CAN be done....do you? Cogs

Ok well now that Christmas is over it's back to the task at hand. T, I cannot in good conscience "factually" tell you that 58 career personnel will not outnumber the total number of active volunteers in town should this plan go forward, as I do not have the rosters of the other 3 VFDs at hand. But I can factually tell you that Belltown has 42 active members on the roster, 32 certified and another 10 on probationary status. And just to be clear when I say active I mean members that show up regularly and do what needs to be done, like get the rigs on the road staffed by competent crews 100% of the time, staff the house during the day, sleep in for night tours, maintain our facilities and equipment, and train at least once a week...although to be honest most nights find the in house crews drilling for at least an hour and we regularly schedule and maintain good attendence at weekend drills as well. So long story short even if BFD were to hire it's best and brightest 9 that the plan calls for, and even if they hire them using the often cited fantasy method of the Chief "hiring his friends" we would still have 33 active volunteer members, and that is a fact. Now let's take a look at the rest of your post. You mention the " Brown Plan" and I'm glad you did. Let me first make perfectly clear that I have known Chief Brown for many years and have the utmost respect for him and his years of service to not only SFRD but the BFD as well. That being said, the plan he put forth is not nor can it be the panacea some would have us believe. How is it that taking a truck company out of service and moving it's crew to an engine and sending them "up North" to Long Ridge and moving E-5 from Woodside to TOR 1 is going to offer the City a better level of coverage? This type of redisribution decreases not increases the overall effectiveness of SFRD. If this redistribution did occur how often would those units be pulled from their assigned area to cover others? A quick look at the responses of E-6 can give us a good idea. The majority of calls E-6 responds to are not in Glenbrook, or even the VFD districts for that matter, but downtown. Under the SFRD plan with 2 units gone from downtown it is a safe bet that the units moved up North to Vollyland will, like E-6, have to make up the shortfall. And this doen't even take into account an actual working fire that requires FAST and in many cases goes to a 2nd alarm as a matter of course nowadays. Everything looks good on paper, my ideas included, but the facts are the facts. You state that under the "Brown plan" volunteers would "still have a function" and just what exactly would that function be..the Glenbrook model? As we have seen that model is less than stellar at best and a review of the GFDs responses amply show that. The fact is you can stretch limited resources only so far and the type of redistribution called for by the "Brown plan" would stretch them to the breaking point. This would lead in a very short time to the necessity of having to hire more SFRD personnel which brings us to the real heart of the matter. I agree 100% that this is all about control and always has been. We have been bombarded in the newspapers and on websites time and again with the view that it is the volunteers who are intransigent about the issue of control. This is not really an objective view on this issue. On more than one occasion options have been presented that put career and volunteer officers together in a unified and integrated Chain of Command so that they work alongside.and compliment each other. On every occasion it was SFRD that refused to budge on the issue. I will ask you directly what is the objection to an integrated Incident Command System comprised of career and volunteer officers that meet the SAME standards? Up to now this option has been dismissed by SFRD because the control issue is one SFRD is unwilling to negotiate...or even address in any way other than to dictate terms. The "my way or the highway" attitude shown thus far by SFRD does not and will not lend itself to a viable merging of the services here, so the only other alternative is the two party system that appears likely on the horizon. There is of course another fact that must be considered in all this....the City Charter which, like it or not clearly delineates control. There are some of us that are open to a different approach, one that seeks to truly integrate the system, but for that to happen there has to be a change in the stance of SFRD towards the role the volunteers will play in that system. As the New Year fast approaches and with it the deadline for a choice, it falls to SFRD to decide what they are willing to do to create a viable unified department...in other words it is up to you. Cogs

I agree that it is possible to volunteer in this day and age even with all the other responsibilities that are a part of all our lives. But the most important point you make is that we (the volunteer fire service in general) must begin to look at new and realistic methods to recruit that are effective because of the changes in society, not in spite of them. Successful efforts must also take into account the need to consolidate services where necessary or practical. Without doubt the world we live in today is a far diferent place than it was when I joined 30+ years ago, but it seems to me that many are stuck in a time warp when it comes to realizing this as far as recruitment goes. People WILL join if we approach recruitement and more importatntly how we operate with an open and when necessary flexible stratedgy to utilize them. As with many issues that surround us as a service, an inability to "change with the times" will have disasterous results. After all if whatever "worked" in the past still worked we wouldn't be having this discussion. There are progressive and successful recruiting efforts out there that encompass all manner of stratedgies that may help with developing programs for your department, but it will take some hardcore research to find ones that can be used as templates to create you own. And that's the easy part. Of far more importance is the willingness of all involved to implement them once they've been developed. The challenges are many, the work required immense, and the commitment needed steadfast, but for those who are willing to put in the time, energy and effort the success and longevity of your volunteer fire department is the reward. Cogs

I posted this on another site , but it fits just as well here. Just want to take a moment during this holiday season to pass along the following thoughts............ To all: Although we disagree, sometimes fiercely, and each of us harbors our own views and defends them staunchly, during this Holiday season let us all take a moment to stop and reflect on just how lucky we are to be able to serve in good health and with the true spririt of the service in our hearts. I may not agree with any of you but I do respect your commitment to the Fire Service and to those you serve faithfully. No matter how opposite your views may be from mine, I just want to take the opportunity here to thank each of you for your insight and opinions expressed on these many pages. Merry Christmas and a Happy and Healthy New Year to you and your families in and out of the firehouse..... Cogs

Ditto!!

Fair enough, no argument there. Ok I'll try to answer this one, but be forewarned the answer is based on MY understanding of the situation and may be be " biased " . The residents of North Stamford have been subsidizing the operations of SFRD for some time, as tax dollars from the C and C/S tax districts were allocated to SFRD when they were not supposed to be. Since those funds will be going to a special service district and will be used to fund the new FD exclusively they will no longer be available for SFRD. The residents of downtown will have to make up the shortfall.

Thanks G, Finally a realisitic appraisal of the situation in the Ragvocate. Two departments while certainly not ideal are indeed better than six and no matter how much I or some may think the plan is flawed or isnt enough, the truth is it is a HUGE step forward for Stamford at this time. Cogs

T, Much to my suprise and maybe that of others as well I find myself agreeing with almost all of what you've stated. It is indeed time to calm down and evaluate the proposal for what it is and build on it's merits. And I couldn't agree more that any redistribution of the assets belonging to the VFDs shouid go to the NON PROFIT taking over the protection. Will wonders never cease... Cogs.

You'll get your money's worth with Capt. Morris no ifs, ands or buts, plus what looks like a decent meal to boot. I hope alot of you are planning to attend, you won't regret it. ___________ Peter Cogliano Firefighter Dyncorp/LOGCAP IV Camp Leatherneck Afghanistan

Yes T I do indeed know you better than that. Your answer is just what I expected it to be, and it speaks volumes...thanks. I'm looking forward to the moment that document moves on to the appropriate people. You know what I couldn't agree more. This has always been about the self serving principle player's agendas and the City putting them at odds to set their own. It really is a shame that the public's welfare is the last item on most of them. Nah, although I would relish the opportunity to work with you, I couldn't afford the pay cut... Cogs