FFPCogs

So now TRFD or maybe all the VFDs are motivated to consolidate by the prospect of personal monetary gain by some or all of their memberships huh? You can of course site the proof of these discussions that led you to concoct this theory, such as the names of those present, dates and places where they took place and how it is that you came to be aware of them...right??

No need to look back PJ, I am fortunate in that I have an excellent memory in such matters. I know full well what I stated, so even though I would take a job were it to be offered, I highly doubt that that consideration would even be considered. C'est la vie Cogs

Your concern for my state of awareness is touching but misplaced. I am fully aware of what has and what is going on here and even share many of the reservations presented on these 46 pages of comment. That being said, I remain confident that an alternative exists which may yet emerge that takes the public into account first, not as a secondary to any of the other agendas at work here. And make no mistake, no one " side " in this debacle has a monopoly on those agendas. You can also rest assured Rexy, I have no illusions about being considered for any of the jobs which may emerge with this new FD, let alone a top one. Cogs

T, I noticed that I was remiss in addressing this question. My apologies. As to the colorized text, I take it to mean that no FD, District or municipal administration can arbitrarily change the status quo of a towns fire protection without the consent of all parties concerned. In other words the strong arm tactics of the previous administration and any attempts to continue them are illegal since each district, for better or worse, is an incorporated fire district which has an established fire department. The VFD consolidation process which has begun here, no matter how unpopular or unpalatable, does at least take this into account. Cogs

Well then Rexy, that makes two of us, as I am no lawyer and don't claim to be one either. I fully agree that niether of us are qualified to make legal arguments here, so why bother trying. I'm also glad to hear that you have previously read the informative material supplied in my post....informed discussion is always better than the continual rote disgorging of all the party line propaganda that creeps it's way into these forums. I apologize for not quoting your entire response, but like you feel that in the interest of saving both time and space it is unnecessary. And kudos to you for your excerpts which do indeed present both sides of the coin as far as taxing districts go...thanks for the info. Allies yes, and they may very well squash this plan, but as Governor he will have no overt direct involvement in this situation even if he does " outrank " the current Mayor My understanding ( and yes I'll be the first to admit that it is limited) is that SFCo is the AHJ of that district. As such they can rescind that agreement thereby removing E-7 and any claim SFRD has to Springdale being a part of their district. As I understand it this would also reduce the taxation in that distrct accordingly. 8 and 9 I believe fall within that same framework, but I could be mistaken on that. Well to believe all that has been said about how the VFDs have operated once funded by the BoR up to this point, it would seem that there would be little difference than it is now. The new district I'm sure will have it's own oversight in the form of a commission or some such body to whom the SVFD will have to answer since the residents tax dollars will go directly to the district which funds that FD. I would expect and encourge them to do so immediately. Although that organization may not be L-786, they still need a collective voice to represent their common interests. All of these important factors will fall in part or wholly under the discretion of the management of the SVFD. It will be the responsibility of the district Board of Directors and Fire Chief to ensure these are all addressed fully. To be fair though most if not all of this is currently done by the VFDs with the infastructure and administrations currently in place. You are absolutely correct. Although personnel costs due constitute the majority of the pie, there is far more to running a successful fire department than manpower alone. The district will have to account for that to meet all the needs of the department and where applicable tax the residents accordingly. Well are they complaining now??? Their job That's great news. Hopefully that ranking will improve further regardless of what " plan " is enacted Cogs

A very good question and one that MUST be addressed if the " plan " is to be sucessfull. I have posted ad nauseum my ( and that of a few others) view on how to accomplish this and there are those who have influence that have now come to see the validity in that method. Whether or not that will be the answer to your question remains to be seen Fair enough but regardless of the why, as we can now clearly see the entire premise of the merger was flawed to begin with and hence led to the current situation. Cogs

As Geppetto pointed out there will of course be paperwork and documentation involved in the creation of the " SVFD " but it will simply follow the established process, through the appropriate Boards, Commiteees and Departments that have long been in existence, to achieve that end..and nowhere does it say that the Governor is a part of that process. Chances are Dan will have a far harder time pushing his own agandas there than he did here especially when it comes to the fire service because unlike his previous tenure as mayor here Dan is now facing a completely different animal in Hartford. His Legislature there is full of representatives from cities and towns that not only staunchly represent their volunteer fire services but also enact statutes to provide for them. And you have my sincere thanks for doing so. My colleagues at the BFD have earned that respect by upholding the highest traditions and dedication to our craft which have always been at the core of our Department and the Fire Service. I can say with all candor, sincerity and pride that the Belltown Fire Department is just that...a fire department. What has been proposed and how that proposal is ultimately enacted are two very different things. Cogs

Thanks Joe

OK Rexy just what exactly is the impact the Governor will have on all this? As I stated the creation of a taxing district is up to the voters that will be affected by it's creation, and it is the creation of a taxing district that is the cornerstone that will bring this new system into existence. Here's a little light reading on the subject that I trust is factual since it comes from the State's website: Sec. 7-301. Establishment of fire department. Any town may provide by ordinance for the protection of property within its limits from fire and for the establishment of a town fire department and for the management, discipline and control thereof by the board of selectmen or, if there is a town council, by the town council, or by a board of fire commissioners of such number, chosen in such manner and for such terms as the ordinance provides. The board of selectmen, town council or board of fire commissioners may make regulations for the conduct of the fire department and may appoint, discipline and remove for cause shown all employees of the department and purchase supplies and equipment necessary for its operation; provided, if the ordinance so provides, the board of selectmen, town council or board of fire commissioners shall enter into an agreement with any volunteer fire company or companies within the town for the protection thereof from fire on such conditions as to financial assistance and the observance of the regulations of the board of selectmen, town council or board of fire commissioners as such ordinance prescribes; and provided no town fire department established under the provisions of this section shall supersede any volunteer fire company which is the owner of any building, fire apparatus or other property without having first come to an agreement with such company with regard to the disposition of and compensation for such building, apparatus or other property. Such town may, at any meeting specially warned for the purpose, make appropriations and lay taxes for the support thereof; but this section shall not be operative within the limits of any city, borough or incorporated fire district which has an established fire department. Nothing in this section shall prevent any town, city, borough or incorporated fire district from appropriating funds to a volunteer fire company or companies for services rendered or to be rendered within the confines of such town, city, borough or district by such fire company or companies, provided such town, city, borough or incorporated fire district shall deem it in the public interest to do so. and here's a bit more on the establishment of taxing districts Sec. 7-325. Organization. Boundary changes. Reports. (A) Upon the petition of fifteen or more voters, as defined by section 7-6, of any town, specifying the limits of a proposed district for any or all of the purposes set forth in section 7-326, the selectmen of such town shall call a meeting of the voters residing within such specified limits to act upon such petition, which meeting shall be held at such place within such town and such hour as the selectmen designate, within thirty days after such petition has been received by such selectmen. Such limits shall contain only contiguous property, except any proposed district which is proposed to be established only to plan, lay out, acquire, construct, reconstruct, repair, maintain, operate and regulate the use of a community water system or to construct and maintain drains and sewers or both and which does not exercise any of the other powers enumerated in section 7-326, may contain noncontiguous properties if the properties proposed to be included are, or are to be, served by a common water or sewer main. Such meeting shall be called by publication of a written notice of the same, signed by the selectmen, at least fourteen days before the time fixed for such meeting in two successive issues of some newspaper published or circulated in such town. Not later than twenty-four hours before such meeting, (1) two hundred or more voters or ten per cent of the total number of voters, whichever is less, may petition the selectmen in writing for a referendum, or (2) the selectmen in their discretion may order a referendum, on the sole question of whether the proposed district should be established. Any such referendum shall be held not less than seven nor more than fourteen days after the receipt of such petition or the date of such order, on a day to be set by the selectmen for a vote by paper ballots or by a "yes" or "no" vote on the voting machines, during the hours between twelve o'clock noon and eight o'clock p.m.; except that any town may, by vote of its selectmen, provide for an earlier hour for opening the polls but not earlier than six o'clock a.m., notwithstanding the provisions of any special act to the contrary. If two-thirds of the voters casting votes in such referendum vote in favor of establishing the proposed district, the selectmen shall reconvene such meeting not later than seven days after the day on which the referendum is held. Upon approval of the petition for the proposed district by two-thirds of the voters present at such meeting, or if a referendum is held, upon the reconvening of such meeting after the referendum, the voters may name the district and, upon the vote of a majority of such voters, choose necessary officers therefor to hold office until the first annual meeting thereof; and the district shall, upon the filing of the first report required pursuant to subsection © of this section, thereupon be a body corporate and politic and have the powers, not inconsistent with the general statutes, in relation to the objects for which it was established, that are necessary for the accomplishment of such objects, including the power to lay and collect taxes. The clerk of such district shall cause its name and a description of its territorial limits and of any additions that may be made thereto to be recorded in the land records of each town in which such district is located. ( Any district may enlarge or reduce its territorial limits if the board of directors of the district approves a resolution proposing such an enlargement or reduction and stating the proposed boundaries of the area proposed to be included or excluded, as the case may be, provided: (1) The board of directors of the district shall call a meeting of voters of the area proposed to be included or excluded, which meeting shall be held within thirty days of the board of directors' approval of such resolution and shall be called by publication of a written notice of the same, signed by the members of the board of directors of the district, at least fourteen days before the time fixed for such meeting in two successive issues of some newspaper published or circulated in such town, provided not later than twenty-four hours before any such meeting, two hundred or more such voters or ten per cent of the total number of such voters, whichever is less, may petition the clerk of the district, in writing, that a referendum on the question of whether the area proposed to be included or excluded should join or leave the district be held in the manner provided in section 7-327; (2) a two-thirds majority of the voters of the area proposed to be included or excluded in attendance at such meeting, or, if a referendum is held, two-thirds of such voters casting votes in such referendum, vote in favor of joining or leaving such district; (3) that any area to be added is contiguous with some portion of the existing district, and (4) if the enlargement of the territorial limits of the district will overlap the territorial limits of another district within the town, the legislative body of the town approves such enlargement. If any district enlarges or reduces its territorial limits, the clerk of such district shall notify the town clerk of each town affected by such enlargement or reduction within thirty days after the vote. ©The clerk of each district created pursuant to this chapter or any provisions of the general statutes or any special act, shall report to the town clerk of each town in which such district is located: (1) If created by approval of a petition pursuant to subsection (a) of this section on or after July 1, 1987, within seven days of such approval; and (2) on or before July 31, 1993, and annually thereafter for each such district, irrespective of the date of creation. The first report filed after the creation of a district shall include a list of the officers of such district, a copy of the charter or special act of such district and such other information on the organization and the financial status of such district as the Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management may recommend. A copy of the charter or special act of such district shall be included in any subsequent report if such charter or special act was amended after the date of the previous filing. No district, irrespective of the date of creation, created by approval of a petition pursuant to subsection (a) of this section shall exist as a body corporate and politic until the clerk of such district has filed at least one report required by this subsection. If a district is located in more than one town, the report shall be filed by the district clerk with the town clerk of each town in which the district is located. (D) Any fine imposed on and after July 1, 1992, on a clerk for failure to file a report required pursuant to subsection © of this section shall be waived. See note to section 12-198. Cited. 122 C. 395. District must be a self-contained area. 145 C. 570. Only voters residing within area of proposed district may vote at organizational meeting. 184 C. 200. Cited. 197 C. 82. Cited. 205 C. 290. Cited. 208 C. 543. Cited. 218 C. 144. Sec. 7-326. Purposes. At such meeting, the voters may establish a district for any or all of the following purposes: To extinguish fires, to light streets, to plant and care for shade and ornamental trees, to construct and maintain roads, sidewalks, crosswalks, drains and sewers, to appoint and employ watchmen or police officers, to acquire, construct, maintain and regulate the use of recreational facilities, to plan, lay out, acquire, construct, reconstruct, repair, maintain, supervise and manage a flood or erosion control system, to plan, lay out, acquire, construct, maintain, operate and regulate the use of a community water system, to collect garbage, ashes and all other refuse matter in any portion of such district and provide for the disposal of such matter, to implement tick control measures, to install highway sound barriers, to establish a zoning commission and a zoning board of appeals or a planning commission, or both, by adoption of chapter 124 or chapter 126, excluding section 8-29, or both chapters, as the case may be, which commissions or board shall be dissolved upon adoption by the town of subdivision or zoning regulations by the town planning or zoning commission; and to adopt building regulations, which regulations shall be superseded upon adoption by the town of building regulations. Any district may contract with a town, city, borough or other district for carrying out any of the purposes for which such district was established. And here's another note which may impact future developments Sec. 7-323t. Municipal contracts prohibiting paid emergency personnel from volunteer service. On and after June 5, 2008, no municipality shall enter into a contract that prohibits paid firefighters or paid emergency personnel of such municipality from serving as active members of a volunteer fire department in the municipality in which such firefighters or emergency personnel reside during personal time. No BS, maybe I'm not comprehending what's the statutes say, if so my mistake and please correct me where wrong. Thanks Cogs ps Don't mind the smiley for some reason that happens with the letter b in parentheses.

I for one have never advocated anything other than a combination of paid and volunteer personnel to guarantee that there is an adequate pool of trained firefighters responding to every call. I just don't see that as meaning we need career firefighters 24/7 in every house, or even most of them outside of downtown. I can only say that the vast majority of you are well aware of my proposed "fix" for the problem and by and large don't like it because it doesn't fully support any single one of the many competing agendas at work here yet addresses them all. Agreed Cogs

It may yet turn out that we are not as far apart in our views on things as it may seem. But for sure I can say that after reading his post I was thinking the exact same thing...the mysterious and powerful puppet master Geppetto has finally spoken. Will wonders never cease. Cogs

Yes indeed a wondferfully erudite response by 152, yet the fact remains that there has been NO $500,000 savings in overtime which we were assured there would be once all career firefighters were merged into SFRD. The conditions cited as the basis for that merger, which is what started all this, have not, nor could they ever have been met. That is the TRUTH, FACT and REALITY of the situation...and you don't need to be " out in Afghanistan " or need " experience " to see that. Cogs

There is one statement above all others that you have espoused here that exemplifies a MAJOR part of the problem, and that would be your view that only paid firefighters are " real " firefighters. NOTHING could be further from the truth. It is that prevalent attitude that in large part creates an unbridgeable divide. As I have stated many times before a paycheck does NOT guarantee the quaility, experience or dedication of a firefighter, it only guarantess that that firefighter gets a paycheck to perform a job. You also feel it necessary to deride those who disagree with a career dominated department by calling us " so called experts " simply because we don't agree that the only role for Stamford's volunteers are as a " farm team " to the " real " fire department here. The fact is I never qualified myself in any way, shape or form as an expert, only as a member who, through my own experiences and research, developed a proposal that afforded the residents of this City quailty and standarized fire protection...while assuring EVERYONE kept their job. No other proposal did that...NONE. As it stands a direction has been set, and work is steadily being done to ensure that it gets put into practice. That some or maybe even many may not agree with it is not only their right but an expected part of the process. As for our new Governor, he has little if anything to say about it. (The copy of the State Statutes I have says only that the voters of the area to be affected by the creation of a taxing district will determine whether or not such a district is created...not the State Legislature and surely not the Governor). On one thing we do agree though...this whole debacle is in large part about money, but not just the VFDs money. A look back reveals how this current stage of the ongoing situation developed. The take it or leave it consolidation as dreamt up by the former administration we were told was meant to save money...$500,000 in VFD overtime if memory serves. Yet in the very fiscal year that the former career personnel of the VFDs were absorbed to " save money ", SFRD was clamoring for an aditional $400,000+ plus to cover SFRD overtime costs. Here's a quote from our local gem of a newpaper from May 2010 to show that even 2 years later there has been NO reduction in overtime even now. Stamford fire, police chiefs say more overtime costs likely Magdalene Perez, Staff Writer Published: 09:59 p.m., Tuesday, May 25, 2010 STAMFORD -- After months of seeing overtime funding requests cut by the Board of Finance, the city's public safety leaders said another round is likely before the end of the fiscal year. Both the police and fire departments have surpassed their overtime budgets, and have come begging for additional funding on a monthly basis since March. Each time, the city's fiscal board reduced their requests by six-figure sums. To date, the board has approved $1,125,000 for police and $675,000 for fire, compared to the departments' requests of $1,811,625 and $1,179,154, respectively. The money is in addition to that funded in the departments' budgets, $3 million for police and $1.8 million for fire in the current year. So it would seem we were sold a bill of goods to justify the merger which began this debacle as evidenced by the FACT that we have seen NO savings even though the manpower aspect of the merger plan has been in place since 2008. And no matter how you slice it that little tidbit speaks for itself. No matter what there WILL BE a change and to be sure everyone will be unhappy with at least some part of it. That being the case and if in fact public safety is our true goal then it is high time we move on and MAKE IT WORK. _____________ Peter Cogliano Firefighter Belltown FD / Camp Leatherneck FD, Afghanistan

There's that nasty "C" concept again. This road has been travelled here a few times already and all that need be said about it is that consolidation of resources offers the best solution by far on EVERY level for most volunteer FDs. And while you're right Bnechis in that no seems to want to hear it, it may come to be that cimcumstances will dictate a change towards merged departments. As is usually the case though for most it will be a case of reaction instead of PROaction. Cogs

I've chimed in on this subject a few times already but here it is again. In answer to your questions i would like to see the follwing: 1.Time served - minimum of 3 years active duty in accordance with departmental policies before becoming ELIGIBLE to seek promotion from FF to LT. 2. Minimum of 2 years in each position thereafter to be ELIGIBLE to seek promotion. My criteria would be the follwing four step process for promotion A.3 yrs minimum in the department again with 2 years active duty in each position before advancing B.standardized certification levels LT - F.O.1 Cpt - F.O.2 Chief -F.O. 3 C Exams per position based on some certification material (including personnel management) but more importantly departmental SOGs and By-Laws D.Election by membership. This one only AFTER all the above criteria has been met or exceeded. Cogs

Here's another view of the "plan" http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/opinion/article/Former-Turn-of-River-chief-backs-fire-plan-631643.php

Rest in Peace Cap my condolences to the Chichester family and Capt Chichester's SFRD brothers

Tax increase and layoffs are on top of the list of that site's BS. The threat of both of these eventualities are the staples of firebull.com which have NO basis in fact....they are at best only speculation. But this isn't about that site..or me for that matter, it's about you making statements about Task Force members and their involvement or lack thereof in the process and then you refusing to identify them...that is rumormongering at it's best. A lie of omission is still a lie.

How convenient. Since the veracity of this information cannot be verified and you will not divulge the names of these supposed dissenters many will think this is nothing but more PR firm orchestrated hearsay spread to support the agenda of defeating the Mayor's plan...much like that union sponsored epitome of objectivity, stamfordfirelies...ooops, truths.com

Which 2 members of the Task force are you referring to?

Well I disagree since the proposal that I put forth in a nutshell called for equal staffing in every firehouse in Stamford, standardized training, certification and promotional testing for all positions regarless of affiliation, unified incident command and ONE ultimate administrative command, whereas the City plan called for volunteer Chiefs to be ranked at least 2 grades below there career counterparts on scene simply because they are volunteers, volunteer officers would also only command volunteer personnel, (where's the unified command there?) and for the volunteer corp to become nothing more than a "farm team" or feeder for the SFRD. My apologies for my choosing the wrong words, you are correct the union and SFRD administration did not reject the proposal they simply ignored it completely. By the way there was no negotiation from any quarter regarding the proposal that I put forth since it was simply an option addressed during the public portion of those meetings. That some of the material was considered by the Task Force and may possibly be adopted is out of my control, but I'm sure you will have the opportunity to negotiate those aspects which effect the union..as you should. So let me get this straight I "threw" my friend "under the bus at the first task force meeting"? Are you suggesting that I should have lied when asked who was accompanying me on said trip? Is lying a tactic you regularly employ in your dealings? Are you saying your union members cannot go where they want when they want on their own time? Well at least you can attest that the issue has been put to rest. I suggest you read all the proposals again..or maybe for the first time it seems You will have the opportunity to negotiate to retain that clause. Well since you don't deny that my opinion is indeed your motive I think the point has been made, thanks for clearing that up. Have a great day Cogs

Thanks efdcapt, but you like most here are missing the meat as well in that the Mayor's plan is NOT the one I proposed to the Task Force. Some aspects of what I proposed are incorporated, but some of the main facets are not i.e. volunteer shift coverage nights and weekends and more importantly the FACT that the proposal I put forth called for the VFDs to be staffed by EXISTING career personnel( that would work the same number of hours annually just under a different schedule), hence no layoffs or threats thereof. The proposal would also have required at least 2 new hires as well as a number of promotions of existing career personnel. Why there is now this preoccupation with "my plan" is baffling since it is NOT the one on the table and most considered it a joke and dismissed anything in it out of hand just a few short months ago. My mindset in supporting the Mayor's proposal as I understand it is quite simple: for me it does move in the right direction in terms of consolidating and standardizing the VFDs and creating two departments where there were six ,and that is a huge step due to the realities of how the Fire Service in Stamford is organized. Cogs

I work as a firefighter on Camp Leatherneck as part of LOGCAP IV which is the civilian support for miltary operations program. My job is not classified but I do have a security clearence since some areas of the base are. We do not travel off our 25 sq. mile base and are the providers of fire suppression and inspection/preventions services for the 15,000+ U.S. Marine Corp, Army and Air Force personnel stationed here. The tag has been removed from my posts simply because I have very limited internet time here and it take me too long to type... . Cogs

From the other site: Quote:Well Cogs, for the benefit of the guys not following the thread on the other forum here is what I posted for you on that thread: Ok, 2 questions- Did you put his name on it without asking him, and if so why would you do that?. Yes I did so for the reasons previously described. What most are overlooking is the fact that the proposal I put forth was designed to integrate SFRD and the VFDs so there was no problem about job loss ect, but the union leadership in it's infinite wisdom rejected that option out of hand Quote:If he knew his name was going on it then he has a bit of an issue I would suspect. If he didn't my second question is when are you going to reach out to the President of Local 786 to make this right?. I have already addressed this issue with the Union's E-board in writing (and if necessary I will do so again in person when I am able), but apparently they want to continue this idiocy which is indicative of the real motives behind this whole issue. Quote:Because your buddy would seem to be in quite a jackpot because you threw his name on a report to thank him for his friendship? Yes and why is that? Could it be because the proposal I presented sought to truly integrate the VFDs and SFRD with NO threat to jobs and was in fact the only proposal to do so?? Again it has to make one wonder about the union's true agenda in this affair. Add to that the fact that we have now gone from decrying or supporting the Mayor's plan to a courtroom drama about a persons alleged involvement in an option presented to the Task Force. An option by the way that is considerably different than that which emerged from the Mayor. Quote:Local 786 is doing exactly what they are supposed to do. Protect their members' rights. And, please, stop saying there will be no layoffs. It makes you look naive at best 786 is doing exactly what it is supposed to? OK well you are entitled to your opinion. As far as layoffs go until such time as a pink slip appears there is NO reason to doubt the Mayor's sincerity on the issue of jobs especially since 786 has a no layoff clause in their contract. If you want to go back to discussing the pros and cons of the plan than lets go, if not then enjoy posting to each other...I'm done with this bull****. Cogs

His name was put on MY proposal by ME because he is a friend that listened to me detail the outline incessantly when I was working his side job with him. It was an acknowledgement of his patience and friendship that's all. And since I'm the one that put his name on it I'm the one who KNOWS why it was put there He has every right to defend himself since this is nothing more than a witch hunt and one that is indicative of the union's true motivations. That is in essence what I proposed...although I simply said all paid FFs could be SFRD under the right parameters...so no problem, but you already know that from our previous discussions. There is no change Aron, that was, is and will be what I believe to be the best option for a whole host of reasons that we have discussed in the past. To be clear though I have always advocated (and still do) paid DAYTIME positions at ALL the VFD houses with night and weekend coverage by volunteer shifts, but again you know this already since you have panned that idea repeatedly here and elsewhere Cogs