FFPCogs

RIP FF Joyce

Kudos to the YPD indeed for their quick arrest and to the staff here for being sensitive to the situation. If this guy did do it...ROAST his *** Cogs

Excellent post Chris. Thanks Cogs

Excellent, pre planning is a good thing and I'm a proponent of it. That's good work by the SFRD and the residents of North Stamford will be better off for it. Since I have family up there it's good to know that such plans are in place, thank you. Hopefully should the need arise that working plan will be put into operation seamlessly. Cogs

Easy? Not at all, but worth the effort to try. PG has it's problems, as does most any jurisdiction, but overall even with those problems the system works. In neighboring Montgomery County it seems the system fares somewhat better, at least that's the information I get from some of my Iraq colleagues that live and volunteer there. Failure is of course one possible outcome as it is with any new venture, but so is success. Many VFDs have implemented "duty shifts", some right in this area. A few months ago some other BFD members and myself travelled to Deer Park LI after reading about a shift program they had started. Not only was that program credited with saving a womans life, but it has been embraced by the membership there. During our visit we spent a number of hours with the Chief, Asst Chiefs and members of that department discussing the impact of the program on their operations. Without reservation they all qualified it as a success and plan to continue it's operation. I have absolutely no illusions about the myriad of obstacles involved in implementing such a system here. Nor would I expect that it would be readily accepted, but through thorough research and steadfast commitment to it's success it is possible. To that end, further exploratory trips are in the works, as there is much to learn from many different sources as to what works and what doesn't. Cogs ps Just in case anyone is wondering those exploratory trips are on our own dime, not the departments or the taxpayers.

Ok I'll chime in here since I'm a believer in consolidation in theory. I'm assuming you're talking about merging VFDs or Career and Volunteer FDs. First and foremost a consolidation plan must address and PROVE that any merging of Departments, services and personnel is worth the effort. To merge simply to save money can have disasterous results. In the end it may put the community(s) involved at higher risk since members may walk and cost considerably MORE money when the only option left is to hire full time career personnel. Then based on that proof, a concensus must be reached that consolidating is the thing to do. Assuming that it is in everyone's best interest to consolidate than a good place to start is to do some thorough research and then contact departments that have already attempted a merger. Find out what works and what doesn't for them and why. Take what you need and leave the rest. Also a revision of existing or a completely new set of by-laws may well be needed as well since members will be merged and there may be conflicting by-laws from each member department. If the number of volunteers is a part of the need for consolidation then you must look at why the numbers are lacking. Simply putting the current active members together may provide an immediate fix but will do nothing to ensure long term sustainability if new members are not joining. An aggressive recruitment effort will most likely be required to ensure that the stream of new members continues to flow in. Once that aspect has been addressed, then you have to look at how the members will be dispersed and how they will provide the coverage needed. Many consolidations inevitably lead to firehouses closing as companies or departments are merged. How will the personnel be distributed and utilized to best serve the community(s) involved? One of my pet projects if you will, is the establishment of in houes volunteer duty crews to ensure that coverage. It is my belief that duty crews effectively resolve most if not all lapses in coverage as stations are closed as the members are in house and can respond immediately to those calls which may require longer response times due to distance. There are other "pros" to duty shifts, and a number of "cons" as well that need to be thoroughly investigated prior to their implemenation. Next comes responses. How will apparatus and personnel be distributed and how will they be assigned to alarms. Simply putting a bunch of rigs in one firehouse is not the answer. The most important question from this standpoint is: How will a merger benefit the public we serve? Like I said before consolidating usually has it's basis in cost savings, and that's fine, but to achieve that savings some aspects of each involved department may have to go. It may be equipment, apparatus, or even their firehouse. What you have to figure out is how will consolidating make the best use of the available resourses after the merge, as opposed to leaving things as is and simply relying on mutual aid. Of course one very important factor is the need for paid full or part time employees. This one aspect can have a far reaching and long term positive and negative results. The addition of paid personnel can be a deal breaker to some, right or wrong. Before jumping the gun it is best to PROVE that paid people are necessary, (which to be frank is not usually that difficult) and get everyone on board with accepting this change as a necessity. A far greater burden is determining the level to which this newly consolidated department will rely on those career personnel. If they are to be the replacement of the volunteers then it may well prove wiser to let each member department make that determination for themselves and "go it alone". If they are to be a supplement to the volunteers to fill in for any gaps in coverage then it is imperative that this determination be made and adhered to by all parties involved BEFORE taking the irrevocable steps towards consolidating. Hiring personnel or merging existing career personnel and volunteers is neither good or bad, it is the choices made on how to best utilize that personnel that are. Paid personnel should be hired and staffed or incorporated to best serve the needs of the community(s) involved and every effort should be made to support that goal, otherwise animosities will take root and fester and may never be resolved. There is much more but that's a start for now. Stay Safe Cogs

Why 2000 gpm? Why not? In today's fire service overkill is king. And everyone knows bigger or more is always better right?. Yes today a job that used to be handled by 2 - 1000gpm engines and a truck now requires 4 - 2000gpm engines and 2 - 2000gpm quints plus a rescue thrown in because we must have RIT and the RIT must have a RIT. We must be able to supply 6 handlines per engine even though we never actually use more than 2 per for safety sake. Not to mention rehab since none of us can work a job for more than 15 minutes without having to rehab for an hour. So why not a line of 2000gpm buses sitting along the road in areas where the water supply can't maintian those flows and most fires require only two or three handlines? It's got to be better, it's bigger, it's new and hey the next department over just got one and we have to keep up.

Here is my take on this: This opinion is what I have posted on the Advocate forums in regards to these two articles, but it fits just as well here. "The volunteer system does indeed have some major deficiencies, but these can be remedied. One positive step is offering incentives to attract new members as well as keep the current ones. These types of programs have been in place elsewhere for some time and have had a positive effect to varying degrees where implemented. Any increase in volunteers which may come through such a program should be welcomed as it will save the City and by extension the taxpayers money, while providing an adequate pool of volunteers to staff their firehouses. But incentives and even an increase in numbers is but one part of a complete overhaul of "the system" which in all honesty is long overdue. I for one do not fear performance based funding, but welcome it. That coupled with some reorganization and possibly a redistribution of resources, which would constitute another aspect of an overhaul are the start. Add to that a standardized training and certification program for all firefighters, as well as standardized officer quailifications and we will be well on the road to providing this City with the fire service is deserves. Anyone who knows me knows that I believe that a reorganized combination system is what would "solve" the current situation. This would entail career personnel staffing the VFD firehouses during the day Monday-Friday with crews of 4 at each, supplemented by volunteers when possible. The volunteers would then STAFF their firehouses with duty crews for nights and weekends at the same level. Responses would be collective either as mutual aid or as a part of one combined combination department. Putting all this in place, phased in over a couple of years as the number of TRAINED and certified volunteers increases would then provide the community with 24/7 365 coverage at considerable savings over an all paid system, to the tune of about $4,000,000. Whether you agree or not or even believe such an outcome is possible, the potential to save the taxpayers roughly 4 million dollars is well worth the effort to try. At least to this taxpayer and every other one I've talked to". Bash away!!! Stay Safe Cogs

If only it were that simple.

In my humble opinion, Hose 1 has more to do with ISO ratings than practical application at this point. It is a stop gap as I'm sure it is but the first step in a far more comprehensive plan to ensure adequate water supplies in North Stamford. As it now stands for the unit to be placed in service requires that an Engine company be taken out of service downtown to staff it. Coupled with that is the time involved in actually getting the rig operating. Response times from downtown to North Stamford vary from 10 to 25 minutes on average depending on traffic conditions and the location of the incident. Additionally, for each inline relay valve used another Engine company must be made available to support it, further delaying it's use at an incident and stretching available resources. The idea of a hose wagon is sound, but as anyone with even a cursory knowledge of rural water supply knows, it must be applied in conjunction with an effective and well planned tanker relay. We must bring as much water with us as possible in these areas and it must be dispatched on the intial alarm. As I'm sure is being developed an effective tanker relay can be accomplished by utilizing neighboring resources as well as those currently available in Stamford and Hose 1 will have a definite place in that system. Cogs

The tangled web that's been woven get tangled even further. Remember too that TRFD is still awaiting the judge's full ruling on it's lawsuits concerning City funding as well as a seperate suit involving a breach of contract by the City stemming from the withdrawl of it's former paid employees. As of now they have been awarded this grant to staff their FD, how that will be done and to what level remains to be seen. If nothing else the addition of paid personnel back in TOR will benefit public safety and that is a good thing no matter how you slice it. Cogs

Well as much as I'm anti one rig for all jobs, this concept is actually a very good idea. Kudos to Pierce for thinking out of the box and helping the wallet. Cogs

At the risk of starting a debate of which there really is no winner, I have started this post to gather what I hope will be some useful information. I am a fervent supporter of incentives as a means of attracting and keeping members, and anyone who is even slightly familiar with the issues plaguing Stamford will know that a general lack of members is one of the major ones facing our VFDs overall. So in an effort to become more familiar with incentives in general and there impact in particular I would ask you to answer a few basic questions regarding them. These being: 1) Does your City/ Town /District offer incentives to it's volunteer firefighters? If not no need to go on. 2) If so, what incentives do you recieve? 3) If so, how long have they been in place? 3) If so, have these incentives proven useful in? a) Recruitment b)Retention 4) If yes to #3, how long was it after implementation before the positive effect was realized for each? 5) If no to #3, why do you think they have not proven successful? Please be as brief as possible. And finally since I and others here are in the process of developing a proposal regarding incentives, 6) Would you be willing to provide me contact info to assist us in that development? Thanks for the help all. Cogs

RIP

Now THAT is hitting the nail right on the head. Thanks Game. Thanks to all who have replied but does anyone have any answers to the questions besides #5? I understand that the popularity of incentives is subjective and I can fully appreciate people's opinions, but any assistance would be a great help. Cogs

Chief you are of course entitled to your opinion, but in the world of today incentives are becoming a necessity it would seem. I should clarify one point here in which I truly do agree with you..I am actually against incentives as well even though I support the idea of using them to recruit and retain members. That may seem incompatible and be that as it may, but I realize that what motivates me and many who came before me to volunteer does not seem to be as prevelant today as it once was. Therefore to maintain an adequate pool of trained and available personnel another motivator must be found. In my experience incentives are that motivator, but to be fair my experience is limited on such matters, hence this thread. If I were to recieve an incentive and by doing so I were to become a part time firefighter well then so be it. Semantics aside, offering incentives is simply doing what must be done to help ensure public safety within the financial means of many communities. Cogs

Interesting topic and I have to agree with all the previous posts. All of these things have had an impact on the fire service, but if you ask me the greatest advancement has got to be the change in attitude. By far the most visible and argueably the most important advancement has been in the way we do the job. The fire service of today has become a culture of safety, for better or for worse. Without a doubt it is this emphasis on safety that is the biggest change that I've experienced since I first walked through the door 30 years ago. Cogs

Penny wise, pound foolish. She's a typical corporate bean counter who only sees the immediate bottom line. Why save something when they can replace it and jack up the premiums?

I hope that's true. Cogs

May they rest in peace.

Interesting comments so far on what is sure to be a "charged" issue. Since some here have cited Danbury as a possible model for our situation I'm sure many will be awaiting an outcome. I know I will. I just have to throw out here that I completely agree with "Spin" on this in that it is far better to work towards change on your own terms than have it forced down your throat. If nothing else that is a good lesson for all. Cogs

Did you guys have enough water to get a handle on it?...... Glad to see all made it off ok. Cogs

And my friend the end is nowhere in sight.

Great story NFD and thanks for posting it. Like many my first and probably greatest role model was my father who although not a fireman was a straight shooting, hardworking, stand up guy. I am forever thankful to have had him as my "Pop". As far as my other role models go, most if not all are the firemen I was priviledged enough to have come up under. The ones who freely gave of their time, effort, knowledge and experience to help me grow into a decent fireman. So to Gary R (RIP), Ed C, Joe C, John D, Ed I and maybe most of all Rex M., thanks for everything...If I can be half the fireman these guys are (or were) I will have accomplished something worthwile in this service. Cogs

As usual G, thanks for the update. Let the circus begin. Cogs