FireMedic049

Move exclusively to robot firefighters.

Which city?

The simple answer is this.... Most people are more concerned about being a victim of crime than a victim of a fire. As such, the layoff of police officers will typically generate more public dissent than the layoff of firefighters. Politicians know this quite well. Add in the fact that on a per incident basis, the PD is typically much busier than the FD along with the common misconception that firefighters just sit around the station sleeping and watching TV between calls and you have a much politically easier target to cut.

Since this appears to be a combination department, you essentially already have 2 classes - career and volunteer. Additionally, the part-timers would only be "second class" if the department chooses to treat them that way. I work in a career department that added part-time personnel six years ago. It was done largely as a way to reduce some personnel expenses. In our experience, overall it has been a very positive thing and most of the "problems" created have been pretty insignificant so far.We lost 4 full-time positions (via attrition) in conjunction with this, however we maintained our average shift staffing level and on some days we had an "extra" guy. In a month, our daily minimum increases by 1 and more than likely, we'll get those 4 positions back at some point in the next year once they start racking up the overtime again. When that happens, we'll see an increase in our average shift staffing level. We didn't have any FT vs PT problems with our only negotiation since they started. In part, because our PT guys are part of the Local and we made sure that we addressed their issues too.

Assuming there will be no layoffs of current personnel or elimination of any currently vacant positions, why should somebody be ashamed to take the job?

I'm aware of your past statements regarding the desire for a full integration, however this current discussion did not appear to include that aspect. If the SFRD plan is not going to be sufficient to meet the city-wide need and thus need to rely on the volunteers in some fashion for "back up", then there shouldn't be an end result of no volunteers unless the volunteers themselves fail to provide that "back up".

So then you're saying that along with the incentives comes complete integration into a single city-wide fire department under a single fire chief? I must have missed that part. It probably wasn't clear enough, but I wasn't exclusively referring to the detail of the "Brown Plan". I was speaking to the fact that the plan does not definitively call for the elimination of the volunteers and therefore they would be present for "back up" in both scenerios. Based on the discussions, news stories, etc, it would seem that Stamford is already lacking an "adequate" number of volunteers or at least an adequate number that routinely responds.

I'm aware of you thoughts on integration. You were specifically addressing the expansion of SFRD and appeared to be of the opinion that the money spent on additional career staffing would be better spent on volunteer incentives, however failed to address the whole issue in question. I was more or less speaking to that oversight. I'm really not following this "reliance on the volunteers" theme you've got going on here. It's my understanding that the SFRD "expansion" plan does not eliminate the volunteers. Regardless of one's personal feelings on the matter, the volunteers still had a role in the plan. It would appear to me that since the SFRD plan proposed "expansion" without an increase in career personnel, then there was intention to substantially rely on the volunteers in some fashion. So, I'm not clear about the concern over still needing volunteer assistance even after adding 40 career personnel since it appeared that they were going to be used anyway.

While this may be true, it doesn't seem to address the other half of the situation - integrated citywide fire operations. Additionally, it there no true guarantee up front that it will provide the desired return on investment. However, adding those positions to SFRD would provide a guaranteed return on investment. Couple that with an integration of the VFDs and SFRD under a single command/operating structure and fire chief plus volunteer incentives and you still come in significantly less than what is being proposed currently in addition to addressing the whole situation.

Not saying that at all. I think we can all agree that many professional athletes (NFL, NBA, etc.) display less than professional behavior on a routine basis. However, despite that conduct, they are still a professional athlete since they are being paid to play their sport. Similarly, as I've already stated, the use of the term "professional firefighter" refers to occupational status, not actual behavior or professionalism itself. You're right that's where the rub is, but not necessarily as you see it. The rub is that the volunteer side typically jumps to the conclusion that "professional" means behavior (i.e. professionalism), when in reality the intended meaning is engaged in firefighting as an occupation rather than as a non-occupational secondary activity. If we're talking strictly on the use of the term "volunteer", I'd be inclined to agree that more career FFs have issue with the liberal usage of such. However, I think a lot more volunteers firefighters are hung up on the usage of the term "professional". Also, "legal" does not necessarily equate to "appropriate".

You see this is probably the heart of the problem. I'm using the term to describe an occupational status (no different than the term "professional athlete") and you're talking about "professionalism".

I wouldn't consider it the be in the same league, but rather opposite in nature. The one term describes what that member actually is and the other describes what that member actually isn't. Opposition to the one term is based IMO on a group feeling "slighted" by its use and the opposition to the other is based on the term not accurately depicting the members of that group. I would tend to agree.

I disagree with the notion that the term "volunteer" best describes a person receiving compensation for their work. Ask anybody outside the fire service if a person who volunteers doing anything gets paid for whatever task they are doing and I doubt you find many that say yes. It's one thing to receive a nominal stipend to offset incidental expenses over the course of the year and still be "volunteer". However, once you cross over into a pay per call and/or duty shift type of situation, then the term "volunteer" no longer applies. Volunteers are unpaid workers. If the IRS and/or Federal Labor Laws want to treat a compensated "volunteer" the same as an uncompensated volunteer so be it, but that doesn't mean that it's appropriate to mislead the public. If terms describing members are truly irrelevant, then why does the volunteer fire service get so worked up over the term "professional firefighter" when used to describe firefighters who get paid to be firefighters? It's certainly a more accurate term than using "volunteer" to describe pay per call firefighters.

Depending on the style of government, it certainly could be. In some styles, the Mayor is little more than a figurehead. Some municipalities, specifically "townships" (in PA at least) do not have a "Mayor" at all. They are governed by a Board of Commissioners, which is essentially the same thing as a City Council, but with no chief executive (i.e. Mayor).

I really wasn't trying to make statements about the taxing and fire service in Stanford. I was initially sharing some observations from an outside perspective regarding what appears to be a somewhat disjointed city and asked a very simple question - why not have a single tax district? Instead of actually answering the question, you gave an ambiguous answer regarding having multiple tax districts in Stamford (something that was already known). So, I made another observation that something about the tax situation didn't seem very uniform and that based on that observation, it would seem that it wasn't very fair to all. I also asked why wouldn't everybody be taxed the same in a single municipality. Again, instead of answering this simple question, you resorted to essentially insulting me - twice now. So what is it that's got your knickers in a twist?

As for why there are differing tax rates in Stamford, you'd be correct that I don't understand. In my experiences, everywhere that I've lived has had a single tax rate for all within a specific category of property. This means that all residential SFD properties are taxed at the same rate, however the actual amount of tax paid will vary based on the value of the building/property, all commercial properties are taxed on the same basis. Additionally, the City in which I live, things like garbage fees, water & sewer fees are separate bills from my property taxes. I'm aware of how mill rates are set so research in that area is not needed and I don't believe my statements were in any way "silly". The notion of having different tax rates within a single municipality is a concept not consistent with my experiences and given the comments about the administration trying to pay Peter with Paul's tax money, having a single tax rate citywide would make sense to me. I was not aware that part of the city does not have a municipal water system and that water & sewer fees are part of the property tax bill there. Not sure why you felt the need to make derogatory comments towards me on the matter instead of helping me (like mstrang1 did) to understand better why multiple taxing districts in the same city may be appropriate.

I'm in no way advocating making unilateral changes that violate current "law". I just find it a little disconcerting that the administration appears to be limiting itself to options within the current framework rather than truly considering making changes to it in order to enact what would arguably be better long term options for the city and its residents.

Not sure what your point is, nor if you understand the one I was making. From what I understand, property taxes in Stamford are not uniform. For example, A homeowner in tax district "A" might have a total millage rate of 20.0, while the homeowner in tax district "B", "C" and "D" may have total millage rates of 18.5, 21.0 and 22.4 respectively. It would seem to me that all citizens are not being treated equally when it comes to their taxes. Why wouldn't everybody in the same city be taxed at the same rates?

Right, antiquated.

More and more it really sounds like City of Stamford is a city in name only. Variable tax rates based on where you live within "the city". Variable fire protection services based on where you live within "the city". A city Fire Department, that is (on paper) primarily responsible for only a portion of the city limits. The creation of a second "city fire department" (one that will be a "volunteer FD" in name only and not actually be run by the city, just funded by it) to service a portion of the city rather than expanding the existing "city fire department". Maybe I'm just too naive or something, but why not make the entire city one tax district?

From the article: "Despite all the criticism that you may be hearing, the Volunteer Fire Department plan is truly a great plan," Pavia said. "It resolves a long-standing litigation against the city of Stamford, it provides better service and better fire response in the volunteer districts, it does so without any increase in taxes to those districts, and it will save every taxpayer in the city of Stamford from carrying an additional cost of about $15 million." So if there will be no tax increase in the volunteer districts, then where is the City getting the money to pay for 51 new positions? It would seem to me that in order to do that, 1) the City would have to be cutting a substantial amount of spending elsewhere in their budget or 2) the City has been grossly overtaxing the citizens for quite some time if they have that much money laying around to fund 51 new positions for the foreseeable future with no additional tax revenue.

Based on the Swiftwater Rescue training that I've done, this is not specifically the case for a tethered rescuer and victim. As stated above, once the rescue swimmer has possession of the victim, the personnel on the shore reel them in using the tether line - there is no belay team utilized. What you describe, aside from the belay team, is more consistent with the "self-rescue" technique where you position your body in a fashion that the current will push you towards the shoreline.

You are partially correct. I haven't looked at the video yet, but my suspicion would be that film crew was wearing regular PFDs. As such, being tethered is not recommended for the reasons you stated and because that style PFD does not have any sort of "quick-release" feature that allows the wearer to free themselves from the tether.In a swift-water situation, the personnel attempting any sort of rescue operation or in a position where they could fall into the water should be Technician Level trained and wearing a Class V PFD. Any person entering the water should be tethered since the Class V PFD has a "quick-release" mechanism that would allow the wearer the ability to free themselves from the line if need be. Actually swimming after the victim is the "last resort" option and the rescue swimmer should be tethered when doing so. Once the rescue swimmer secures the victim, personnel on the shore will use the tether line to pull both back into shore rather than the rescue swimmer having to expend energy trying to swim and control the victim (who might be uncooperative due to the situation).

So are you saying that a protocol that requires FDNY EMS personnel to have their protective gear readily accessible and to wear it in hazardous situations is "self-serving"? I'm pretty sure that you'd be wrong. I have a hard time believing that FDNY EMS would move to 4-door chassis if their current ambulance module design could adequately accommodate their gear. Do you realize that their previous "regular" ambulance spec uses what is pretty much the smallest module that Horton makes (Model 403 which is a 137" x 96" body). Something else to bear in mind. While the 4-door chassis will obviously turn worse than the 2-door chassis, FDNY Ladders and Tower Ladders are much bigger than these ambulances and they seem to be able to make their way to their calls. It may remind you, but it's not the same thing.

Nobody is saying that EMS agencies need to provide their own rescue services. The point (opinion) of the video was that it was better for the patient when a single agency handles their situation from initial contact to delivery at the hospital. Additionally, the "investigation and prosecution" angle is not appropriate for comparison. Criminal investigation of an incident is not an integral part of the rescue, treatment and transport of a patient outside "preserving evidence" as best as possible. I agree that personnel trained to work along side the FD in a rescue situation can be just as effective. However, that can be the "sticking point" in the discussion. When two independent agencies need to work in that fashion, is there necessarily the guarantee that all personnel are adequately trained? Let's say you have a high angle rescue situation. Unless all EMS personnel in the agency are trained in "rescue" as a job requirement, how do you ensure that the paramedic that wants to go to the patient is properly trained to do so? Do you just take his/her word that they know what to do? Yes, certain medical situations do call for emphasis on prompt transport, however the reality is that the vast majority of patients calling 911 do not have ailments that necessitate immediate transport in order to influence the outcome.Yes, in those situations requiring a prompt transport, an ambulance would be better than only a paramedic engine. However, what you seem to be overlooking is that the patient is getting an ambulance too. The paramedic engine is providing interim care and it's arguably better for the patient to get care sooner rather than later if prompt transport is that important for that patient. If you take away the first response component for that patient and only send an ambulance, then the patient is likely still waiting the same amount of time for the ambulance to arrive, however they are doing so without receiving any care. I think it's pretty obvious which situation is better, even if it doesn't definitively affect patient outcome. As you stated Medicare and Medicaid are customers. As such they do not actually run the healthcare systems, however they may have influence on the system as a consumer and this is not the same thing as the government actually running the healthcare system. When you say "municipal hospital systems" are you saying that the hospital system is owned & operated by the municipality in the same way that they "own & operate" the local FD, PD, DPW, etc. and ultimately operate under the Mayor/City Council or equivalent? I disagree that hospitals don't want the "minor complaints". The ER staff may not want the "minor complaints" that should be handled via urgent care centers or PCPs, however this desire is probably not shared by the executive management. What the hospital management doesn't want "choking" their ERs is patients without the ability to pay, whether via insurance or self-pay. I didn't say that EMS should only be used for emergencies. There are plenty of "non-emergent" complaints in which the use of EMS is appropriate or reasonable. What I said was that things like preventative care should be handled separate from the emergency response aspect of the operation.Maybe it's an issue of semantics, but to me there is a difference between "EMS" and "EMS agency". I don't disagree that it may be appropriate and/or necessary for EMS agencies to evolve and "handle more than just 'emergencies'". However, this does not necessarily mean that their "emergency" response resources (EMS) should be tasked with those new services. To continue the Fire/EMS comparison a little further, it may be appropriate for the FD to conduct it's own arson investigations, but should those investigations be tasked to the line companies and be held OOS for additional responses until the investigation is completed? I would submit that the most effective/efficient way to handle the arson investigation would be to have a dedicated unit to handle it just like it may be the most effective/efficient way to handle preventative care/outreach type services with resources that are separate from the emergency response resources. Now, this doesn't mean that "response personnel" can't be utilized for these tasks, just that when doing so, routine emergency response shouldn't also be "on the menu".