FireMedic049

Nice rant, but I don't believe anyone is advocating for an end run around the law in order to create a single department structure. I think some of us are just confused as to why the excuse for not pursuing this course seems to be a pretty consistent "it's against the Charter", when making a change to the Charter is an option, but there doesn't seem to be much of an issue with pursuing the required "legal changes" in order to create the new fire district and fire department that seems to not do much for actual unification of the Stamford fire service. As has been said before, from an outside perspective this proposed course of action seems to have more to do with preserving the "status quo" while providing the "illusion of change" rather than attempting to actually solve the "problems" and provide the desired "uniform delivery of services" to all of Stamford.

While that may be true for some, I think it's at minimum, equally true that some may be too close to the situation to realize just how absurd this plan is. So, do you have an answer to my question yet? Was a single department structure ever actually on the table for discussion?

Ok, I get that the Charter grants the VFDs some sort of "independence" with their operation, but if the Charter prevents the Union from dictating what happens in the VFD districts and the Charter prevents the City from dictating that a single department structure be formed, then why did the City have a seat at the table (but not the Union) if neither could apparently dictate any course of action? That doesn't make much sense to me. Regardless, it's really not the Charter that causes the Union to have "no authority" in the "VFD districts". It's actually the fact that they have no members employed by the VFDs. On a related note, to me at least, it's pretty clear that we all aren't talking about the same things here. You keep talking about how "the Union has no authority to dictate what happens in the VFD districts". While this may be true in the respect that no Union members are employed by the VFDs, you seem to be evading an important question in the matter. Was the creation of a single combination department even a possibility? I get that the Charter currently prevents this, but clearly from the plan picked, revision of the Charter was an acceptable course in general. So, if there was never any possibility for a single department to be created and the Local to represent the paid employees of that single department, then I can see them not being given a seat at the table for this Task Force. So, was this Task Force really created to find the best solution for Stamford or just the best way to preserve the current separation? Yes it does, but I'm sure we don't have the same conclusion of what that proof is showing the reason to be.

So then I take from this response that the proposal of a single department structure coming out of this Task Force was NEVER a possibility from the start. I'm not sure who's attitude your referring to, but I'm sure the Union's attitude towards those Chiefs regarding contract negotiations could be simply GFY since they absolutely have no standing for those discussions. The City is their employer and the Local is the bargaining agent for the employees of SFRD. As I said before, if the single department concept was on the table going into discussions, then Local 786 should absolutely have been involved since ALL paid firefighters in the combined department would be represented by them. I have no idea what the attitudes were regarding the previous merger plans. You would be correct with this under the proposed plan. However, this really didn't clarify the statement I asked about.

Have a giant glass of the Kool Aid?

I'm amazed that you can't see why Local 786 should have been included in this process. Unless I have a grossly incorrect understanding of the situation, the task at hand WAS to determine how to improve the provision of fire protection in Stamford and achieve a more uniform delivery of services to all of its citizens. If this process was truly "above board", then going into discussions everything between the status quo and full scale, 100% consolidation into a single department should have been on the table. Considering that there appears to have always been the intention to have paid personnel in the volunteer stations and if a single department plan was ever actually a consideration, the paid personnel in this single department would all be represented by Local 786. So why shouldn't they be included in discussions that could potentially impact their current and future bargaining unit members? So, to me at least, if Local 786 didn't get a seat at the table for any discussions on "the future of fire protection services in Stamford", then it seems as though creating what would actually be the best way to achieve unity and uniformity of fire protection for all of Stamford (a single department) was NEVER a possibility even before the first meeting was held. Could you explain the part I highlighted better? It didn't seem to make much sense to me.

I'll somewhat defer to you on this matter since you are directly involved in it and I'm just an interested observer, but I'm still failing to see how using this plan now and hoping to do more later is the best possible choice for the citizens. The plan may improve how the volunteer departments interact and work with each other, but to me it looks like it doesn't really do anything to address any real sort of unity between the North and South and sets the stage for new problems.

So then what you are saying is that the Mayor took the easy way out instead of actually "fixing" the system once and for all?

Your response comes across to me as saying that revising the charter to allow for a single FD wasn't a part of the proposals, that a decision has been made and we're sticking with it. It really doesn't answer our question as to why changing the charter to allow for the creation of a single FD didn't seem to be a viable option.

And the City Charter can't be modified?

Yeah, leave the tin foil hat at home.

$$$$$

Already signed and check the blog regularly.

Are you forgetting that there is audio out there showing that he did in fact do "what the newspapers have printed"? I agree that administrative leave until the investigation has been completed would be the most appropriate first step.

I'm not looking to argue either, but the more accurate statement would be that each department is going to do what it feels like doing and what it thinks is the best for it. Regardless, what works best for the department may not exactly be what works best for the citizens and the community. Just look at the Stamford threads because I think you'd have a pretty hard time arguing that whatever is going on there is truly best for the citizens and the community.

While all of this may be true, it's still not much of an argument to maintain the status quo in many places.

I don't doubt that in the least.

The original Pierce ladder was sold to a VFD in I think PA after that season. It was replaced with another Pierce ladder and if I remember correctly, this one lacked a lot of the normal FDNY markings.

No, not as a pumper, but there are some tractor drawn quints out in CA currently. I forget whose I've seen, but I think LA County might be one of them.

No actual job cuts are in the proposal and it includes creating new jobs. Where are the savings?

Why's that? I have no problem with that being your choice, just curious as to why it is your choice.

WRONG! As a citizen of this Country, our union membership DOES NOT preclude our right to speak for or against this or any bill. So what's your beef here? Is it that you feel underrepresented? If that's the case, then you have some options: 1) Talk to your elected legislators. If they aren't representing your interests, then vote them out of office. 2) Maybe you should consider unionizing. So what does the percentage of non-liberals on this web site have to do with the discussion? Additionally, "UNION fees" have not been used to "support Liberals". Prior to the Supreme Courts recent decision regarding campaign finance, it was illegal to utilize Union Fees (aka Dues) for political purposes. In order to support political candidates monetarily, a Union (or any other organization) needed to form a Political Action Committee (PAC), which is legally a separate entity from the organization itself. Contributions to the PAC from the union members are entirely voluntary.As I mentioned, the recent Supreme Court decision has changed the rules some and Unions will be allowed to utilize "General Fund" money (not all of which comes from Dues) for political purposes in some fashion. However, it should be noted that this change will have far less effect on the political process than major corporations now being able to directly give money to candidates as a result of this ruling. Who do we get to thank for this? Well, of the current 9 Justices, 6 were appointed by Republican Presidents and 3 by Democratic Presidents. So, if one subscribes to what appears to be the current concept that "Liberal" means Democrat and "Conservative" means Republican, then................. Just a note, Unions do support more than just "Liberals", at least mine does.

If I understand the article correctly........ Springdale has a budget of $2.5 million currently, which includes the cost of 16 SFR FFs. Removing these 16 FFs would reduce their budget to $1.1 million. The City would then save $1.4 million by removing these FFs from Springdale and using them elsewhere in the City. Springdale would then hire 10 "replacement" FFs and pay for them out of this $1.1 million budget. Maybe I'm missing something here, but this just doesn't make much sense. Removing the 16 FFs and reassigning them elsewhere in the department does not result in a $1.4 million savings for the City because these 16 FFs are still being employed and paid for by the City. It may save money down the line if the City chooses not to replace the next 16 FF that leave the department. If Springdale can have their budget cut by 56% and still afford to hire 10 FFs, then it would seem that they have been grossly over-budgeted for in the past or they are no longer paying for something in their operation - like equipment, apparatus repair/replacement, building costs, etc. Is this the case or will they be using "other" funding to pay for these FFs? If they use "other" funding, then wouldn't that actually significantly increase the cost of fire protection since that money (for the most part) would likely also come from the tax payers if using common VFD fundraising sources? Maybe someone closer to this can clarify?

Outstanding!

Ok, I'll explain it for you. It's actually quite simple. If a person does poorly on a test, then it has to be the fault of the test and can't possibly be because they were unprepared to take the test, aren't qualified to be hired or whatever. After all, this is America where everyone is entitled to be anything that they want to be, right?