EMTBrian

Interesting question in my honest opinion. As simple as it may seem or sound of a question, It can actually at the same time be a complicated and tricky one to answer as well. Patients may very well be out of their vehicles, but in my honest opinion here, encourage patient to at least undergo a quick assessment. to legallh cover your you know what in this sue happy society we live amongst today. If they absolutely refuse, just gently advise them, they may feel and think they'e fine just because they are walking, and just encourage them to get evaluated at the hospital. If they refuse quick assessment, and hospital evaluation you've done your duty and job. Just explain as well you need their signature on the Patient Care Report attesting refusal to seek medical attention. Just do as you learned in class, and through the training you've undergone with your respective agency.

That is a rather "Tight Fit," if you ask me. Do they not take measurements of the bay into consideration when they purchase this equipment? Sounds like a dumb question I know, but you wonder?

Very interesting. Though have not been down that way in some time. Actually haven't been down since 2010 when I took the EMT class at that very location when Bob Rizzo taught the class. Great EMT Instructor. Became very good friends as well. Tough, but extremely fair Instructor. Understand he took quite the bum-wrap when they transition from Hudson Valley/Regional EMS or whatever the other subsidiary name was, to Care-1 he for some reason was booted out? Probably too qualified for Care-1 liking? I didn't find it a good location to be honest and truthful. Very poor visibility in exiting and entering the place, plus in the middle of nowhere!

Velcro, as I've already stated I'm no longer with Arlington. I left going on three years now. But no never did air my concerns with the commissioners. As it is I felt it would only make matters far worse than they already were. I did however voice my concerns a good number of times to the officer's. And hate to put and say it this way, fell on deaf ears. Almost every volunteer fire organization is either in whole or in part very political, as well as have their cliques and have and play with their favorites. Which this point alone in my honest opinion is why volunteer enrollment and retention efforts have been such a difficult task. It's already been stated by the Chief noted in the BOFC meeting minutes the disappointment in the efforts of Recruitment and Retention personnel that were hired several months prior. Unless and until they make the necessary changes internally from company politics, favoritism and so on, then why bother hire and pay people to do something the officers really need and should take ownership of? This is why I truly feel this grant money is being abused by this district.

Velcro, It's simple. I will use myself as an actual situation. When I first joined Arlington Fire District, I was not a certified EMT, nor was I a certified First Responder. When the Interview Committee first met with me they promised the world to me, (no exaggeration) that they would train me to start off as a first responder. And after so many months, put me through the EMT class. Well, here is how the chips fell. They made a few announcements for a District First Responder Class, which was for Arlington, minimum requirement to go on actual EMS calls. Each time an attempt was made to have a class, there was insufficient enrollment and interest. So obviously both classes and opportunities were cancelled. Meanwhile, months are beginning to pass me by, and getting discouraged and frustrated. Finally yes was able to sign up for and was approved by the Commissioners to take the EMT Class. Yes I passed first time. Then I ran into another brick wall, nobody seemed to want to train. There's your hint or key word as to what am talking about here Velcro, with regard to my comment, " Maybe perhaps this organization has to do a better job in clarifying and explaining this when the Volunteer Recruitment Interview committee interviews the applicant. This way applicant isn't wasting his or her time and not disappointed down the road. "

Steve, I'm sure it's outlined and clearly states how the grant money can and can't be spent. If this is considered "public information" so as if I wish to inspect the documents, I just may go the extra mile and do so. I'm not so sure I agree, which is as to why I question whether or not this district is not following the guidelines here. For 1) Why would they hire Recruitment & Retention Specialists & a Coordinator when actually I feel the line officers should take some ownership of and interest in and mentoring the volunteers. That in my opinion would be far more appropriate than having these specialists that really are doing none other than overseeing and following up on the applicant prior to their acceptance & being voted in, to make sure all the necessary paperwork is in order so they can forward it to the appropriate committee to be presented to the general membership. Secondly, Far as duties as it pertains to "retention?" They are nothing more than an ear to listen as to why member is considering leaving, is a liason between the member and which ever officers he/she speaks with to discuss matters in hopes of coming to a resolution. Again here to, I don't understand why their can't be periodic dialogue between the member and line officers. This is why I feel this money is being used inappropriately. Secondly to use it to pay volunteers in certain cases? Either the organization is paid or it's not.

BnechisConfused now. I reviewed my original post and all subsequent responses I made, as well as others. I can't find where I mentioned or tied this into "Federal Grant?" Appreciate, however, your explanation. I'm still not so sure, however, whether its 100 percent "voluntary" tax donations for tax break benefits of the donor. As opposed to having some surplus of tax-payer money that perhaps goes into a general fund to help subsidize such grants. Steve, This district from what am understanding gives preference to take on current certified NYS EMT's whom are already working with Commercial Ambulance services here in the Hudson Valley, so it relieves them of having to pay money out to send an eligible member to take the class. Maybe perhaps this organization has to do a better job in clarifying and explaining this when the Volunteer Recruitment Interview committee interviews the applicant. This way applicant isn't wasting his or her time and not disappointed down the road.

Bnechis, Hopefully this will narrow down as to specifically which grant am speaking of or referring to. If not, this is all I was able to find. Or that had been released to the public at the time it was shared with the media. http://www.dhses.ny.gov/media/documents/releases/Volunteer-Firefighter-Emergency-Services-Personnel-Recruitment-Retention.pdf If it still doesn't I'm sorry, this is the best I could do.

http://www.dhs.gov/news/2013/08/23/dhs-announces-grant-allocation-fiscal-year-fy-2013-preparedness-grants

Pardon, correcting myself here. New York State Department of Homeland Security & Emergency Services is the agency of whom department made application to and was awarded the grant in the amount of $390,000.00 per letter to agency dated 4/9/2013.

Let's not all stray from the topic here. I know what the stipulations are for the district to become reimbursed for those "successful" in the EMT. The problem is the the matter presented in the initial post and how this district is directing the monies. My concern or question here is, is it legal? Does it follow the guidelines for usage? That is the matter at hand here! Thanks for all the input folks!

I'm guessing for unforeseen reason's priorities within the district am speaking of, or perhaps may be in general are changing. But in my opinion here as I stated in my initial post, "speaking from a tax-payer" point of view, I need to speak up on these practices?

No longer the case with this district. They're saying they have to pay the tuition up front. From what am also understanding, they highly prefer EMS volunteers to be certified EMT's currently working with agencies such as Transcare, Mobile Life, EMStar and NDP just to name a few. And giving preferential treatment to fire.

There is a Fire District in the Hudson Valley of which I previously but no longer volunteer with for personal reasons that was awarded the Grant by New York State for the purpose of Recruiting and retaining volunteers. I'm speaking in the person of a "tax-payer" and feel this district may possibly be abusing the funds. The district in question of which city I wish to remain anonymous has used this money to 1) Hire paid recruiter/retention specialists, one whom quit several months ago, and about a month ago hired a Recruitment & Retention Coordinator. 2) Has been dispensing stipends for taking Firefighting Essentials. But for those wishing to take the EMT class are being told they would need to pay out of their pocket up front. When I was with this district the district paid. I had to have the Director of EMS sign and vouch for my eligibility. So long as organization was a PCR reporting agency the state absorbs the tuition, that's my interpretation of it, correct me if am wrong. My argument and question here, why are they only compensating volunteers that take the firefighting essentials, but not the members wishing to becoming NYS EMT's? The other stipend am concerned about of which had been dispensed was for taking the annual required OSHA training. Lastly, my concern is from several months back where I read the Asst Chief of the district would use grant money to absorb costs for advertising for volunteers. Just curious if all this is in alignment with the terms and agreements of the usage of grant money.