RES24CUE

It seems to me that Emergency Services organizations have recently been forced to adapt to the fact that everyone in this day and age has an HD video camera at their fingertips 24 hours per day. As a result, organizations are highly scrutinized and are "under the microscope," in that any action made by the department or its members may be recorded, posted, and made available to billions of people in a matter of seconds. In an effort to combat this issue, many agencies have developed social media policies that bar members from posting photos or videos of incident scenes and patients Many have gone so far as to bar members from posting any pictures or videos of any aspect of department affairs without expressed consent (usually a department vote) of the membership. That being said, I just stumbled across this video compilation of the Harlem Shake which consists of over 20 departments for more that 14 minutes performing Harlem Shake videos using department apparatus, equipment, and facilities. In many of them it is not very difficult using a google search to figure out exactly which departments are participating in these videos (department initials and unit numbers will do). How would these videos be viewed in regard to your department policies? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpns68R5BXs#t=652 It seems to be somewhat counterintuitive for members to publicly expose their organizations on the internet while behaving in a ridiculous fashion when this is just the type of exposure that so many agencies are working so hard to prevent. It is also a clear mis-use of taxpayer equipment; another political hot button in many jurisdictions where money is tight and politicians are barely holding on to their political seats. Thoughts?

You must be a huge liability to your organization...

1. There's nothing wrong with the guy using a parking cone as a simulated p**** and bending over one of his fellow firefighters? (clear violation of sexual harassment sensitivity policy) 2. There's nothing wrong with the firefighter spinning the backboard around like a helicopter in close proximity to his fellow firefighters? (obvious risk of injury). 3. There's nothing wrong with the firefighters haphazardly using taxpayer funded equipment to make an internet video that has no benefit to the taxpayer or the organization? If they tear a dive suit while rolling around on the engine room floor or scratch the truck dancing around with a pickaxe are they going to pay for it out of pocket? Or just tell the Chief that they don't know what happened? Glad to hear that you guys have no rules or policies in Kiribati (or is this just your opinion and your superiors would offer a much different perspective when asked...especially on camera when interviewed by the media after an internet video scandal?)...I'll be sure to look for your department's name on the cover of the newspaper when I'm reading it in my office and taking myself seriously...

CBS 2 News Reports that the Smoke Detectors in the Fire Department were not functioning... I think that they should be thankful that the fire broke out while 2 people were there. Had the fire broken out in the middle of the night they would have probably lost all of their apparatus / equipment and their building by the time a neighbor woke up, saw the sky glowing, and reported the fire.

Who has command? It doesn't sound like any of their Chiefs or Officers made it...

REST IN PEACE 1. Rescue 24 2. Car 2142 vehicle 3. Car 2143 vehicle 4. Utility 238 (aka Jeep 2...1943 Willys Jeep)

The fire department with which I was previously affiliated used these hydrant flags to mark the hydrants. This way if there was a fire before we had a chance to dig them out, then our members (sadly I would say most of our own members did not know the exact positioning of all of our hydrants and we only had 18 hydrants in our small hydranted district) or our mutual aid departments could find the hydrant in the rare case that they were completely buried. Just a tool that can help, not an excuse for not clearing your hydrants. These were pretty easy to install (remove 1 bolt and attach around the top rim). However, I don't know how practical they would be in a district with hundreds of fire hydrants. As I said we only had 18 hydrants and it took a few guys working at a leisurely pace a few hours on a lazy, sunny fall Saturday to get them all installed. This could take weeks and cost thousands in a place like Yonkers, Mt. Vernon, New Rochelle, White Plains, etc..

This is a little off topic but may offer a little insight into why the radio strap is so important for use with FD operations. It is a lengthy report (I don't recommend a full read but it is at least worth a skim...has lots of pictures too!!!) on a study done by the Fairfax Fire Department after they had a number of radios damaged by heat when carried on the front of a firefighter (usually facing the fire). They had a few particularly bad malfunctions...one in which a mic melted when clipped to the loop above the radio pocket and stuck in the open position. This essentially terminated all fireground communications on their fireground frequency. After the study they concluded that the best way for a firefighter to carry a radio is on a radio strap under the firefighter's coat with the radio behind the firefighter and the coat lifted so that the antenna/majority of the radio are exposed. This left the radio protected from heat, out of the way, but did not hinder reception/transmission due to covering the antennae. (See pictures on the report as I know this may be confusing when transferred into text). See the link below to view the full document. (from vententersearch.com) http://www.vententersearch.com/supplemental/fairfaxradioreport.pdf

It seems like there has been great debate recently about consolidation. The volunteer side of the business is trying their best to avoid forced consolidation with other neighboring departments to reduce the costs to the taxpayer caused by overlap of services/equipment. Volunteers argue that free labor saves taxpayer dollars (salaries/benefits/pensions) and that the long history and tradition of the volunteer fire service should supersede the seemingly decreasing quality of the services that we are seeing in many local departments (multiple dispatches, low manpower, etc.). The paid side of the fire service believes that consolidating fire departments and hiring paid firefighters will reduce costs and increase service and consistency. They argue that municipalities could close a number of firehouses strategically and staff remaining departments with full-time paid firefighters. They contend that doing so would reduce costs to the taxpayer because they would be able to maintain the same response times as volunteer departments with fewer firehouses and pieces of fire apparatus (spares, specialty pieces, etc.). Regardless of the cost, the quality of service to the taxpayer would undoubtedly increase because residents would be guaranteed to receive a consistent response by well-trained, professional personnel regardless of time of day. NOW...THE FIRST PART OF THIS WAS MERELY AN INTRO AND NOT THE TOPIC THAT I PRESENT WE DISCUSS. I KNOW THAT THIS ARGUMENT IN AND OF ITSELF IS A HIGHLY CONTENTIOUS ISSUE THAT WE HAVE SEEN BEATEN TO DEATH COUNTLESS TIMES ON THIS SITE!!! It has been my observation that many Northern Westchester fire departments are self-consolidating with other departments in recent months... Bedford Fire Department gets dispatched with Bedford Hills, Mount Kisco, and Katonah Fire Departments Automatically upon a report of any type of structure fire (Chimney, Oven, etc.). Vista and South Salem FIre Departments are on an automatic mutual aid for any inside smoke investigation/reported structure fires within either one of their districts. Most recently, Golden's Bridge Fire Department is on automatic mutual aid with Croton Falls Fire Department for all Firematic Calls within their fire district. All of these mutual aid agreements occur upon the REPORT of an incident prior to any CONFIRMATION. Now, regardless of the monetary aspect of the debate, it seems as if many of the departments that would be the first to be placed on the chopping block if consolidation did occur are consolidating themselves in order to get the job done. These departments are increasingly forced to consolidate their services due to dwindling manpower and an inability to staff pieces of apparatus in a timely fashion and on a regular basis. Now, I come from the volunteer side of the business and it was a passion of mine for 10 years. However, it seems to me that if you are going to send twice the number of rigs (all with half of the seats empty) from multiple fire departments to the same call to get the job done, then why don't they just put the firehouse in the middle, ride the same rig, and fill all the seats. Is this what is slowly starting to happen? Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in this?

Its sad to say but I am seeing a full volunteer fire department a thing of the past. Here in Canton, moving towards the Ambulance side, we now have a paid ALS provider for our ambulances between 6AM-4PM Monday through Friday, and have been relying on volunteers to drive. All other hours of the day is solely volunteer ran both BLS and ALS. This worked for a while but during the regular work day it can be hard to get drivers and people who can volunteer their time for an hour and a half, praying that there will not be another call right before you get back in service that you will get forced into taking. Now as a department, we are talking about hiring a paid driver during the day and to be all volunteer during the evenings. We need to start looking into consolidation between departments, using money that we will save in rig costs as well as other budget cuts, to cover larger fire district with paid adequate manpower during the day. One can make the argument of "well you aren't going to get there faster." What is better, having a fully staffed rig and taking a little longer to get there, or having a half staffed rig exceeding what they can initially handle. After the work day ends, let volunteers come and volunteer within their community that they are proud of serving. Thoughts? GBFD 111, I don't think that response times will be affected negatively at all. Most volunteer fire departments take 5-10 minutes just for the members to get to the firehouse, gear-up, wait for a driver, and go. So the rig doesn't even get on the road for a solid 5-10 minutes after the initial dispatch. AND this is on a good day! 5-10 minutes is the delay in response time in the event that the fire department gets out on the first dispatch...we all know of a number of departments that require more than one dispatch to get a rig on the road (many of them were the ones that I was talking about in my initial post). So, in theory, if we spaced firehouses 5 minutes further apart than they currently are and staffed them with full time firefighters, it seems to me that they would have the same response times that volunteer fire departments currently have on a good day (allowing them a 2 minute window to gear up and get on the road). I even think we could space those fire departments even further apart and still improve the average response times of many departments in certain regions. I am basing these estimates on response times for an actual piece of fire apparatus...NOT A CHIEF CAR. I know that response times are gauged by the time it takes for the first unit to respond and get on scene and Chief units greatly improve these numbers. I am talking about the time that it takes to get an engine, ladder, rescue etc. with a crew on the scene. And, I don't consider the rig going to the scene and 5 people meeting the truck in their POVs adequate either. That is not a coordinated fire response...it is a friggin' mess. If you are considering this approach in response times, then you would have to add 5 extra minutes on the back end of the response after the rig gets there to find out who is there (and where), gather all of your freelancers, give out assignments, and put them in order so that they can actually stretch a line, vent the roof and perform a search. Anyone who considers this a professional fire department response most certainly has a different definition of professional than I do. No REASONABLE fire department on the planet would consider this method an organized, professional, effective fire department response.

I know for a fact that at the last major fire in the district of the department with which I was previously affiliated, two tankers collided during the tanker shuttle, both from neighboring departments, and the costs incurred for repairs were paid by the insurance of the hosting department.

Thank you sir.

From my experience, every time there is a major issue at hand that could potentially be of some type of embarassment to the fire department or the fire district, the commissioners say that it is somehow related to a personnel issue (Obviously!!! How else would the department be embarassed if not by the actions of an individual or group of individuals) and that it must be discussed in a closed door meeting. They then return to the floor and any questions asked regarding the issue are deflected by saying that "it is connected to a personnel issue and connot be discussed for fear of litigation" (exactly what was said in the aforecited article by the Chairman of the Board of Fire Commissioners). Then, if a newspaper or reporter asks any question about a personnel matter, the Commissioners buy time by saying that the reporter must FOIL them. Then after they get the FOIL request, they defer to the same tactic and say that they can't discuss personnel issues. SO WHY WOULD THE PUBLIC ATTEND? I was a 10 year member of the emergency services community (5 years as an Officer) and it didn't take me longer than a year to stop going to those meetings because all of the pertinent matters are discussed behind closed doors. The commissioners were talking about things that directly impacted me as a firefighter and I got fed up and wrote those meetings off as a waste of my time. Why should John Q Taxpayer feel any different? Just like everything else with politicians, they hide behind smoke screens, generalities, and procedure until taxpayers who have legeitimate questions about their emergency services get fed up and determine that its not worth their time to figure seek the answers that they desire. They then curse the Department, the Chiefs, and the Commissioners under their breath and tell their entire circle of friends within the community over dinners and drinks about their awful experience with the Fire Department (they generalize) and what bad corrupt people they are. Then neither they nor their friends within the community attend, vote, or volunteer (or donate). I think some people in this business (no reflection on you Bnechis or FFPCogs as I truly appreciate your posts/views) have a tendency to say "why is the public doing this to us?" instead of "What are we doing to make the public think of us in this light?" and "How are we driving people away?" The emergency services can blame the kids who grew up with a silver spoon in their mouths; they can blame the businessmen who have no time for their community; they can blame the economy for creating stagnant conditions that require people to work so hard that they have no time to volunteer; they can blame video games. BUT IN MY OPINION, THEY SHOULD REALLY TAKE A LOOK IN THE MIRROR AND ASK THEMSELVES WHAT THEY ARE DOING TO MAKE PEOPLE NOT WANT TO ATTEND, VOTE, OR VOLUNTEER. After all, how is your retention rate? Most places can't even keep the people that are interested to begin with. Just like your reputation within the department, it takes 10 "atta boys" to get rid of one "oh s***." Does your organization have 10 equally weighted positive articles published (or stories/rumors spread around the community) about it for every 1 negative article that has been published about it in the recent past. I can tell you with complete certainty that the organization with which I was previously affiliated absolutely does not. The emergency services are not getting a bad rap out of thin air.

Article from the local paper... http://www.lewisboroledger.com/9779/tockstein-resigns-as-fire-chief/ Why was everyone who was interviewed so vague? Don't the taxpayers have a right to know exactly what is going on with their fire department? After all, their tax dollars are funding it...

I will attempt to be diplomatic... Their Chief resigned as a result of an incident that occurred after the New Year. A number of their Chiefs/Officers/Members are temporarily unable to participate as a result of an incident that occurred after the New Year. And this all happened after a bad period of membership during which a number of their long-time Officers and members resigned, quit, or moved away for various reasons. Therefore, they have a shortage of Commanders / Members at this time.

I am familiar with the NFPA definitions. However, they have no basis or bearing on my position. It is my opinion (any my opinion only) that when a department calls another neighboring department to assist them with an extraordinary, not-your-average call where they require assistance beyond the resources that a fire department would reasonably be expected to provide, then that is a justified and necessary use of the mutual aid system. However, when departments consistently respond together because they are unable to deliver the services that a fire protection organization would reasonably be expected to provide, then that would constitute a "consolidation of services." Now, I would like to establish that there is a major difference between consolidating services and consolidating organizations as I feel that my initial post may have been somewhat lost in translation. When TWO departments are responding together on a regular basis in order to provide the same services that ONE emergency services organization would reasonably be expected to provide, then that would constitute a "consolidation of services." Therefore, they are acknowledging that they are unable to deliver adequate fire protection services on a regular basis WITH ANY CERTAINTY as an independent organization and must rely on a coordinated response to guarantee that the response that is expected by a reasonable citizen in return for his or her fire protection tax dollars is delivered. This should in no way be confused with a consolidation of organizations in which two organizations merge and operate under one unified command and under a singular budget, with consolidate resources (equipment, apparatus, buildings), and universal SOGs. I believe that these are two distinct but correlated premises. I propose that "consolidation of services" is a distant precursor to an eventual consolidation of organizations. As departments rely on eachother more-and-more due to a lack of manpower (which I propose will only get worse despite the valiant recruiting efforts of our volunteers), it will eventually (and this may be years or decades away) become apparent that they should merge organizations in order to increase efficiency and expedite progress. Just a side note, I also belive that it is not fair for residents of a certain fire district to pay taxes so that their deparment can reguarly respond to a neighboring fire district. For instance, (I will cite this example as it seems to be the most pertinent) why should North Salem residents pay for the increased costs (fuel, maintenance, etc.) for their fire department (CFFD) to respond to Golden's Bridge on a regular basis for every automatic alarm and food-on-the-stove call? Even though it is a temporary situation and arguably the "decent thing to do" if their neighboring department is in trouble, it is not right for the taxpayers in the neighboring community to incur the increased costs becasue the fire deparment within that distict cannot provide reasonably expected emergency services.

This seems like a terrible idea to me. I don't know what everyone else thinks but it would seem that having more people enter an unstable environment would just create more targets for the shooter/s. I guess they went the total opposite direction from the "stage away until the scene is secure" rationale. LA does everything ass-backwards anyways...maybe they can order some salad bowl helmets that are bullet-proof to enhance scene safety.

Isn't this the same publicity stunt as last year this time? I think it was boots though...Then there became a legal issue over photo rights and revenue if I remember correctly!

The department in which I was previously active also had a point system. One of the issues that was apparent to me was what do you do to the people who do not make their points? I am curious how all of the other agencies out there handle this. In my previous organization, if a member did not make their points then they got a little card mailed to them that informed them that they did not make their points and what their future intentions were. They could either select "I will make an effort to be more active in the upcoming year", "I would like to switch over to exempt (assuming that they have 5 years of active membership) or social membership" (non-voting, non-firematic membership), or "I would no longer like to to be a member of the...fire department. Please drop me from the roles". The problem with this is that it took a 2 to 3 years of a member saying that they wanted to be more active and then missing their points by a few for the nominating committee to drop them from the membership. The entire process took way too long. The other issue is that we had a ton of members on the roster who missed their points for 2 years, then made it by 2 or 3 points just by happenstance one year (coincidentally, like they came to one call during a storm surge when we had 10 active calls and they got 30 points (3 points per call)), then they missed their points again for the next 2 years. So they are taking up dead space for 5 years, getting new gear as theirs creeps over 10 years old (NFPA!!!), and we are paying the insurance on them, and they are nothing but a derelict, non-compliant, dead weight member that gets to hang around for half of a decade. And god forbid they are at the meeting when the membership committee recommends that they be dropped from the roles because they have checked off for the past 3 years that they want to be more active and their attendace has not changed one bit. If they come up with a sob story in response to the membership committee's recommendation for the membership to think about before they vote on them, that will definitely buy them another 2 or 3 years of filling out cards and checking off boxes full of more broken promises... So, now that I've gotten that off my chest, what do the rest of you guys' departments do when someone falls short of their activity points?

Spoken like a true a******...I'm sure you have the majority vote from the brainiacs in your department!!!

I am with you 100% on this issue Moose. However, when I put out feelers in hopes of implementing professional qualifications for firematic Officers in my previous organization, I was met with nothing but resistance. The membership is simply unwilling to impose restrictions upon the members, especially when the vast majority of those members fall short of reasonable certifications to be fire Officers, and would be imposing restrictions on their future hopes of being Officers or Chiefs and making more work for themselves. The major counter-argument that arose over and over again in response to my argument for training standards was, "we already can't fill the Officer's positions that we have." Every year the nominating committee has to ask people to hold certain Officer's positions so that the positions do not sit vacant. Therefore, you have a few "good guys" that know relatively little about firefighting, who have no ambition, and who have little to no training holding one of the three Lieutenants spots, the Engineers position, and maybe one of the Rescue Company Officers positions as well. The membership doesn't want to implement Officers training requirements because it would further limit who could hold an Officers position and who could act as a spot-filler in the event that no qualified individual wants the job. My contention is that, if an Officer is not trained, then he is not a Firematic Officer...he is nothing but a SPOT-FILLER who may one day make a decision when all are looking at him for direction that will get his members hurt or killed. However, the organization with which I was previosly active, does have restrictions to be Chief. The Chief must be in the department for a minimum of 5 years, hold an Officers poisition for one of the previous 3 years, have Firefighter 1, and be qualified on all pieces of apparatus (we do not require NYS EVOC or Pump OPs). Therefore, according to those standards, the Chief must have made his points for 5 years (25 calls and no other attendance satisfies this requirement), be popular enough in one of the previous 3 years to be a spot-filler in a lowly line Officers position, be trained by a non-certified, in-house instructor to drive and pump the rigs, and be qualified according to NYS fire standards to work under the supervision of a trained Fire Officer. NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!! Another major concern is that each year the Department with which I was previously affiliated would have to get rid of a number of members who did not meet the requirements to be active members. Therefore, the members regularly fall short of meeting the standards that are imposed to be a firefighter. Each year many members fall short of meeting their 75 departmental activity points (3 points per call, 2 points per drill, 1 point per meeting, 1 point per hour per standby), do not pay their $20 membership dues, do not show up for 1 of the 3 sessions of physicals/fit testing that we do in the summer (thats right I said 3...we need that many just to get the majority of the guys through who actually care), or do not attend 6 of the 9 sensitivity training classes (3 Sexual Harrassment, 3 Harrassment/Workplace Bullying, 3 Workplace Violence) that are mandatory for each member and are held every other year. So if the members cant even fulfill what is required of them to be firefighters, how will anyone ever be able to satisfy the requirements to be an Officer. Lastly, since the vast majority of those who vote in district elections are the members of the department themselves, the fire district is hesitant to forcibly impose such standards on the membership for fear of not being re-elected. Instead, everyone seems to rely on the logic "well, we seldom get fires so the lack of urgency surrounding such a matter does not require us to address it at this time." I know I must sound like a disgruntled individual (which I probably am as I put my heart andsoul into this organization for a decade only to have it thrown in my face by lazy, untrained individuals who didn't want to follow my lead to substantial improvements). I would like to say that I have never been a career firefighter as I do not want people to think that I am fueling the Career vs Volunteer debate. However, after seeing the quality of service that most members of my previous organization could provide to the taxpayer, I am wholeheartedly sold on the belief that a Career fire department is the only way to ensure that adequate fire protection is available to residents 24 hours a day, 365 days per year. Some volunteer departments are better than others, but all are inferior to a 6 man crew of well-trained, in-shape, career firefighters on call round the clock.

Moose, I empathize with you completely as I was recently placed in a similar situation. I am a 10 year member (joined at 16 years old) of a Westchester County fire department. I have served as an officer for the past 6 years as Rescue Company Lieutenant for 1 year, Rescue Company Captain for 2 years, Engine Company Lieutenant for 1 year, and Captain of the department for 2 years. Additionally, I have taken pride in being well trained and hold certificates for Firefighter 1, Firefigher 2, Firefigher Survival, Rescue Tech Basic, NYS/CT EMT, HAZ-MAT Operations, Truck Company Ops, Firefighter Assist and Search Teams, Introduction to Fire Officer, Fire Officer 1, Emergency Vehicle Operations Course, Emergency Vehicle Operator-Pump, and various Westchester County/Seminar Certifications. Outside of my Emergency Services Career, I have a college degree from a very prestigious Liberal Arts College and am in the process of getting a Masters in Business Administration from an acclaimed NYC University. In my professional career I am an executive for a Fortune 500 company in New York City. In this past election, I was squeezed out of the line of Officers when an Ex-Chief decided to go around again (lost by 1 vote). At that time, I determined that I no longer wanted to be a part of that organiation and have been to the firehouse for 4 calls (all possible structure fires/entrapments) since the end of my term in may. I have not attended a single drill or meeting. I have drafted my letter of resignation and will submit it next month at our monthly meeting. It was my belief that the values of the organization of which I was a part was no longer consistent with my vision of what an emergency services organization should be and that I no longer wanted to be a part of it. With all due respect, it sounds like you should count your losses as well. Do you really want to be part of a fire department that allows individuals to occupy the rank of Captain with no formal training? Now that you are no longer Chief will you have faith that those individuals are making educated decisions that will ensure your safety on the fireground? Are the members of your organization operating in the best interest of the taxpayers who they serve? It sounds like they would be better trained if they actually cared about the lives of the people who they were responsible for protecting. I will never join another emergency services organization unless I feel that they take pride in best serving the members of the community and ensure that they are "professionally staffed by volunteers." As for now, my career is over until I find an organization that takes pride in being able to fight fire, doesn't b**** when its time to perform a vigorous, physical drill, and spends less time worrying about attending parades, selling Christmas trees, or having barbecues. In my opinion, the volunteer fire service is somewhat lost and needs a reminder of the true, original goals and ideals on which the system was founded.

Unfortunately, some of us have to give our lives in order to evince progress and change. And to think that it was just recently brought to my attention that some areas of NY State are still operating without FASTeams. Lets learn from our mistakes so that these brave men didn't lose their lives in vain...but instead to save the countless lives of other brother firefighters.

Negative...I believe it is going to be a KME with the Predator Chassis and an aluminum tank. More modern variation of the current Tanker 1.

Golden's Bridge Engine 138 - 1968 CF Mack (Re-furbed in 1987) Engine 140 - 1994 Pierce (1st Due Engine) Tanker 1 - 1988 White (Replacement on Order)