Update on Stamford Merger

[FFPCogs 863]

I just re-read my last post and DAMN my spelling sucks!......

[x152 179]

I just re-read my last post and DAMN my spelling sucks!......

Regardless of your spelling, your points appear to be sincere and quite valid.

[dartnk45 11]

has anyone confirmed the plans of moving E-7 to the town yard on haig ave? second would that be a long responce for a tanker to long ridge road side of TOR? i would think that they would station it with E-5 or E-9. and last is their any truth to a Squad 7?

[Guest REDDDOGG]

I just re-read my last post and DAMN my spelling sucks!......

I agree with X152 spelling aside i have come to respect your opinons on this board. They have always been well thought out and you have tried to be fair to both sides....but we can tell which side you lean towards... LOL ...

[FFPCogs 863]

Guilty as charged.... .

Red, and X152

Thank you for the compliment and I too find your posts to be informative, and well thought out and presented...as are most here. Thank you also for having the decency to treat me and others with possibily differing views with respect and objectivity. This too is a sign of professionalism.

Cogs

[Guest Sqd47]

Regardless of what the City Charter says about autonomy, there can only be ONE Incident Commander regardless of district. Under the current situation that job will usually fall by default to the Deputy on duty as he will be responding with any SFRD units and they are bound by their chain of command to follow his orders..he is their boss. It may be a volunteer Chief's district but the paid personnel there are under SFRD command not his, therefore for all practical purposes the scene is under SFRD control. This is not necessarily a bad thing nor am I questioning the abilities, dedication or motivation of any SFRD personnel, but this can and does create an issue. This issue being that while the district authority is specified by City Charter, and by virtue of Incorporation as an independent entity, the practical authority of the scene is determined by the personnel on scene. It is akin to Greenwich firefighters coming into the SFRD district, and by virtue of that response Greenwich becoming the de facto command.

Pete, there is a difference between the Incident Commander of a scene, and the Authority Having Jurisdiction of a fire protection district. In this case, the AHJ should have policies and procedures in place that define how incident command is established, and carried out through the span of an incident. This ensures that there is a clear understanding of who is in command at an incident when you have mutual aid companies operating in another district. As far as I know there have not been any big problems with this arrangement, which is as it should be.

I realize that this may just seem like semantics or a technicality, but the legal authority of the volunteer districts is being usurped either with or without their consent. The following won't win me any friends with the Volunteers there but to me the majority of the blame for this falls on the VFDs themselves. Over the years the VFDs have relinquished control of their employees and therefore have no right to expect authority over them now. First by allowing them to become City of Stamford employees as opposed to employees of each FD as it was, and then by being forced to let them become SFRD employees. (It may very well be that those firefighters are better off, and I truly hope they are, but for the puposes of this discussion I am speaking of those former employees only as it relates to the autonomy of the VFDs). These concessions by the VFDs were a result of their divisive and self serving agendas in the past, and their inability to stand as one in the face of the City Adminstration's pressures. Combined the VFDs have the resources, finances and manpower to effectively serve their community and withstand any further encroachment by Malloy and Co...it seems only the will to change is lacking. My apologies to any who may be offened, but I try to speak as bluntly, honestly and objectively as I can..nothing personal.

Pete, laying the blame on the VFD's is very unfair of you.

As I recall, the paid firefighters in the volunteer districts became municipal employess of the City of Stamford as a way of saving money, mostly in reducing the expenses associates with administering their benefits packages. A workable management agreement was in place that in no way relinquished control of these employees.

The VFD's were not "forced to let them become SFRD employees", the members of Local 786 voted on a contract amendment to allow the paid firefighters in the volunteer districts to become members of the SFRD. At Belltown we were asked to vote on whether we would agree to Mayor Malloy's consolidation plan, and the vote was to decline, which resulted in the removal of the paid personnel from our district. It was at this juncture that the Belltown Volunteer Fire Department became 100% volunteer.

[Geppetto 31]

What is clear is that the volunteer fire representatives still see themselves as advocates for their own departments. The underlying theme of working as one volunteer unit; one Stamford volunteer fire department still is a foreign concept and "will never work here." I've said it before; unfortunately you are facilitating your own demise. If you work on the concept that "The city has forced this system down our throats" - OK fine, work out the legal BS in the courts. You may (and more power to you, the little guy) win the battle, but a Pyrrhic victory is one where the war is lost.

Resources in money and manpower are lost, everyday, because each of the volunteer companies STILL see themselves as BFD, GFD, SFCO, TORFD and LFRD firefighters rather than STAMFORD firefighters!. How many times does this have to be said? At least the union firefighters can all say they are, even if they may not like their new patches.

Edited September 21, 2008 by Geppetto

[FFPCogs 863]

Pat,

I can fully understand and appreciate your difference of opinion regarding my thoughts on why things have taken the course they have. And while my facts may seem to be somewhat skewed, I came up in that system. I have first hand knowledge of the attitudes and policies of the Big 5. You may believe my criticisms of the volunteers is unwarranted or unfair and that is absolutely your right...maybe even your duty...but the traditional divisions between the member departments did and does indeed contribute to recent events. Had a more unified system been in place within the Big 5 there would have never been a need for SFRD personnel in ANY member department in the first place. Once that door was opened, and weaknesses within the volunteer system became an issue, those who for a very long time have wanted a consolidation of the Stamford Fire services had their opportunity. It seems to me (and others) that the steps necessary to achieve this "consolidation" are now being enacted, and following a pre-ordained course. But take heart, while the VFDs may share in the "blame" they are by no means the villian in all this..that distinction belongs squarely with Mr. Malloy and his cronies whose tactics, to many, border on criminal.

In truth, to many not personally involved in this, it seems that there are factors above and beyond public safety or simple budgetary concerns at work here. Close scrutiny of the situation does raise some questions, to which the answers given if at all, are not really satisfactory. For us uninvolved but concerned bystanders this whole mess goes beyond Belltown vs the City or TOR vs the City, it is more along the lines of the volunteer system vs the City. The specifics may differ between the departments involved, but the end result wil be the same for all VFDs there. It also appears that the City (as pointed out in your post regarding a possible Haig Ave facility) is moving forward with plans to simply bypass the volunteers of Belltown, Springdale to to some extent TOR altogether. You (and others) may take exception to this view and again that is your right, but to us "outsiders" the tactics employed by the City and the response of the VFDs to them seems to bear it out. "Divide and conquer".

As I stated in that post I express my views bluntly, and I will do so now.

Failure to acknowledge and address that the actions (or inactions) on the part of the Big 5 volunteer fire departments as a whole have contributed to this situation will lead only to further degradation of the volunteer system in Stamford. Furthermore the traditional methods employed and attitudes of the Big 5 are no longer sufficient in maintaining that system as a whole....they are in part what got you all here. As it now stands finger pointing will not help, lawyers will not help, individual action will not help (but actually hurt), and differeing agendas will not help. Only cooperative and unified steps on and off the fireground on the part of the Big 5 will now stave off the ultimate elimination of volunteer firefighting in Stamford.

On another note:

I understand that the operational policies for on scene command ect are spelled out and that scenes are well run and the job is ALWAYS done. My point was that while this may be true the practical applications of those policies as they relate to the autonomy of the VFDs are at odds with the realities. But this was only an example, there are other factors relating to SFRD personnel in VFD houses off the fireground that are an issue as well. I am also aware that Greenwich has a system in place similar to what is envisioned for Stamford and depending on who you talk to it either works or doesn't. Personally I believe Stamford as a whole can do better.

Cogs

[jcoppola 52]

What is clear is that the volunteer fire representatives still see themselves as advocates for their own departments. The underlying theme of working as one volunteer unit; one Stamford volunteer fire department still is a foreign concept and "will never work here." I've said it before; unfortunately you are facilitating your own demise. If you work on the concept that "The city has forced this system down our throats" - OK fine, work out the legal BS in the courts. You may (and more power to you, the little guy) win the battle, but a Pyrrhic victory is one where the war is lost.

Resources in money and manpower are lost, everyday, because each of the volunteer companies STILL see themselves as BFD, GFD, SFCO, TORFD and LFRD firefighters rather than STAMFORD firefighters!. How many times does this have to be said? At least the union firefighters can all say they are, even if they may not like their new patches.

You make great points as far as utilizing taxpayer rescources responsibly and you know where I stand on that. One thing you need to remember and I still feel it a little, is the pride that these departments have instilled in their members. Speaking only for BFD, I know the level of dedication and pride most of those guys feel for the place. It is not as cut-and-dry as you suggest and the key challenge is to strike a workable, safety oriented and fiscally responsible deal, not one based on blackmail and witholding funds. I lost quite a bit of that pride when those guys got laid off, but as I said before, they are better for it now and they know it. I ABSOLUTELY HATED answering to a volunteer chief when I was emplyed @ BFD and I ALWAYS felt that my best interestes were the LAST thing on the chief's mind. That is no way to run a business or an orgainzation. And you all who know me know how sincere I am in this because the whole situation caused a lot of family turmoil, of which I never backed down (and still to this day don't)

My 2 cents+

Joe

[skylark 3]

If there was a tooth fairy then there will be a public safety building on Haig Avenue! Believe me this is just the figment of imagination by someone trying to stirr up more controversy to an already voltile situation. In fact there has been little or no response to calls for emergencies by the volunteers in the Springdale and Turn of River fire districts. This is fact! There is also a lack of fire marshal services in the Turn of River fire district due to the refusal by Turn of River of an offer to provide those services by the cadre of fire marshals in the City of Stamford. So who is suffering? The general public having to wait for the paid driver of Long Ridge to volunteer to be the fire marshal of record in Turn of River. And at that he has to call the State to get help because he dosn't have the experience to provide that service. It is time to all grow up.

[FFPCogs 863]

OK all,

I'm posting the following based on information provided me by a friend who works for Stamford Public Works. I will make the disclainer now that this may not be accurate information nor am I trying to spread rumors and anyone who knows the "truth" please feel free to correct my comments.

According to the info, the end run on Haig Ave will move forward. The last mechanic will be moved to Magee Ave, and the trailer for E8 will be moved to the town yard property. E8 will be housed in the existing building, with the possible addition of E6 as Truck Co.

While the source is relaible his information may be mistaken, and I just thought those interested would want to know the latest buzz. No finger pointing, recriminations or pot stirring involved.

Cogs

[pjreilly 6]

No pot stirring? What do you call it then? Oh yeah the latest BUZZ. Engine 6 does not qualify as a truck, not enough ladders, and why would the city pull the one piece that seems to actually be working in this mixed up puzzle of the fire service in the City of Stamford?

[x152 179]

So there really is a tooth fairy.......??

I would be wary of giving too much credence to any of the many "tales" out there. Regardless of where the sources work, they may just be stating the same rumor with a different twist.

But then again, this is the Fire Service and we all know how easily rumors and stories can get legs......

Edited September 29, 2008 by x152

[FFPCogs 863]

No pot stirring? What do you call it then? Oh yeah the latest BUZZ. Engine 6 does not qualify as a truck, not enough ladders, and why would the city pull the one piece that seems to actually be working in this mixed up puzzle of the fire service in the City of Stamford?

Call it what you like. I can say that the removal of the mechanic has been confirmed by another middle management Public Works employee, but he would neither confirm or deny the ultimate use of ther property.

I realize E6 is a quint.

I can't answer your question regarding the why other than to offer another. Why has the City done what it has to this point?

Actually any questions would be better put to the local reps and Malloy and Co. Getting answers though is quite another thing.

Cogs

[Geppetto 31]

Dodd, Lieberman Announce $48,000 in Federal Grants for Stamford Fire Department

Turn of River to get 2007 SAFER Grant

http://dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/4583

[FFPCogs 863]

Good !!

[SageVigiles 1,194]

SAFER is only a temporary funding process though, one day that grant money will run out... and then who will foot the bill, if the mayor isn't giving them funding?

Edited September 30, 2008 by SageVigiles

[FFPCogs 863]

The money is for recruitment amd retention...let's hope it is used wisely.

[Guest REDDDOGG]

The money is for recruitment and retention...let's hope it is used wisely.

I agree with you Cogs whole heartely...let's just hope they do use it for what our federal tax dollars are given to them for...recruitment and retention only...but I have to say I find it hard to believe that will happen.

Listed in court documents soon to be made public their attorney made numerous claims to the judge that they were going broke and could not even afford to pay him to continue on if the case was to drag on. Now I'm sure someone from TOR will come on here and dispute this FACT but sorry to say it was said and is on the legal court record.

That being said I hope they use the money for the purpose it was award to them for by FEMA

[eckyphats 0]

did TORFD stop responding to medicals? I just heard a turn of river tone, but only dispatched engine 8 and a medic unit for it..not this first time I have heard this

[x242Steve 1]

did TORFD stop responding to medicals? I just heard a turn of river tone, but only dispatched engine 8 and a medic unit for it..not this first time I have heard this

TOR U65 responded also.

[Geppetto 31]

Although I did not see anything on News 12 or in the Advocate, I was told there was a substantial fire in Long Ridge's district over the weekend. Can anyone verify this?

[x242Steve 1]

Although I did not see anything on News 12 or in the Advocate, I was told there was a substantial fire in Long Ridge's district over the weekend. Can anyone verify this?

From ScanCT...

Stamford-WORKING FIRE-Mill Spring Ln, Long Ridge District. LRFD, TRFD, E5, E8, E9, U4 o/s

Nick - Saturday, October 04, 2008 at 21:38:08 (EDT)

I spoke with one SFRD officer that was on scene and "substantial fire" sounds like an appropriate description.

[SFRD E-9 18]

Although I did not see anything on News 12 or in the Advocate, I was told there was a substantial fire in Long Ridge's district over the weekend. Can anyone verify this?

Yes there was a "Major" fire of a large house. Not much left. First due engine from LRFD station 1 with one guy stayed out on the road (No size up!). Second due engine from LRFD station 2 with one guy drove by the hydrant and pulled in the driveway. One volunteer officer showed up. That was it on a Saturday night at approx. 9:00pm. As of this past July first, the Long Ridge Chief cancelled all the automatic mutual aid they used to received on all fire calls which stumped everyone else ! Looks like it bit them in the "can". We all knew it would happen, just a matter of time. I'm sure the home owner won't be happen when they find out this information!

[Geppetto 31]

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/ci_10656283

Stamford Advocate (Briefs)

10/07/08

Jeff Morganteen

A blaze that began in a fireplace extensively damaged a North Stamford home Saturday night, fire officials said.

Long Ridge Fire Department Chief Robert Bennett said the fire was reported about 9 p.m. at 117 Mill Spring Lane. Volunteer crews from Springdale and Turn of River fire departments assisted Long Ridge firefighters in containing the blaze, Bennett said.

Stamford-WORKING FIRE-Mill Spring Ln, Long Ridge District. LRFD, TRFD, E5, E8, E9, U4 o/s

Nick - Saturday, October 04, 2008 at 21:38:08 (EDT)

3 City Engines and the On-duty Deputy Chief were on-scene and Long Ridge or the Advocate doesn't even think to acknowledge their presence - Things that make you go hmmm...

Edited October 7, 2008 by Geppetto

[jcoppola 52]

Don't feel bad, we get major incidents in Norwalk and we don't even get mentioned half the time, and we are the only game in town...

[Guest Sqd47]

You make the assumption that the Advocate is a reliable source for accurate reporting of the news.

I am surprised they get the date right, let alone getting any stories right.

[junior215 0]

Small piece of info that everyone is leaving out..........When E74 asked if he wanted TOR units alone (vollies) or a TOR response (E8-9 and vollies) he responded that they only have 3 people on the scene and to send "someone." 3 PEOPLE ON A SATURDAY NIGHT TO A WORKING FIRE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Original call was for a fire in the fireplace getting out of control

2nd call 3 minutes later was for an ADT call for a smoke detector going off

6 minutes after initial call, homeowner called back stating fire is now out of fireplace and into room.

When 715 got on scene (vollie officer) he sounded less than sure of himself and contributed NOTHING useful to the response. I commend the driver of E74 for calling for help from whatever source.

Years ago, the mayor (love him or hate him) sent E6 to Long Ridge because of a manpower emergency. LR fought, won and got E6 removed. 3 members to a structure fire on Saturday night that sounded like it started small and ended in TOTAL LOSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!! I concur with LR: you guys have no problems and have enough manpower to get the job done!!!!!!!! I just wonder if the poor homeowner who watched the LRFC let his house burn feels the same way.

maybe engines 10 and 11 are not too far off!!!!!!

[x152 179]

I have heard several accounts of this fire and they are all very troubling. I will also state that I was not on-duty and did not witness this fire first-hand (as others here appear to have been).

I am also quite familiar with the fact that Fire Fighters love to embellish. Given the duty that ANY fire fighter should have to public safety, I will hope that the versions that are being circulated are the results of some exaggeration and not completely factual. If they are even partially true, it would be a embarrassment for ANY fire fighter.

What is not mentioned and quite factual is the history of automatic aid responding to the Long Ridge District. Prior to July of this year, one or two Turn of River Engines would have been automatically dispatched to structural responses in the Long Ridge District. The Turn of River Engines would have had two (2) career Fire Fighters staffing each unit.

Upon implementation of the City Fire Rescue Engine Companies in the Turn of River District in July of this year, the Long Ridge Chief decided to cancel the previous automatic assistance. An interesting decision considering that the new Companies would respond with at least two additional personnel than previous assignments.

Why would a Fire Chief refuse such assistance?

*Perhaps, a large group of new Long Ridge volunteer members that completed their required training arrived around the same time as the City was opening their new Companies, thus providing a means for no longer requiring assistance from other Departments?

*Perhaps, the funding was available to hire four new career fire fighters internally to provide staffing for Long Ridge? (5 if you include the "whistleblower" veteran career member that they recently fired..)

*Perhaps, the Long Ridge Fire Chief really decided to "Go-Green" and use this as a responsible approach to global warming and oil prices and reduce the fuel consumptions of neighboring agencies?

**OR perhaps the Long Ridge Chief decided to develop an "IRON Curtain" around his Department's operations preventing the "eyes-on" observations by the new responding City Fire Companies?

I am not sure what the rationale was? But what I am sure of is this:

If YOUR Fire Fighters (paid or volunteer) are responding to a residential structure fire at 9 PM on a Saturday night and after 15 minutes realize there are only 3 total personnel on scene (as clearly stated by their request for help over the radio), you had better evaluate your prior decisions and TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEM!

And no, I do not believe the Advocate made the error in not recognizing the four (4) City Fire Companies that responded to the scene.

It would also be important to ask where the Long Ridge Chief was while this fire was occurring and his people were being forced to deal with the ramifications of his previous decisions? I would bet it would be hard for him to appreciate the frustration and feeling of helplessness that those Fire Fighters faced while he was out of State.

Edited October 7, 2008 by x152

[PCFD ENG58 1,085]

Three firefighters on loc first , can you say RYE BROOK RURAL METRO! You know where that went.