Update on Stamford Merger

[jcoppola 52]

Interesting. I thought that 9 of the 17 "employees" voted to become members of SFRD??? How were they taken away???

Also, since they have vacated the house on Roxbury road, why not sell that too??

Seems like the ship has sunk, they are on the lifeboat and they are bailing out water with a bucket with no bottom. also, there is no rescue coming. Taking a hard line with the Mayor that controls your finances was not a good idea after all, huh guys??

Also, how is the fill the boot going. Are you telling people they are giving money to an organization that has already been receiving their tax payer dollars for years already???

I'd like to know how filling a boot (which, consequently, is a Muscular Dystrophy Initiative) can help a department with finances. Is there that much money going into the boot to really help pay bills???

[Geppetto 31]

Normally I do not post letters to the editor - However, this one is from the Chief of the Springdale FD -

Letters from Readers - Firefighting situation

Stamford Advocate

03/16/2009

The city has created obstacles to firefighting

To the editor:

I am writing to address some of the inaccuracies in a March 15 article about the Springdale Fire Company.

First and foremost, I never said Springdale would stop fighting fires. Public safety and the well being of our neighbors is our No. 1 priority. What I did say, and the writer chose to misquote, is that I did not know how we could respond if we didn't have fuel for the fire trucks. ...

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/opinion/ci_11926831

[junior215 0]

I just heard a rumor about the happenings in Springdale...... apparently the mayor plans to pull E7 out of SFCO firehouse and place them in a trailer in the SFCO fire district, just like Vine Road. Also, the SFCO budget will be reduced to $20,000 and the remainder of the money will be used to pay for the trailer. Can anyone in Stamford confirm this rumor about another hideous trailer appearing in the City that Works? Can this legally happen???

Inquiring minds want to know

[x152 179]

I just heard a rumor about the happenings in Springdale...... apparently the mayor plans to pull E7 out of SFCO firehouse and place them in a trailer in the SFCO fire district, just like Vine Road. Also, the SFCO budget will be reduced to $20,000 and the remainder of the money will be used to pay for the trailer. Can anyone in Stamford confirm this rumor about another hideous trailer appearing in the City that Works? Can this legally happen???

Inquiring minds want to know

Junior:

Did that rumor come from the place where people with fake names pretend to be things that they are not? If so, I would not worry about it too much.

A quick read of the personalities and credibility of those participating should be an indicator of the validity of their claims.

PS - As a side note, I know the former 786 President pretty well and was familiar for an actual plan of this type in 2002. The plan was devised in response to the transfer and harassment of 2 veteran Fire Fighters assigned to the Springdale Station. This was the first "shot across the bow" and the events that have followed have clearly shown the complete failure that is the Chief of the Springdale Fire Company and the relationship with the career staff assigned to Springdale.

Ironically, the City balked at our 2002 Springdale trailer plan, but somehow, it must have remained somewhere in the back of their minds?

[junior215 0]

Thanks x152.

I would hate to see brothers put in another trailer, but maybe it is a solution to the obviously hostile environment in Springdale.

[x152 179]

Thanks x152.

I would hate to see brothers put in another trailer, but maybe it is a solution to the obviously hostile environment in Springdale.

Junior:

I agree trailers are not the solution, but would be interesting to see what would happen to Springdale if we (SFRD) were not in the building?

Our existence in that building is the only reason as to why the City would consider additional funding request to cover issues such as heat, electric, etc.

I am still curious where the money went? With all the rhetoric, people have lost sight of the funding accountability issue. SFCO was not cut the financial blow as was Belltown or Turn of River.

Yet, SFCO (and their 5-6 active members) have already spent their entire budget? Something does not smell right there.

I know their lawyer mentioned the defense of the surveillance camera issue. Too bad, they do not invest in a new Chief or hearing aids. SFCO was informed from day one that the cameras were illegal and their case would not survive. Yet, Chief "Genius" spent the funds in another case to try and protect his bizarre and petulant behavior. The end result......the State Labor Board found them to be illegal and ordered their removal. "gee, that was a good investment....."

How many times can this imbecile be allowed to needlessly cry wolf and then spend thousands to have a lawyer try and defend his case?

His track record for his 7+ years of doing so is a zero percent success rate? And he wonders why they have no money.

Perhaps when the leadership changes, the Company will begin to recover. Until then, he and those who continue to support him, will reap what they sow.

Edited March 19, 2009 by x152

[helicopper 1,050]

Forgive an inquiry from a pesky NY'er...

Does CT have any type of "home rule" or other legislation that would empower a municipality to develop emergency services protection as necessary for the City/Town and determine its own destiny?

Is there an underlying issue that's dragging this out for so long?

[IzzyEng4 427]

Forgive an inquiry from a pesky NY'er...

Does CT have any type of "home rule" or other legislation that would empower a municipality to develop emergency services protection as necessary for the City/Town and determine its own destiny?

Is there an underlying issue that's dragging this out for so long?

Yes, CT does have a "home rule" law of legislation. However each of the the volunteer companies' districts are not taxation districts say like West Haven's Center, Allingtown and West Shore fire districts. I had asked this question before. Stamford used to be split between the City of Stamford (the downtown area were SFRD covers) and the rest of the Town of Stamford. In the 1960's Stamford petitoned for a town and city consolidated charter. Now how the volunteer fire departments were set up before (tax district or not) I am not sure but it seems like there was some sort of consolidation per the city charter of all the fire departments in the town (all six) under a public saftey director (I am only assuming by what I have been reading).

If the volunteers were to create their own separate taxation district (considered a municipality under home rule of CT). it would take a petition to do so but like the topics of conolidation of other fire taxation diostricts in CT, it would take a great deal of time and may not solve the problem.

As I am not an expert nor know Stamford that well, hopefully others would correct me and update to what I have said.

[helicopper 1,050]

Yes, CT does have a "home rule" law of legislation. However each of the the volunteer companies' districts are not taxation districts say like West Haven's Center, Allingtown and West Shore fire districts. I had asked this question before. Stamford used to be split between the City of Stamford (the downtown area were SFRD covers) and the rest of the Town of Stamford. In the 1960's Stamford petitoned for a town and city consolidated charter. Now how the volunteer fire departments were set up before (tax district or not) I am not sure.

If the volunteers were to create their own separate taxation district (considered a municipality under home rule of CT). it would take a petition to do so but like the topics of conolidation of other fire taxation diostricts in CT, it would take a great deal of time and may not solve the problem.

As I am not an expert nor know Stamford that well, hopefully others would correct me and update to what I have said.

OK, so way back when there was a Town of Stamford (covered by volunteer FD) and a City of Stamford (covered by a career FD), then the Town and City merged but the FD's remained independent and autonomous. Thanks, that makes so much more sense to me!

[jcoppola 52]

One thing that I could never get over is why the leadership of SFRD allowed the union brothers (sisters) to remain in that environment for so long. Did they think that these hostilities would just go away on their own?

[Geppetto 31]

Volunteer fire departments facing bankruptcy

03/19/2009

By CHASE WRIGHT

Norwalk Hour

With the exception of the Glenbrook Fire Department, volunteer fire companies in Stamford are quickly falling into bankruptcy; some may not even make it through June.

Turn of River Fire Department effectively closed one of its two stations six months ago and has recently begun selling off assets to pay its outstanding debts, said TOR Assistant Chief Matthew Maounis....

http://www.thehour.com/story/466770

[FFPCogs 863]

You're late G, saw this one on FH.com yesterday, but as usual thanks for the update.

Just out of curiosity and not to start debating the validity of the actions, but how many here feel that the tactics being employed i.e. slashing the VFD budgets to gain compliance, is appropriate?

I'll start and no suprises here I DON'T!

So that's one in the nay column.

Cogs

[junior215 0]

I think Turn of River should get $20,000. They have publicly stated tht they ahve vacated Roxbury Road. Why are they receiving $40,000???

And why is Springdale complaining. They get over $100,000. Right??

[Guest Sqd47]

I think Turn of River should get $20,000. They have publicly stated tht they ahve vacated Roxbury Road. Why are they receiving $40,000???

And why is Springdale complaining. They get over $100,000. Right??

While you are chiming in with your opinion on how much funding the vollies should recieve... how much should Glenbrook get in your opinion?

[junior215 0]

Just a hair over $163,000.......Ha

[Guest Slayer61]

Why do these departments need so much money from the town? I know departments that get between 20k and 40k a year from the town and do just fine.

[Guest BFD196]

Why do these departments need so much money from the town? I know departments that get between 20k and 40k a year from the town and do just fine.

Those departments must have excellent return on fund drives, or are having things like maintenance, fuel and insurance handled by their towns outside of the operating budget. Any department that needs to cover those bills, in addition to gear, pagers, training, building maintenance, etc needs a reasonable operating budget probably between 100 and 150K.

Junior, just curious why you feel Glenbrook needs such a high budget allotment? They certainly aren't making many calls to justify it.

Edited March 26, 2009 by BFD196

[junior215 0]

I was just kidding about Glewnbrook. That is actually what they got for 2010.

I think an argument can be made about TOR because there is no need to have Roxbury vacant. Just let SFRD in and keep Station 1. THEY ARE SELLING RIGS TO KEEP AFLOAT!!!!!!!!!

Belltown.......well, they make almost every run, so I can't argue against them. But TOR HAS missed calls and they should review their current strategy. Lets look at this logically..........if you were in a sinking boat, would you get on the lifeboat, or tell it to piss off and ride the ship to the bottom. I know that proper nautical etiquete says to sink, but lets get real here!!!!!! SFRD and vollie units are getting alone on calls. Why let the Mayor sour the relationship for years after he is gone?

[FFPCogs 863]

Why let the Mayor sour the relationship for years after he is gone?

Now THAT makes sense.

[Geppetto 31]

Glenbrook volunteers train with Stamford Fire & Rescue

By Jeff Morganteen

Stamford Advocate

03/28/2009

STAMFORD -- It was pitch-black inside the Stamford Fire & Rescue training facility on Magee Avenue, except for the occasional flicker of an instructor's flashlight.

In the facility's lower floor, two firefighters crawled on the cement ground, the sound of the butt end of an ax clanging against metal walls and the labored, mechanical wheezing of the firefighters' breathing apparatus. At one point, after crawling up stairs, one firefighter had to stop and control his breathing before continuing. ...

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/ci_12019608

[FFPCogs 863]

First off I think it's great that the the GFD guys are training. I think inter-departmental training is also a good thing since companies that train together work well together. But I do not believe that the GFD is the "model" VFD for Stamford. As unpopular or unreaistic as it may be to some, I find the belief that Stamford's VFDs are capable only of being "support" personnel abhorrent. This may sound arrogant but I haven't spent the last 28 years of my life training and responding to end up being relegated to supporting anyone, and I believe many of my colleagues feel the same way. Now some might say that the VFDs can no longer "handle" their responsibilities, and this may indeed be true to an extent for some, but before taking the irrevocable step of forcing "specialization" or "support" roles on the VFDs every effort should be made to retain and rebuild or reinvent the "system" that has always served this city. How to do this is open to exploration and I would venture to say negotiation, but a good start would be to restore the operating budgets of the penalized VFDs and implementing a city funded incentives program to recruit and retain more volunteers (plenty of which exist within and outside of CT as templates). There is nothing to be lost by attempting these two simple things, but there is the definite potential for success which will be lost if not. No one can say for sure that this will work, but then again no one can say it won't either. There are alternatives to gutting the volunteers, and to be fair it is incumbent upon us, the volunteer FFs of Stamford, to diligently explore, create and enact them but it is also incumbent upon this City to give us the tools to do so.

Cogs

Edited March 29, 2009 by FFPCogs

[junior215 0]

Lets get real, Cogs. With the exception of Belltown, there is NO volunteer response. Having TOR respond with a 2 man engine 15 minutes into a call and having Long Ridge respond with 1 paid driver is USELESS.

STOP BEING REDICULOUS!!!!!!

Everyone should get on board like Glenbrook. Do any of you realize that $163,000 is better than $20,000 per firehouse.

OPEN YOUR EYES. The money is not coming back unless they play ball!!!!!!

[FFPCogs 863]

Everyone should get on board like Glenbrook. Do any of you realize that $163,000 is better than $20,000 per firehouse.

OPEN YOUR EYES. The money is not coming back unless they play ball!!!!!!

I must agree that the money will not return unless we play ball but playing ball is not the issue, which ballgame is played is.

Cogs

Edited March 30, 2009 by FFPCogs

[Noula 0]

Lets get real, Cogs. With the exception of Belltown, there is NO volunteer response. Having TOR respond with a 2 man engine 15 minutes into a call and having Long Ridge respond with 1 paid driver is USELESS.

STOP BEING REDICULOUS!!!!!!

Everyone should get on board like Glenbrook. Do any of you realize that $163,000 is better than $20,000 per firehouse.

OPEN YOUR EYES. The money is not coming back unless they play ball!!!!!!

A 2 man engine crew can tag a hydrant and do a forward lay in. A 2 man crew responding in a tanker to a fire in an area without hydrants.... priceless. Even one guy responding on an engine that carries 1000+ gallons of water, very useful in an area without hydrants. 1000 gallons is another 8ish minutes of water on the fire. Useless? No.

It's ironic that you say, "there is no volunteer response" (besides Belltown) and rush to bash TOR and Long Ridge. Glenbrook had a reported structure fire IN THEIR DISTRICT yesterday and Truck 31 did not respond. All the training in the world will do you no good if your trained members don't respond to calls. If you want to bash a department for not responding to calls, Glenbrook is your poster child.

Personally, I don't want my taxes to pay for a dozen or so guys to play fireman once a week without serving any real purpose or function. But that's just me. You're entitled to your opinion.

[kpelley 0]

A 2 man engine crew can tag a hydrant and do a forward lay in. A 2 man crew responding in a tanker to a fire in an area without hydrants.... priceless. Even one guy responding on an engine that carries 1000+ gallons of water, very useful in an area without hydrants. 1000 gallons is another 8ish minutes of water on the fire. Useless? No.

It's ironic that you say, "there is no volunteer response" (besides Belltown) and rush to bash TOR and Long Ridge. Glenbrook had a reported structure fire IN THEIR DISTRICT yesterday and Truck 31 did not respond. All the training in the world will do you no good if your trained members don't respond to calls. If you want to bash a department for not responding to calls, Glenbrook is your poster child.

Personally, I don't want my taxes to pay for a dozen or so guys to play fireman once a week without serving any real purpose or function. But that's just me. You're entitled to your opinion.

Only works if that crew "hits" the hydrant. Can anyone drive the tanker ? Just my opinion

[x152 179]

Noula, I appreciate your input. There has not been too much opinion from a member of your Department offered here. Although I have significant disagreement with your points, I do think it is important to try and understand where you are coming from.

I will add a few personal thoughts-

It is quite sad that there is such a negative tone directed at the Glenbrook Fire Department. It appears to me that when their career personnel were laid-off and Glenbrook rejected the City's initial proposal, they were embraced by other volunteer Departments for their decision.

After evaluating their position and accepting an agreement with the City, they (GFD) are now almost as hated as Local 786 and Stamford Fire and Rescue (perhaps more?). What is the honest rationale for this? Am I to believe that there is substance for the bashing OR is this merely black-balling for trying to negotiate a reasonable future for themselves?

Now that Glenbrook has been operating under their new agreement for more than 16 months, what is the downside for them?

Really?

What today, has negatively harmed the Glenbrook Fire Department?

Better yet, since we are in the business of public safety (I believe), what has negatively impacted the residents of the Glenbrook service area?

Please let me know, from my limited vantage point, I have not seen it. Perhaps, there is more to the story that I am not aware of?

I can understand your frustration with the City, I personally negotiated labor contracts with many of the same players for more than 7 years. Contrary to popular belief amongst many in the volunteer community, our relationship (the IAFF) has been far from harmonious or amicable. There was plenty of impasse and certainly; serious disagreement.

But, I also came to learn that at some point, the members and the organization was going to have to find a resolution. To continue into an arbitrated setting or for a prolonged time, was self destructive to the job, the employees, and eventually those who we worked for. Unfortunately when we did settle, we usually did so with some concession from our original position. I came to know of that as bargaining.

I have stated before and I will state it again, I am not a fan of anyone being held hostage in negotiations (I have sat at the same table). However, the parties need to look beyond personal vendetta, fiefdoms, and EGOs and find a workable resolution.

I do not believe that the continued bashing of one agency that has found a way to do so (GFD), is putting yourselves on the path to do that.

My apologies for the long winded response. I will reserve additional comment, awaiting for your (or anyone else's) thoughts.

Thanks again for your opinion.

Matt Palmer

Edited April 2, 2009 by x152

[FFPCogs 863]

Noula, I appreciate your input. There has not been too much opinion from a member of your Department offered here. Although I have significant disagreement with your points, I do think it is important to try and understand where you are coming from.

I will add a few personal thoughts-

It is quite sad that there is such a negative tone directed at the Glenbrook Fire Department. It appears to me that when their career personnel were laid-off and Glenbrook rejected the City's initial proposal, they were embraced by other volunteer Departments for their decision.

After evaluating their position and accepting an agreement with the City, they (GFD) are now almost as hated as Local 786 and Stamford Fire and Rescue (perhaps more?). What is the honest rationale for this? Am I to believe that there is substance for the bashing OR is this merely black-balling for trying to negotiate a reasonable future for themselves?

Now that Glenbrook has been operating under their new agreement for more than 16 months, what is the downside for them?

Really?

What today, has negatively harmed the Glenbrook Fire Department?

Better yet, since we are in the business of public safety (I believe), what has negatively impacted the residents of the Glenbrook service area?

Please let me know, from my limited vantage point, I have not seen it. Perhaps, there is more to the story that I am not aware of?

Matt,

Thank you for your well thought out and eloquently expressed opinions. I being me will now offer mine in response.

First off I do not hate the GFD or Local 786 for that matter, in fact I have some dear friends that are a part of both organizations. From my perspective I am more disappointed than anything else by some of the decisions that have been made by the leadership of both.

As is well known by now I am a firm believer that the VFDs would be able to provide a higher level of coverage/service for the community if they collectively endeavored to do so. With the decision to accept the Mayor's ill concieved "plan" the GFD effectively negated their part in that possible collective effort because they chose to turn over the primary responsibility to the SFRD. And to be frank they in fact also weakened the opposition to the "plan". The Local's leadership for their part has steadfastly refused to enter into any meaningful negotiation or even acknowledge that there may be other possible alternatives to SFRD personnel staffing the VFDs 24/7. Let me give you an example of just one possible alternative that has been dismissed without even cursory examination. SFRD or paid staffing M-F 7am to 3 pm, with volunteer coverage for nights, weekends ect. (I have already drawn up an outline for this option which I concede will mean a change, but is fully within the realm of the possible).

Downsides, well there are a few. First off for the previous 16 months there has been a drastic reduction in the level of response by the GFD, which does indeed negatively impact the department and their "service area". Not being a member of that FD I cannot factually explain the reasons for this, and I will not speculate as to what they may be, but the volunteers have not to this point effectively met their responsibilities to the community which they are there to serve.

Another is that the taxpayers are in effect paying for services not rendered by the GFD. While it is true that there is 24/7 coverage of that FD this is due to the presence of SFRD personnel, not the GFD volunteers. Since the funding for the VFDs comes from the taxes raised in each district, and Glenbrook is now served by SFRD personnel then that is where the funds should be spent with any remaining funds then passd on to the volunteers. As it stands now the volunteers are fully funded in addition to the funding for the SFRD. This constitutes waste and in reality is a redundancy which this "plan" was supposed to in part, eliminate.

I can understand your frustration with the City, I personally negotiated labor contracts with many of the same players for more than 7 years. Contrary to popular belief amongst many in the volunteer community, our relationship (the IAFF) has been far from harmonious or amicable. There was plenty of impasse and certainly; serious disagreement.

But, I also came to learn that at some point, the members and the organization was going to have to find a resolution. To continue into an arbitrated setting or for a prolonged time, was self destructive to the job, the employees, and eventually those who we worked for. Unfortunately when we did settle, we usually did so with some concession from our original position. I came to know of that as bargaining.

I have stated before and I will state it again, I am not a fan of anyone being held hostage in negotiations (I have sat at the same table). However, the parties need to look beyond personal vendetta, fiefdoms, and EGOs and find a workable resolution.

I do not believe that the continued bashing of one agency that has found a way to do so (GFD), is putting yourselves on the path to do that.

My apologies for the long winded response. I will reserve additional comment, awaiting for your (or anyone else's) thoughts.

Thanks again for your opinion.

Matt Palmer

The frustration which is manifest here stems from a variety of factors, but by far the most important is the fact that there was not and it appears will not be any negotiation with the VFDs. What are we to do then when those with whom we must negotiate will not do so? Your experiences in negotiation while admirable unfortunately do not apply here, since you entered into negotiation with another party that was either willing or by contract forced to negotiate with you. We enjoy no such luxury.

On your next point I can agree in principle and fully realize that a willingness to compromise is paramount, but that cannot be a one way street. It has been my experience throughout my self imposed involvement in this debacle that all of the detriments you state have indeed been an impediment to progress, but you left out a major factor. The unwillingness of the City and yes the SFRD to accept alternatives to their plan. It may be that all Fire Services should be under the authority of the SFRD, but it may well be that that is not the case either. I for one have and continue to steadfastly believe that there are alternatives which in the end will provide for our community's needs, while allowing for autonomy for the VFDs. And that autonomy is important on many levels for the continued success of the volunteer system (and to me personally) until such time as we can be guaranteed an equal representation in all matters related to fire and emergency services.

From another angle here, there is yet another major factor contributing to the current impasse, the agendas. Now if anyone believes that there are not agendas at work here, in fact driving this situation, then they are sadly out of touch with reality. I have my "opinion" as to what those agendas may be and to put them here without proof would be to devolve this forum into a wasted resource. What I will do though is make completely clear my personal view on how to resolve this situation (i.e. my agenda):

I want to see the volunteers retain their integrity, authority and autonomy by working collectively to better serve the community through a variety of means which I have repeatedly expressed here. I would like to work with our career colleagues from the SFRD and once we have a firm foundation assist them to prevent job loss/layoffs and work collectively with them to ensure ALL firefighters in Stamford are supported. I would like to see an end to the consistent attacks on the VFDs by the union and an acceptance on their part that we volunteers do not want to harm them, take their jobs or prevent them from bargaining effectively for what they seek. (Let me say here and now that the VFDs have never negatively impacted the SFRDs ability to negotiate with the City in the past and there is no reason to believe our continued autonomy would do so in the future). In the end my agenda is quite simple...a collective approach with respect to each seperate part thereof, to providing fire and emergency services to this City on a level second to none.

Stay Safe

Cogs

Whew talk about long winded.....

Edited April 2, 2009 by FFPCogs

[x152 179]

Peter:

Long winded, don't get us together.....the ear's would bleed.

I appreciate your comments and it does not come as a surprise. Although we may disagree with certain points, your willingness to discuss the issues in a thoughtful and respectful manner is refreshing and welcome.

Not to go crazy with the rebuttals, but a few issues:

1. I disagree with the drastic reduction by the GFD. To be honest, in my 14+ years of service to the City, I have not been witness to a time when GFD volunteers were ever proficient at staffing/manning their apparatus. Prior to E6' assignment, the then GFD Engine (32) was their primary rig. GFD volunteers, when present, would ride out with the 2 or 3 career GFD personnel on duty. Having an additional Engine or Ladder get out the door on their own, was not common. Not to try and pick-on them, it just did not happen that often. I have not seen really any change from that, with the except of Engine 6 now filling the role where E32 previously served.

2. I also disagree with the statement about VFDs not engaging in impacting Local 786's negotiations. I would agree with your statement as far as Belltown is concerned. My previous dealings with BFD were usually civil and outside of a few individual personalities, I have a lot of respect for the fire service values that they promote within their membership and their fire service "tree" is quite admirable.

However, this is absolutely not the case with regard to Springdale, Turn of River, and Long Ridge. I will break it down:

*Since 1997, Long Ridge and their paid driver's association has been embattled in a series of suits/litigation against Local 786. In all cases, this was an attack on the Local 786 Leadership and their members. A quick review of their media record will confirm numerous anti-labor, anti-SFRD statements made by their members and in particular, their former attorney.

*Since 2002, the Springdale Fire Company has also waged a completely baseless attack on Stamford Fire Rescue. This attack has been the ill-conceived plan of their present Chief, who has sought our removal in order for him to obtain career positions for his own members (Court records and transcripts will confirm this). In addition, I have not seen any opportunity for the Springdale Chief to open his mouth and not have some anti-Stamford Fire Rescue or anti-Local 786 rhetoric flow out.

*The Turn of River Fire Department has and continues to disseminate literature and materials that provide unsubstantiated financial and staffing projections regarding the career fire protection (downloadable on the main page of their web site). Their former Chief has publicly stated that 2 fire fighter staffing is somehow better than 4 Fire Fighter staffing (again check the media history). When their members stand on street corners handing out literature that attacks Local 786 and Stamford Fire and Rescue, I have trouble believing that they are not impacting Local 786's ability to negotiate and promoting continued hostility toward the 280 career members of the Stamford Fire Service.

I could go on, but I think the point has been made.

In fairness, I am also well aware of the statements and tone of my labor organization has created at time. Although, I stand-behind my union leadership, I have not always been in agreement with some of the sentiment. I do not believe that continued name-calling or friction is doing anyone involved in the Stamford Fire Service good.

Thanks again Pete, it would be nice if more people sought to have dialogue like this, rather than resort to the other cowardly and childish arenas.

Be well.

Matt P.

Edited April 2, 2009 by x152

[FFPCogs 863]

Peter:

Long winded, don't get us together.....the ear's would bleed.

I appreciate your comments and it does not come as a surprise. Although we may disagree with certain points, your willingness to discuss the issues in a thoughtful and respectful manner is refreshing and welcome.

Not to go crazy with the rebuttals, but a few issues:

1. I disagree with the drastic reduction by the GFD. To be honest, in my 14+ years of service to the City, I have not been witness to a time when GFD volunteers were ever proficient at staffing/manning their apparatus. Prior to E6' assignment, the then GFD Engine (32) was their primary rig. GFD volunteers, when present, would ride out with the 2 or 3 career GFD personnel on duty. Having an additional Engine or Ladder get out the door on their own, was not common. Not to try and pick-on them, it just did not happen that often. I have not seen really any change from that, with the except of Engine 6 now filling the role where E32 previously served.

2. I also disagree with the statement about VFDs not engaging in impacting Local 786's negotiations. I would agree with your statement as far as Belltown is concerned. My previous dealings with BFD were usually civil and outside of a few individual personalities, I have a lot of respect for the fire service values that they promote within their membership and their fire service "tree" is quite admirable.

However, this is absolutely not the case with regard to Springdale, Turn of River, and Long Ridge. I will break it down:

*Since 1997, Long Ridge and their paid driver's association has been embattled in a series of suits/litigation against Local 786. In all cases, this was an attack on the Local 786 Leadership and their members. A quick review of their media record will confirm numerous anti-labor, anti-SFRD statements made by their members and in particular, their former attorney.

*Since 2002, the Springdale Fire Company has also waged a completely baseless attack on Stamford Fire Rescue. This attack has been the ill-conceived plan of their present Chief, who has sought our removal in order for him to obtain career positions for his own members (Court records and transcripts will confirm this). In addition, I have not seen any opportunity for the Springdale Chief to open his mouth and not have some anti-Stamford Fire Rescue or anti-Local 786 rhetoric flow out.

*The Turn of River Fire Department has and continues to disseminate literature and materials that provide unsubstantiated financial and staffing projections regarding the career fire protection (downloadable on the main page of their web site). Their former Chief has publicly stated that 2 fire fighter staffing is somehow better than 4 Fire Fighter staffing (again check the media history). When their members stand on street corners handing out literature that attacks Local 786 and Stamford Fire and Rescue, I have trouble believing that they are not impacting Local 786's ability to negotiate and promoting continued hostility toward the 280 career members of the Stamford Fire Service.

I could go on, but I think the point has been made.

In fairness, I am also well aware of the statements and tone of my labor organization has created at time. Although, I stand-behind my union leadership, I have not always been in agreement with some of the sentiment. I do not believe that continued name-calling or friction is doing anyone involved in the Stamford Fire Service good.

Thanks again Pete, it would be nice if more people sought to have dialogue like this, rather than resort to the other cowardly and childish arenas.

Be well.

Matt P.

I can only say that these instances may have been the result of the expansion or attempted expansion of the SFRD into what is considered "volunteer territory" as determined by the City Charter. My comments regarding the VFDs not impacting 786s ability to negotiate refers to the bargaining processes which took place prior to these previous and the current situations. When I state that we do not seek to harm or "take" your jobs or that we do not impact the unions ability to negotiate for their current personnel in their current districts, the fact is we don't. Our only negative impact here is that we may possibly pose a threat to any further expansion of the union. To be fair there is much going on here from all sides that is in reality doing the citizens of Stamford a great disservice. I can only hope that those who seek a truly equitable solution, that seeks to provide for our community first and foremost, will prevail.

Stay Safe

Cogs

[Paul J DeBartolomeo 0]

To Matt P. & Cogs

It is nice to read insightful, well thoughtout, & courteous discussion on this thread for once. Its obvious you both have your opinions but it seems niether of you has lost sight of the big picture. If only all discussions and negotiaions could go so well, maybe someday. As far as he negativity towards the GFD, in talking to several people within the system, it stems from the fact that they dont routinely get out the door for runs yet they are fully funded. Whereas some of the other depts are operating on a shoestring budget yet they cover their runs. It seems to be politics at its best, we will fund you, make a big deal about training you, but responses are optional. How long before their inactivity becomes an issue to justify more manning or another rig in that station? Just an outsiders view based on what Ive heard, not throwing any stones at either side. To Noula, your ideas may work in theory, but at recent incidents it hasnt been the case.