Update on Stamford Merger

[TRex 9]

Frankly, I cannot believe that this utterly frustrating debate is still going on. Time and again, it is proven that this bogus plan the mayor has put forth is nothing but a farce. I ask: what will it take for him to understand that it is not worth the paper it is written on? I'll answer: someone will die. Unfortunately it will have to get to that extreme for these idiots to pull their heads out of their rear ends and realize that going back to the old days will not work in 2011. I say it again, this is not a volunteer/paid issue with me. It's a matter of public safety and the only organization in Stamford who can gaurantee an organized, sufficient response to a fire emergency seems to be the Stamford Fire Rescue Department. Like it or not, that's a fact.

Nothing personal here to my friends in the volunteers, it's just a reality check. I am not a moderator anymore, so I feel liberated enough to let my true feelings fly.

The circus continues...

Frustrating debate for sure. I have stated it here before and I will as succinctly as possible state it again. It is not about the best way, or who can do it better or cheaper. This is simply an attempt to deunionize the fire service in Stamford, and begin the privitization of many essential city services. We are the first because there is already a split. Next will be public works, then the police, and so on. The current administration has said it before that the current union contracts are "onerious". Freddy Flynn"stone" comes with baggage as a union buster. It will be more apparent come negotiations this spring.

Secondly, you being the obvious professional(whether paid or volunteer) who truly cares about the protection of the citizenry we protect need to realize that the general public will no more respond to a fire death than they would to what color your fire truck is to be painted. Trust me. Here is a case in point. Do you remember approximately 10 years ago during another fiscal crisis in the city when then Mayor Malloy proposed reducing the staffing on board a city sanitation truck?

There was a huge taxpayer uprising to the point where the BOR envoked the charter stating that there shall be a minimum number of personnel on board a sanitation truck otherwise it meant that the public would have to drag out their own garbage cans to the street like a majority of the rest of the world. It was expensive to keep that extra guy. The Mayor eventually got it through. The point is, it is apparent that the public is more concerned about the number of personnel on board a sanitation vehicle and what they do then they are concerned about the number of personnel on a fire truck let alone who and how the overall system will operate.

This in no way is to diminish the importance of refuse removal, and its health consequences. But you see, weekly sanitiation operations affects every resident every week. When is the last time every resident realized that they had to rely on its fire service? It is the nature of the beast. It is like an insurance policy. No one likes paying the premiums. Fire fighters are not paid because the taxpayers like us or that a large percentage of them really believe they need us. But when the unfortunate time comes upon them they are happy that we are there, just like an insurance policy.

The difference is how much of a deductable are the willing to take a risk on.

The only people truly concerned about this whole debacle is the union, the volunteers, the BOR and the bean counters, and maybe a few residents. A sad commentary but I believe in my almost 40 years of involvement on both sides, this is an accurate assessment.

[helicopper 1,050]

Here's an idea...maybe all of the clashing Stamford companies should race to the scene, have a fist fight in front of the house, then the winners of the fight can then have the scene and fight the fire. Sound ridiculous? So does what is coming out of some of these incidents in Stamford lately. Someone needs to get control of this situation before civilians or our own get hurt or killed. If this isn't a call for action, then I do not know what is!

It really is hundreds of years of tradition unimpeded by progress...

The volunteer Fire Department continued to protect the lives and property of the citizens of the city until after the close of the Civil War when, in 1865, they were superseded by the paid Metropolitan Fire Department. The change created resentment and bitter actions were taken by some who opposed the elimination of the volunteers. This resulted in rough and tumble battles fought on both personal and political levels.

Benjamin Franklin created the Union Fire Company in 1736 in Philadelphia, the first volunteer fire company in America. There were no full-time paid firefighters in America until 1850. Even after the formation of paid fire companies in the United States, there were disagreements and often fights over territory. Some companies were famous for sending runners out to fires with a large barrel to cover the hydrant closest to the fire in advance of the engines. Often fights would break out between the runners and even the responding fire companies for the right to fight the fire and receive the insurance money that would be paid to the company that fought it.

[FD828 77]

So this ridiculous battle with the fire service has been going on for approx. 160 years.... great. I guess the odds of seeing a peaceful resolution before I retire are slim to none.

Edited January 2, 2011 by FD828

[IzzyEng4 427]

Lord Have Mercy, we are still arguing this?????????????????????????

WE AIN'T GONNA FIX IT UNLESS THOSE IN STAMFORD DO!!!

Yah I'm an admin but as a member here, it's about time we put this to rest!

I'm tired of it!

[FireMedic049 597]

Here's a wrinkle -

Police investigate fire chiefs' scuffle

John Nickerson

Stamford Advocate

December 30, 2010

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/policereports/article/Police-investigate-fire-chiefs-scuffle-929338.php

I just have one comment and one question regarding the cancellation of the SFRD Chief.

I think it's completely reasonable for a Chief Officer to respond to an "out of district" call in which his units are operating at. If I read the article right, 21 SFRD personnel were operating at this incident, so it would seem reasonable to have a Chief officer of their own there.

Would the IC have made the same decision if it was a Chief Officer of one of the volunteer departments on the call?

[TRex 9]

I just have one comment and one question regarding the cancellation of the SFRD Chief.

I think it's completely reasonable for a Chief Officer to respond to an "out of district" call in which his units are operating at. If I read the article right, 21 SFRD personnel were operating at this incident, so it would seem reasonable to have a Chief officer of their own there.

Would the IC have made the same decision if it was a Chief Officer of one of the volunteer departments on the call?

That's just it Fire Medic. The SFRD chiefs are all professional. They would not have cancelled Springdale chief if his department were coming into Stamford. What's more is that this same nut in Springdale responds to almost every other district's (except SFRD of course)alarms fires etc. and is always assuming command until one of the other district volunteers show up.

[FireMedic049 597]

That's just it Fire Medic. The SFRD chiefs are all professional. They would not have cancelled Springdale chief if his department were coming into Stamford. What's more is that this same nut in Springdale responds to almost every other district's (except SFRD of course)alarms fires etc. and is always assuming command until one of the other district volunteers show up.

As an outsider, I can clearly see that was due to a personal animosity.

One more question, does he actually have the authority to cancel and/or dismiss from the scene, the supervisor of another departments employees operating at the scene? It's one thing to cancel or release an engine or truck company, but how can he have the authority to accept the help of individual companies from a department, but reject their "boss"?

[FFPCogs 863]

I tried like hell to leave this one alone as I am one that truly believes it's in everyones best interest to work together, but I was on scene at this particular call and the actions of the DC were not professional on this occasion. The bottom line here is that there is ONE IC on a scene and in this case it was the Springdale Chief. And yes he does have the authority to release units, hold them or whatever else he decides as the IC in his authorized district, which this was.

Approximately 7-8 minutes into this call 511 put in a recall holding one or two units and that should have been it, but it wasn't...and that was not SFCo's Chief's fault. Upon recieveing the recall the DC decided to remain on scene after making some rather derogatory remarks over the radio on the fireground channel, remarks by the way which were heard by everyone on our crew. So even though he had been released and had no authority whatsoever from that point forward he stayed on scene and appointed himself the safety officer which was neither called for by the IC or necessary as the incident was coming to a close. He was informed that there was already an safety officer on scene which the Springdale Chief had appointed as is his right and authority to do. Yet the DC remained and then approached SFCo's Chief in the driveway of the home and began questioning him about the "quailifications" of the safety officer. A verbal exchange then took place since 511 is under no obligation to be dictated to by anyone in his own district. At this point 511 called for the police to remove an insubordinate FF on scene. I did not witness events from that point forward as we were returned to service by 511 and following his directive left the scene. Was there an "assault"? I don't know but it seems that 511 thinks there was.

Without fail I can agree 100% that this incident was all about personal animosity, but that animosity is not 511's alone and acting upon such animosity is not in the least bit professional no matter who it is that is doing it. We all have our personal feeling about what is going on here and we all have every right to share them, but when those feelings carry over on to the fireground and it doesn't matter who carries them over, it is a dangerous precedent indeed and one that must STOP !!!!!

Cogs

[FireMedic049 597]

I tried like hell to leave this one alone as I am one that truly believes it's in everyones best interest to work together, but I was on scene at this particular call and the actions of the DC were not professional on this occasion. The bottom line here is that there is ONE IC on a scene and in this case it was the Springdale Chief. And yes he does have the authority to release units, hold them or whatever else he decides as the IC in his authorized district, which this was.

I absolutely agree that there can only be one IC on a scene, but maybe you can better answer my questions.

Leaving out the "incident" that occurred on this specific call.....

Would he have cancelled/dismissed YOUR department's fire chief under the same circumstances?

Does he have the authority to cancel/dismiss YOUR department's fire chief at a scene in which YOUR department's units are operating?

[jcoppola 52]

You could defend this guy all you want Pete, but the bottom line is the SFRD Chief on scene has a solid reputation of professionalism and 511 has a reputation of using his rank to stir the pot and create a atmosphere of animosity in Springdale. You are going out on a very weak limb trying to defend this mess.

[jcoppola 52]

And Joe: this is not so much a paid vs. Volunteer debate as it is a discussion of a turf war. I know I appear biased because I'm a career guy, but there is no place for this type of behavior on the fire ground. It's wrong on so many levels.

[x152 179]

Pete:

For someone who often talks with the spirit of cooperation and keeping an open mind, it appears that you are blindly following your Team into this one.

So let me ask this question:

If the Engine and Ladder from Eagle Hose and the Engine from Fountain Hose in Ansonia were sent mutual aid to Seymour and the Seymour Chief then ordered the Ansonia Chief to cancel, even though Ansonia had 21 of their Fire Fighters on scene in Seymour and Seymour only had their Chief, it would be perfectly ok?

Wouldn't the Ansonia Chief have a responsibility for the safety and accountability of his/her 21 personnel? What would the basis for the Seymour Chief to cancel the Ansonia Chief even though 99% of the personnel operating on scene were under the direction/supervision of the Ansonia Chief?

What if we changed this same scenario with the FDNY sending the same number of units into Pelham? What if this was Hartford going into Windsor? How about Yonkers going into Hastings?

Would you or would you not find that decision to be strange and possibly motivated by something other than sound principals?

Why was it acceptable to have other volunteer Chiefs respond, but the "card-carrying" Chief with the most players on the field gets the turn-around?

Oh and sorry Izzy, for some of us, this is an important issue. If it bothers you to read it, roll-on to the "Scanning in Ulster County" thread. That should be less-stressful.

Edited January 3, 2011 by x152

[TRex 9]

As an outsider, I can clearly see that was due to a personal animosity.

One more question, does he actually have the authority to cancel and/or dismiss from the scene, the supervisor of another departments employees operating at the scene? It's one thing to cancel or release an engine or truck company, but how can he have the authority to accept the help of individual companies from a department, but reject their "boss"?

FM, it is a gray area. Here in lies the real crux of the whole situation. The vol. leadership is hell bent on being in command of paid people. They were for years when they had their own paid people until as you know all of the paid personnel resources were consolidated. This is a big sticking point on both sides.

Anyway, in answer to your question, the SFCO vol chief has authority to cancel his mutual aid as anyone would have. Proper IC procedures dictates one commander correct? If he is accepting the help then he needs to communicate with that helps commander, not cancel him from the response. SFRD E7 is under the command of the SFRD, although it is operating in the vol. district. Any structure call in Springdale also gets support response from downtown for obvious reasons.

This is where it gets a little murky. Any incident reports generated by the company commander at E7 when E7 responds in that district is automatically classed as an auto mutual aid. E7 is operating in the district in conjunction with SFCO. The current leader there was not active at the time in 1997 when E7 was commissioned. The loose cannon came in to power after the fact, and did not like what was in place, and has been a thorn in the side of that operation ever since.

He can reduce the response, but unless he turns everything around including E7, then he has no right to cancel the SFRD IC. He thibnks he has sole authority over E7, but he does not. He does not understand the concept of Unified Command and refuses to accept the fact that he does not command paid ffs. And in the situation in question, if he turned everything around he would have been by himself. I ignore him when I respond up there. He attempts to give my unit an order, but I have radio trouble, or can not hear him, whatever, and I just go to my IC. Pisses him off big time. Volunteers command volunteers. Career command career. Unity of command with Unified Command. He is the Strategist for Springdale, and commander of the Springdale forces. E7 operates in his district but under the command of the SFRD. A SFRD commander responds on all incidents other than single engine calls. In that eventuality, he then is in charge. Confusing, dangerous, ridiculous. Needs to be fixed soon.

[FFPCogs 863]

Pete:

For someone who often talks with the spirit of cooperation and keeping an open mind, it appears that you are blindly following your Team into this one.

Well now Cap I think I do more than just talk as evidenced by my recent posts here within the last week or so, but you are of course entitled to your opinion. In regards to "blindly following your Team" I beg to differ since I was there and heard what transpired for a good part of this situation. In the end though it really doesn't matter, there is and there will continue to be animosities until members on each "side" step across the lines. I've already made it abundantly clear the I'm willing to, in fact I think it's readily apparent that I would relish the opportunity, but alas as of yet it has been strangely silent from your "Team's" quarter.

So let me ask this question:

If the Engine and Ladder from Eagle Hose and the Engine from Fountain Hose in Ansonia were sent mutual aid to Seymour and the Seymour Chief then ordered the Ansonia Chief to cancel, even though Ansonia had 21 of their Fire Fighters on scene in Seymour and Seymour only had their Chief, it would be perfectly ok?

Yes if the incident were clearing. Can't the junior officers handle their own crews to clear a scene? Isn't it the job and responsibility of a company officer to manage their crew under the direction of an IC?

Wouldn't the Ansonia Chief have a responsibility for the safety and accountability of his/her 21 personnel? What would the basis for the Seymour Chief to cancel the Ansonia Chief even though 99% of the personnel operating on scene were under the direction/supervision of the Ansonia Chief?

What if we changed this same scenario with the FDNY sending the same number of units into Pelham? What if this was Hartford going into Windsor? How about Yonkers going into Hastings?

Would you or would you not find that decision to be strange and possibly motivated by something other than sound principals?

Why was it acceptable to have other volunteer Chiefs respond, but the "card-carrying" Chief with the most players on the field gets the turn-around?

Oh and sorry Izzy, for some of us, this is an important issue. If it bothers you to read it, roll-on to the "Scanning in Ulster County" thread. That should be less-stressful.

I find nothing wrong with a Chief responding or staying on an active scene to monitor their personnel when that's the case, but in this case recall had been sounded and the scene was clearing. I do have a problem with a Chief or any officer from any department unilaterally disregarding the directions of an IC. What would be the reaction if the roles were reversed and a volunteer Chief were to appoint themself a safety officer on an SFRD scene after the DC put in a recall?

Let me be clear here in that I fully realize what the situation is. I'm not defending anyone personally, I'm taking exception to the what led to this "incident". The players are irrellevant, but the attitudes are not. No one involved in the ongoing mess that is our fire service is an angel by any means nor have they been for quite some time, but in THIS case there was no need for the escalation that took place. All of this could have been avoided by simply returning to service when recall was sounded.

Cogs

[TRex 9]

I tried like hell to leave this one alone as I am one that truly believes it's in everyones best interest to work together, but I was on scene at this particular call and the actions of the DC were not professional on this occasion. The bottom line here is that there is ONE IC on a scene and in this case it was the Springdale Chief. And yes he does have the authority to release units, hold them or whatever else he decides as the IC in his authorized district, which this was.

Approximately 7-8 minutes into this call 511 put in a recall holding one or two units and that should have been it, but it wasn't...and that was not SFCo's Chief's fault. Upon recieveing the recall the DC decided to remain on scene after making some rather derogatory remarks over the radio on the fireground channel, remarks by the way which were heard by everyone on our crew. So even though he had been released and had no authority whatsoever from that point forward he stayed on scene and appointed himself the safety officer which was neither called for by the IC or necessary as the incident was coming to a close. He was informed that there was already an safety officer on scene which the Springdale Chief had appointed as is his right and authority to do. Yet the DC remained and then approached SFCo's Chief in the driveway of the home and began questioning him about the "quailifications" of the safety officer. A verbal exchange then took place since 511 is under no obligation to be dictated to by anyone in his own district. At this point 511 called for the police to remove an insubordinate FF on scene. I did not witness events from that point forward as we were returned to service by 511 and following his directive left the scene. Was there an "assault"? I don't know but it seems that 511 thinks there was.

Without fail I can agree 100% that this incident was all about personal animosity, but that animosity is not 511's alone and acting upon such animosity is not in the least bit professional no matter who it is that is doing it. We all have our personal feeling about what is going on here and we all have every right to share them, but when those feelings carry over on to the fireground and it doesn't matter who carries them over, it is a dangerous precedent indeed and one that must STOP !!!!!

Cogs

Cogs,

I too was on that call as well and heard the entire exchange as well. I am not exactly sure but, I believe there was more than just one unit held. E8 was first on scene, your T45 was held, my truck was released. I think E7 was held as well. I still contend that if any SFRD unit is operating on a declarred fire ground as he so declared, the on duty shift commander for the city has every right to ensure that his people are either performing as they should and are safe. To that I am sure you can agree. Who was your IC for your company that night? Should't your commander if not on board the rig also have the right to respond as he so often does? Why isn't 411 or 611 or 711, ever told to not respond? Watch where you are throwing your stones. So you see it can be personal on many fronts. He can advise mutual aid companies commanders of his needs or lack there of. But he is borrowing resources that he has no responcibilty for. If s@#! hit the fan on that situation and ff's were hurt, what do you think he would be doing or asking? Where was unit 4? "I am not responcible..your honor".

Lastly, the radio transmission that identified 611 as safety officer was then questioned as to whether 611 was certified to be a safety officer. There was dead silence to that question. Just crickets chirpping. In fact I heard that 611 ran and hid. He is in fact, and dare I say a Bridgeport police officer. WOW!

Edited January 3, 2011 by TRex

[FFPCogs 863]

I absolutely agree that there can only be one IC on a scene, but maybe you can better answer my questions.

Leaving out the "incident" that occurred on this specific call.....

Would he have cancelled/dismissed YOUR department's fire chief under the same circumstances?

I cannot say for certain that he would have, but I can tell you with a very high degree of certainty that if he or any IC had cancelled my Department's Chief, our Chief would follow that direction.

Does he have the authority to cancel/dismiss YOUR department's fire chief at a scene in which YOUR department's units are operating?

Yes as I understand it he does, as does the Chief of any fire district in which they are the authorized Command. In fact it was always a general rule that unless a second or greater alarm was sounded it is our Company Officers that act as the command authority for MY department"s personnel on an out of district scene under the direction of the "host" department's Chief. Our Chief's primary responsibility is our district. Of course circumstances sometimes dictate otherwise and as a department our SOGs retain the flexibilty to allow our Chief to act as the situation warrants.

Cogs

Edited January 3, 2011 by FFPCogs

[FireMedic049 597]

Yes if the incident were clearing. Can't the junior officers handle their own crews to clear a scene? Isn't it the job and responsibility of a company officer to manage their crew under the direction of an IC?

You appear to be evading the actual question(s). The question(s) were not about the ability of individual companies to return to quarters when the IC cancels or releases them. The question was, and still is, about cancelling ONLY the commanding officer of the department whose units the IC is utilizing on the scene.

I find nothing wrong with a Chief responding or staying on an active scene to monitor their personnel when that's the case, but in this case recall had been sounded and the scene was clearing. I do have a problem with a Chief or any officer from any department unilaterally disregarding the directions of an IC.

So when the "recall had been sounded", who was actually "recalled"? From the description of what happened, it appears that there were SFRD units still operating on the scene, so why would the IC specifically cancel their commanding officer?

All of this could have been avoided by simply returning to service when recall was sounded.

And it all could probably have been avoided if the IC had chosen not to cancel the SFRD Chief. Would he have done the same to YOUR chief?

[FireMedic049 597]

I cannot say for certain that he would have, but I can tell you with a very high degree of certainty that if he or any IC had cancelled my Department's Chief, our Chief would follow that direction.

The fact that you can't answer that question one way or the other with certainty, IMO just further demonstrates that this was a selective decision.

Yes as I understand it he does, as does the Chief of any fire district in which they are the authorized Command.

Personally, I find that troubling and contrary to my experiences with those situations.

In fact it was always a general rule that unless a second or greater alarm was sounded it is our Company Officers that act as the command authority for MY department"s personnel on an out of district scene under the direction of the "host" department's Chief. Our Chief's primary responsibility is our district.

Shouldn't your Chief's primary responsibility be his personnel working an incident?

[FFPCogs 863]

For all the talk of "Unity" of command it seems that there can only be such a thing if it is SFRD that is the command. Unfortunately from a legal standpoint that is currently not how the system is set up. The City Charter, which some seem so willing to disregard, clearly delineates the fire districts of this City and as such the State considers each of those districts and their duly authorized agent..i.e. Chief...to be the Authority Having Jurisdiction of that district. It doesn't specify how many of that district's FF must be on a scene to allow that districts Chief to act as IC, it says that the Chief has the authority to BE the IC in that district if they so choose. The Charter and State statutes does not say the a mutual aid Chief must remain on scene at their own discretion if X number of "their" FFs are on a scene, it says that the Chief of that district has the authority and right to decide who is on that scene by virtue of them being the AHJ no matter what a labor contract of a different department may state. So long as SFRD remains adamant that only their officers can command at any scene at which they are present there will be no unity.

The only way to achieve a single department is to integrate the command by standardizing the requirements to serve, not divide it by whether or not the FFs are career or volunteer.

Cogs

[FFPCogs 863]

And it all could probably have been avoided if the IC had chosen not to cancel the SFRD Chief. Would he have done the same to YOUR chief?

How is it that you expect me to speak for someone else? I have given you a clear description on what I saw and heard and what my opinion is of those events. To get the answers you seek you will need to speak to that Chief . As I said I'm not defending anyone personally, just pointing out that not everyone has the same view of the events in question.

Cogs

[FFPCogs 863]

Since we're all in a questioning mood, tell me who here is going to answer my question

Who among those that visit here would be willing meet with me and possibly a few other Stamford VFFs to explore our options and begin rebuilding the relationships that have been obliterated? If you don't want to answer here PM or email me at ffpcogs@yahoo.com.

Cogs

[FireMedic049 597]

How is it that you expect me to speak for someone else? I have given you a clear description on what I saw and heard and what my opinion is of those events. To get the answers you seek you will need to speak to that Chief . As I said I'm not defending anyone personally, just pointing out that not everyone has the same view of the events in question.

Cogs

I'm not expecting you to speak for someone else.

I would think you'd be able to state whether or not the cancelling of a Chief Officer of a "mutual aid" department operating at a scene is a normal course of action on your incidents.

If it is, I don't agree with it, but so be it. If it is not, then it speaks volumes about why it happened in this situation.

[FFPCogs 863]

I'm not expecting you to speak for someone else.

I would think you'd be able to state whether or not the cancelling of a Chief Officer of a "mutual aid" department operating at a scene is a normal course of action on your incidents.

If it is, I don't agree with it, but so be it. If it is not, then it speaks volumes about why it happened in this situation.

To the best of my knowledge there hasn't been a situation where a Chief officer had to be cancelled directly. Once recall has been sounded they return to service. That isn't what happened here and in regards to that see my diatribe above relating to AHJs.

Back to moving forward. While this has been a nice diversion it really isn't helping. What happened happened. It's done, so now what? Shall we wallow in it or is anyone ready to move forward together?

Cogs

[FireMedic049 597]

To the best of my knowledge there hasn't been a situation where a Chief officer had to be cancelled directly.

But this time they had to be cancelled?

Once recall has been sounded they return to service. That isn't what happened here and in regards to that see my diatribe above relating to AHJs.

So who exactly was recalled in this instance? Did it include ALL SFRD units?

[FFPCogs 863]

But this time they had to be cancelled?

So who exactly was recalled in this instance? Did it include ALL SFRD units?

Back to moving forward. While this has been a nice diversion it really isn't helping. What happened happened. It's done, so now what? Shall we wallow in it or is anyone ready to move forward together?

[TRex 9]

Back to moving forward. While this has been a nice diversion it really isn't helping. What happened happened. It's done, so now what? Shall we wallow in it or is anyone ready to move forward together?

It seems that ther is a little back pedalling going on here Cogs. How are those rocks sounding that are hitting your glass house? Have they broken any windows yet?

No one says anything when that loose cannon in SFCO shows up in everyone elses district (except SFRD's district, he wouldn't dare) and assumes command.

Cogs, why hasn't he cancelled any other chief? As far as answering your question, I would like to meet with you because I feel I could add quite a bit of sanity to the lunacy going on here, however, there can be no meaningful dialouge if first you continue to defend that as%$#@! in Springdale. Even the Mayor has refered to him as a little off his rocker and a "thorn in their side on this whole matter". So why don't you try and regain a bit more credibility back and stop defending this guy and call it like it is.

Secondly, it would be a waste of time at this juncture because it is IMO gone past the point of repair. Depending on the BOR outcome next month, it will either entirely shut the Mayor and his plan down, and maybe more intelligent, and experienced professionals will be allowed to input the remedy. And if it goes in his favor, I say let it happen and then the proof will be in the pudding when the brain trust that came up with this plan will be able to actually see what a mess they created. I quite frankly wish and hope that we pull out of there soon. The situation has become a dangerous theater in which to operate, as well as being a frustrating operation at best. It would not be long before everyone will be begging for SFRD to return. Let the volunteers put up or shut up. Let's see the huge volunteer response (excluding Belltown of course) that really is not there.

And if the supporters of the Mayor's plan were smart, they would sanction that moron in Springdale.

Edited January 3, 2011 by TRex

[FFPCogs 863]

It seems that ther is a little back pedalling going on here Cogs. How are those rocks sounding that are hitting your glass house? Have they broken any windows yet?

I always love a good laugh and thanks for this one.

No one says anything when that loose cannon in SFCO shows up in everyone elses district (except SFRD's district, he wouldn't dare) and assumes command.

Cogs, why hasn't he cancelled any other chief? As far as answering your question, I would like to meet with you because I feel I could add quite a bit of sanity to the lunacy going on here, however, there can be no meaningful dialouge if first you continue to defend that as%$#@! in Springdale. Even the Mayor has refered to him as a little off his rocker and a "thorn in their side on this whole matter". So why don't you try and regain a bit more credibility back and stop defending this guy and call it like it is.

Like I said I can't speak for him as to why he has or hasn't cancelled any other Chief, and that's not backpeddling it's simply a fact. And even if I could it wouldn't matter, he is the Chief of that district and legally that is his decision to make as he chooses.

And while I'm sure you do indeed have much to add in terms of finding ways to resolve this mess, the fact is there can be no meaningful dialouge if you are unwilling to respect and work within the legal framework that currently exists while seeking ways to change it. I think that demonstrates a level of credibility as well. Of course my offer still stands to work together on a grass roots level to try and come up with a viable alternative that integrates the departments.

Secondly, it would be a waste of time at this juncture because it is IMO gone past the point of repair.

It is unfortunate that you feel this way. If this is the prevailing attitude then that makes the situation that much more difficult to resolve.

Depending on the BOR outcome next month, it will either entirely shut the Mayor and his plan down, and maybe more intelligent, and experienced professionals will be allowed to input the remedy.

And would these "more intelligent and experienced professionals" be SFRD alone? If not who else fits that bill in your opinion? Are there any volunteers that merit your consideration?

And if it goes in his favor, I say let it happen and then the proof will be in the pudding when the brain trust that came up with this plan will be able to actually see what a mess they created. I quite frankly wish and hope that we pull out of there soon. The situation has become a dangerous theater in which to operate, as well as being a frustrating operation at best. It would not be long before everyone will be begging for SFRD to return. Let the volunteers put up or shut up. Let's see the huge volunteer response (excluding Belltown of course) that really is not there.

And if the supporters of the Mayor's plan were smart, they would sanction that moron in Springdale.

I suppose it's quite possible that you will get your wish. Although many of us would welcome a true integrated system, that cannot be a one sided arrangement. Therefore we must and will work tirelessly to ensure the best possible outcome should the Mayor's plan become reality.

Cogs

[FireMedic049 597]

Back to moving forward. While this has been a nice diversion it really isn't helping. What happened happened. It's done, so now what? Shall we wallow in it or is anyone ready to move forward together?

You're right, this isn't really helping that you appear to be refusing to answer some pretty simple, but possibly uncomfortable questions.

I think it's pretty obvious that the instigation of this particular incident was the result of prejudicial action that you believe the person had the authority to make. Others certainly disagree with that position. Now this doesn't excuse "the incident" that reportedly took place, but how can you guys "move forward together" if you can't even acknowledge that you have a Chief working against that goal?

[FFPCogs 863]

You're right, this isn't really helping that you appear to be refusing to answer some pretty simple, but possibly uncomfortable questions.

Be serious, you're asking me to explain the rationale of a Chief officer from another department. I can no more do that than I could explain yours in any given situation. As I said before I have answered this in terms of my opinions as to what happened. You will get nothing more or less

I think it's pretty obvious that the instigation of this particular incident was the result of prejudicial action that you believe the person had the authority to make. Others certainly disagree with that position. Now this doesn't excuse "the incident" that reportedly took place,

It's not a question of whether or not I believe he has the authority..he does. The 5 voluneer FDs in Stamford are under absolutely no obligation whatsoever to adhere to any standards, SOGs, rules, regulations (other than CT OSHA), certifications (other than FF I ), policies, procedures or anything else from SFRD and it is the State of CT that says so, along with our City Charter. This is what baffles me above all else. How is it that SFRD members think they can dictate anything to an independent VFD? By what means are they so entitled? By virtue of what statute are they entitled to disregard duly authorized ordinances of the City and State at a whim?

It doesn't matter what you, I or anyone else thinks about the validity of such a set up because in the end that IS the system that currently exists until such time as the BORs of this city changes it.

how can you guys "move forward together" if you can't even acknowledge that you have a Chief working against that goal?

You are not really implying that it is the volunteers alone that are against the goal of "working together" are you? I can say with all confidence that the utter silence and complete lack of interest from all the SFRD members here that have refused to accept the offer to sit down and try to work on a solution together speaks volumes more than my defending the system that, right or wrong, is legally in place and has been since before most of us were born.

Cogs

[IzzyEng4 427]

Oh and sorry Izzy, for some of us, this is an important issue. If it bothers you to read it, roll-on to the "Scanning in Ulster County" thread. That should be less-stressful.

I am not say it is not an important issue but obviously after 50 somewhat pages over what three years now, what is being done here? The same passionate rhetoric from the same people, the same finger pointing, the same territorial (fill in the blank), the same stuff that everyone has an opinion here and in the end what is going to be solved here......nothing.

Its at the point where the City of Stamford, its politicians and its resident need to decide what they want to do. Do they want two separate FD's or one unified system? I said it before here in the past, its up to the town's people to decide on what is the better (or they think) how to spend their money for fire protection. There are two proposals on the floor, each has it's own argument, good or bad. I have my own opinion but I'm not from there so should I really say one is better than the other? In theory yes it maybe but unless its enacted then we can see the results. Heck, the other may have to be enacted first so the latter could be acted upon, who knows right????

As for looking at this thread, I will continue to look at it as it is one of my responsibilities to make sure to the discussion stays within a respectful tone. That is my job, but also as a member here just like everyone else I have the right to chime is and say "Hey haven't we beaten a Dead Horse again?". I think its time again to look at this thread from the beginning when it was first started and look how many of the same arguments have been revisited over and over again. With that said however, to update on the progress of the merger or creation of two separate departments without comments from "the peanut gallery" (we are all part of it including myself) its time to move on. This should not be battled here but in Stamford City Hall. But like I have said in the past, that is my view of this thread, it had just ran its course.

I just hope the residents of Stamford get the proper fire and emergency protection they deserve and want without prejudice. It just seems the wounds are getting too deep down there for all of you and no resolve well ever be obtained. I hope I am so wrong with that last statement.

So let me ask this question:

If the Engine and Ladder from Eagle Hose and the Engine from Fountain Hose in Ansonia were sent mutual aid to Seymour and the Seymour Chief then ordered the Ansonia Chief to cancel, even though Ansonia had 21 of their Fire Fighters on scene in Seymour and Seymour only had their Chief, it would be perfectly ok?

Wouldn't the Ansonia Chief have a responsibility for the safety and accountability of his/her 21 personnel? What would the basis for the Seymour Chief to cancel the Ansonia Chief even though 99% of the personnel operating on scene were under the direction/supervision of the Ansonia Chief?

I wanted to touch on this since I have been a member of the Ansonia Fire Department for close to 20 years now and served as a line officer for Charters Hose and know how all the area departments operate. The question you pose is unrealistic as per our running rules and mutual aid agreements and of course, one town is responding into another town.

Ansonia's chief (or line officer for that matter) would never be canceled enroute just because Seymour has a chief there in his own town and is using out-of-town units. If Ansonia's units are in another town, a chief officer from that department has to be on-scene. But with over looking that and focusing on Ansonia's crew members yes the Ansonia chief officers is responsible for his/her members but ultimately the responsibility still falls on the Seymour Chief as he/she is in control of the incident. But I see where you are getting at, it would be ill advised for the Seymour Chief to cancel the Ansonia Chief, but still the responsibility of personnel still falls on the chief of the agency that is requesting it.