Update on Stamford Merger

[FireMedic049 597]

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 am being serious. I'm asking you to explain his rationale for doing what he did. I'm asking you to acknowledge that what he did was not common practice and wouldn't have been done if it was a volunteer chief responding.

I can't always explain the rationale for the decisions my Deputy Chief (shift boss) makes, but I can tell you that he wouldn't cancel the chief of a mutual aid department while accepting help from their apparatus at a scene.

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.

I would venture to say that you are partially correct in that the volunteer FDs have no obligation to adhere to SFRD rules & regs themselves. However, SFRD personnel ARE obligated to follow their own rules & regs. So the SFRD chief officer WOULD be obligated to adhere to HIS department's rules if the expectation is for there to be a SFRD chief officer on the scene of an out of district response.

If you accept the suppression units, then you accept the supervisor that goes with it. It's kind of a package deal. In this respect, the volunteer FDs would be obligated to indirectly adhere to SFRD's rules & regs.

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?

I don't know, but I'd suppose a lot of it probably has to do with what sounds like an often underperforming volunteer system.

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.

No, I'm not implying that the volunteers are the only ones against "working together". I'm saying that you kind of need to get your own house in order if you want to work on "unity" with another. It's disingenuous to "call out" the other side on not stepping up to the plate to "work together" when you have a "loose cannon" on your side and can't even acknowledge that his actions are contrary to what the objectives are. It only serves to undermine the process.

[FFPCogs 863]

I am being serious. I'm asking you to explain his rationale for doing what he did. I'm asking you to acknowledge that what he did was not common practice and wouldn't have been done if it was a volunteer chief responding.

I cannot nor will I even attempt to explain the rationale of another person and it is also not within my authority to question the decisions of the Chief of another department.

I would venture to say that you are partially correct in that the volunteer FDs have no obligation to adhere to SFRD rules & regs themselves. However, SFRD personnel ARE obligated to follow their own rules & regs. So the SFRD chief officer WOULD be obligated to adhere to HIS department's rules if the expectation is for there to be a SFRD chief officer on the scene of an out of district response.

SFRD may well be obligated to follow their own SOGs ect but they must do so under the direction of the designated IC of the scene when out of district.

If you accept the suppression units, then you accept the supervisor that goes with it. It's kind of a package deal. In this respect, the volunteer FDs would be obligated to indirectly adhere to SFRD's rules & regs.

Negative. It is SFRD that is obligated to adhere to those of the "host" department.

I don't know, but I'd suppose a lot of it probably has to do with what sounds like an often underperforming volunteer system.

Conjecture, and even if this presumption were to be true the legal authority still lies squarely with the VFDs. Rule are rules are they not? I will ask again what is the legal justification to suborn the authority of a volunteer Chief in their own recognized and specified district? Or are you advocating that there should be more than one command on a scene?

No, I'm not implying that the volunteers are the only ones against "working together". I'm saying that you kind of need to get your own house in order if you want to work on "unity" with another. It's disingenuous to "call out" the other side on not stepping up to the plate to "work together" when you have a "loose cannon" on your side and can't even acknowledge that his actions are contrary to what the objectives are. It only serves to undermine the process.

Again the willingness to work together cannot be dependent upon everyone agreeing with that objective because not everyone does or will. The process is undermined when there is no freedom to explore alternatives for those that seek to find them. And let's be honest here, it is not only the volunteer side that has an anti cooperation faction, and it seems by your statement above that even you agree with that assessment.

To achieve a mutually beneficial outcome we must work to achieve that goal because of those factions not in spite of them.

Cogs

[helicopper 1,050]

SFRD may well be obligated to follow their own SOGs ect but they must do so under the direction of the designated IC of the scene when out of district.

Negative. It is SFRD that is obligated to adhere to those (SOG's) of the "host" department.

From strictly an ICS perspective, without any prejudice from the climate/issues in Stamford, any resource operating at an incident must follow the direction and assignments of the IC - so long as the direction/assignment is legal, safe, and within the training and experience of the resource being assigned (you can't tell someone to do something for which they're not trained and equipped even if you are the IC). This is why it is so important for out of district resources to be be represented in the ICP by a manager (ranks omitted because they are irrelevant in ICS) who serves as the agency representative (ICS title). This is why it was entirely appropriate for the SFRD Chief to continue to respond with his resources and he should not have been canceled. He was not, by any application of NIMS or ICS, the IC for the incident so he should have been working with the local IC.

The SFRD is obligated to operate within their own SOG's and policies - they can not be expected to learn the SOG's of the mutual aid department. This is why the agency rep is so important. If there is a work assignment that is contrary to the work rules, training, etc. of the resource, it is incumbent on the agency rep to bring this to command's attention.

With regard to someone allegedly "naming themself the Safety Officer", that is not how ICS is intended to function. The IC designates the Safety Officer. If there are allegations of a person not being qualified for the position to which they're assigned, that is an issue but you can't suborn the IC by appointing yourself. (NOTE: These comments are strictly from an ICS perspective and do not consider statutory or other issues at work within Stamford).

You can't call for resources and require that the resources come without a supervisor/manager. I've seen this at work on the law enforcement side where mutual aid was requested and came as a package with additional resources above and beyond what was requested (including a supervisor). The requesting agency had a fit and demanded that the additional resources leave - and they did, with the resources that were originally requested because the agency coming in had a policy to send a package to out of town requests.

Yes, there may be company officers on individual companies but the SFRD has the responsibility and obligation to see to it that all the resources are safe - especially for an out of district response. This has been the subject of many discussions right here on EMTBravo when mutual aid jobs list a dozen or more Chief officers being on scene. These are the chief officers for the departments that are responding mutual aid.

I'd say that this is a simple matter of communications and coordination but as evidenced by the preceding pages and pages of this thread, there is nothing simple about communications or coordination in Stamford.

[efdcapt115 1,511]

If you are going to be in this business in any capacity and want to "survive" you had damn well better know what the pecking order is. Now taking the "paid/volunteer" aspect of the equation completely out, using two career officers, if it's me and a similar situation where I've got an auto-response from The City of Yonkers, and I'm from Eastchester with a workforce 1/5th the size, and a "few less" working fires in the past year, do you honestly think I'm going to in any way shape or form try and exercise some form of "control" over the YFD forces when there are no emergency decisions that need to be made?

It's just common sense that you're going to be faced with situations in the business that do not fit neatly into the paragraph answer in some book form of the question. Now the book is going to state, it's my district, it's my response, it's my NIFRS (unless I'm able to pawn in off on LTNRFD somehow) etc. etc. etc.

Sometimes to make the system work "properly" which not only means giving a 10-30, an "under control" it also means keeping "control" of the situation in ALL WAYS. If that means I'm fortunate enough to have 20 Yonkers guys with rigs showing up to help me if there is a problem, when THEIR boss shows up, you can be damned straight I'm going to accommodate their chief's every request. I'm going to defer to him ESPECIALLY when there is no true emergency, so that when he goes 10-8 he'll have it in his mind that "hey going over and helping those Eastchester guys is a PLEASURE, because they're gentlemen and know how to pass around the respect."

I'll give you another example. I'm standing at a LOD funeral and I'm there fairly early. Brother comes up and asks me to take part in the Honor Guard; hold one of the flags. Now, I could have simply said yes, and walked on up there to show my respect even more in my little mind, or I can say (like I did) "I'm sorry, Brother I'm not from your department." He looked at my shoulder patch, and gave me an appreciative nod before moving on and asking a firefighter from his job to do the honors.

KNOW YOUR PLACE, your spot in the pecking order. I know this kind of chief, this guy who showed up at this call involving SFRD. You know what the problem is? He's showing up with an AGENDA. The exertion of his "authority" over career forces is very high up on his agenda. Time to come back down to earth there fella, and remember where your place is. Sure, you're the IC, it's your call when and if the situation will be declared under control. But you go from the FIRE situation to being under control, right to the interaction between the forces STAYING under control. A man with a little humility, especially knowing the problems going on right now, with guys jobs potentially on the line, with a very volatile situation in place, and that man with humility and BRAINS will make sure to accommodate that career chief (see above for results).

[FireMedic049 597]

I cannot nor will I even attempt to explain the rationale of another person and it is also not within my authority to question the decisions of the Chief of another department.

You aren't being asked to either of these things. You were asked if the decision was consistent with "normal" practices locally and if the same decision would have been made if it were a volunteer chief.

SFRD may well be obligated to follow their own SOGs ect but they must do so under the direction of the designated IC of the scene when out of district.

That's not being debated here. The issue I'm discussing is the cancellation of the SFRD supervisor while his units were operating at a scene, NOT any sort of undermining of the IC by SFRD units operating outside of the ICS.

Negative. It is SFRD that is obligated to adhere to those of the "host" department.

I think you missed my point.

Conjecture, and even if this presumption were to be true the legal authority still lies squarely with the VFDs. Rule are rules are they not? I will ask again what is the legal justification to suborn the authority of a volunteer Chief in their own recognized and specified district? Or are you advocating that there should be more than one command on a scene?

I think you are confusing the issues. IMO, there's three separate "issues" with the incident in question. 1) A department supervisor's response was cancelled while his units operated at a scene. 2) The Safety Officer "battle". 3) The alleged assault.

I'm not advocating that there be more than one "command" on a scene. From the information I've seen so far, none of the three "issues" actually created a situation of "more than one command" at this incident. I see the first as a "safety" issue and therefore not exactly a "legal" order. I see the second as more of a subversion of the ICS than a situation of having two "commands". The third has nothing to do with the ICS.

Again the willingness to work together cannot be dependent upon everyone agreeing with that objective because not everyone does or will. The process is undermined when there is no freedom to explore alternatives for those that seek to find them. And let's be honest here, it is not only the volunteer side that has an anti cooperation faction, and it seems by your statement above that even you agree with that assessment.

To achieve a mutually beneficial outcome we must work to achieve that goal because of those factions not in spite of them.

This is true, but there's a difference between not being in agreement with an objective and taking action to disrupt the process. In order to achieve that mutually beneficial outcome, the actions of those whose goal is to undermine have to be acknowledged as inappropriate on that "same side" otherwise it will negatively affect the trust between both sides in the process.

[redddogg317 1]

Stamford Fire & Rescue's solution to dysfunctional fire safety system

After months of delays, secretive back room meetings and stonewalling, Mayor Michael Pavia finally made public the details of his fire protection plan, which creates a costly second paid fire department in Stamford without enhancing public safety.

The so-called Stamford Volunteer Fire Department plan calls for the hiring of 58 new paid firefighters. Assuming that most if not all will come from the present volunteer ranks, one has to wonder where new volunteers will come from. So much for the mayor's vow to keep alive the spirit of volunteerism.

Read more: http://www.stamforda...p#ixzz1ABd1SVnC

Edited January 5, 2011 by helicopper
Copyright Requirements

[Goose 188]

Read more: http://www.stamforda...p#ixzz1ABd1SVnC

Well written op-ed piece.

[Bnechis 3,961]

You can't call for resources and require that the resources come without a supervisor/manager. I've seen this at work on the law enforcement side where mutual aid was requested and came as a package with additional resources above and beyond what was requested (including a supervisor). The requesting agency had a fit and demanded that the additional resources leave - and they did, with the resources that were originally requested because the agency coming in had a policy to send a package to out of town requests.

Yes, there may be company officers on individual companies but the SFRD has the responsibility and obligation to see to it that all the resources are safe - especially for an out of district response. This has been the subject of many discussions right here on EMTBravo when mutual aid jobs list a dozen or more Chief officers being on scene. These are the chief officers for the departments that are responding mutual aid.

Well said. We follow this policy and if you want our personnel it comes with a supervisor. His roll is as a liason to the Command Post. We started doing this after an incident in a multi dwelling fire, where the host dept pulled its members out and switched from offensive to defensive and forgot to advise our members. We find it very helpful to have someone in the CP who knows what we can or can not do.

Our primary responsability is to our members (and our community), we want to help the neighbors, but that does not supersede our primary responsability.

[jcoppola 52]

In the interest of public and firefighter safety, perhaps these "charters" that we hear so much about need to be reexamined and perhaps revised.

Is there anything in this charter that says it's ok for houses to burn to the ground because sufficient personnel are not available to respond?

Explain this charter to the person who has lost everything because of a silly, infantile turf war.

I'm sorry, but I am tired of hearing about this charter that was drawn up in the good old days and applied well then, but clearly not now.

This has nothing to do with paid vs. volunteer, just a matter of public and firefighter safety.

[FFPCogs 863]

In the interest of public and firefighter safety, perhaps these "charters" that we hear so much about need to be reexamined and perhaps revised.

Is there anything in this charter that says it's ok for houses to burn to the ground because sufficient personnel are not available to respond?

Explain this charter to the person who has lost everything because of a silly, infantile turf war.

I'm sorry, but I am tired of hearing about this charter that was drawn up in the good old days and applied well then, but clearly not now.

This has nothing to do with paid vs. volunteer, just a matter of public and firefighter safety.

You may be right that it's time for a reexamination of the Charter but be that as it may the City Charter is a legal document that requires a specific process to be changed and it's provisions must be adhered to while that examination is underway. Should anyone wantonly disregard any of the rules, policies, regulations or procedures of their department if they don't agree with them? Should they disregard them while they were under review? Should they disregard the process to change them? Would anyone advocate simply ignoring the process and doing what they want? My bet would be no. Yet that is exactly what is happening here in regards to the Charter. While the previous Administration may have turned a blind eye or one could argue even encouraged such action, it appears the current one will not.

It simply comes down to this, right or wrong, for better or for worse to the public and for Stamford's firefighters as a whole, the City Charter stands. If anyone doesn't like the way things are then they need to follow the process to change it, but until such time as it is changed we are all still bound by it's provisions. As "tired" as you, I or anyone may be with that or with hearing about it, the fact remains that we don't have the right or authority to disregard it. And that has nothing to do with paid or volunteer, it's just a matter of following the law.

Cogs

Edited January 7, 2011 by FFPCogs

[FD828 77]

You may be right that it's time for a reexamination of the Charter but be that as it may the City Charter is a legal document that requires a specific process to be changed and it's provisions must be adhered to while that examination is underway. Should anyone wantonly disregard any of the rules, policies, regulations or procedures of their department if they don't agree with them? Should they disregard them while they were under review? Should they disregard the process to change them? Would anyone advocate simply ignoring the process and doing what they want? My bet would be no. Yet that is exactly what is happening here in regards to the Charter. While the previous Administration may have turned a blind eye or one could argue even encouraged such action, it appears the current one will not.

It simply comes down to this, right or wrong, for better or for worse to the public and for Stamford's firefighters as a whole, the City Charter stands. If anyone doesn't like the way things are then they need to follow the process to change it, but until such time as it is changed we are all still bound by it's provisions. As "tired" as you, I or anyone may be with that or with hearing about it, the fact remains that we don't have the right or authority to disregard it. And that has nothing to do with paid or volunteer, it's just a matter of following the law.

Cogs

Cogs,

All legalities aside, don't you think that if the volunteer departments (aside from yours of course) would truly admit that they are not providing the best fire protection for their residents and admitted that they needed help, regardless of what the charter says, this could be done? If nobody files a law suit saying that the city violated our charter, then there would be no battle. It would only be about what is best for fire protection. The mayor himself admitted that one of the main reasons that SFRD is not combining with the volunteer departments is the threat of law suits from the volunteers. It makes it very hard to believe that the citizens safety is their first priority.

[FFPCogs 863]

Cogs,

All legalities aside, don't you think that if the volunteer departments (aside from yours of course) would truly admit that they are not providing the best fire protection for their residents and admitted that they needed help, regardless of what the charter says, this could be done? If nobody files a law suit saying that the city violated our charter, then there would be no battle. It would only be about what is best for fire protection. The mayor himself admitted that one of the main reasons that SFRD is not combining with the volunteer departments is the threat of law suits from the volunteers. It makes it very hard to believe that the citizens safety is their first priority.

I have always maintained that a unfied system would be ideal so long as the volunteers were afforded the opportunity granted them by the Charter to be an equal part of that system. Not only because of the legalities but because volunteers offer the residents of this city a number of benefits such as reduced taxes, community service, neighborhood indentity and others. But above all else we do provide for the public safety along with these things. There are problems with the current system without a doubt and never have I said otherwise, but since we live under the circumstances that prevail we have no choice but to build upon what we have. Even if I wanted to dismiss the legalities involved it is not that simple. Frankly while the threat of lawsuits is a consideration, it has been my experience that SFRD does not want to integrate, they want to create a two tiered system and that has been the major stumbling block as far as I'm concerned. I will say again that we put forth a proposal that integrated the "sides" along the lines of equal standards and distributed the personnel and equipment in a manner that guaranteed the public safety. Not only that but it also called for performance standards for the VFDs and the onus to achieve them was put squarely in the lap of the volunteers themselves. If they were unable or unwilling to attain them the alternative would have been career staffing by SFRD exclusively. Now while that proposal did need some work and some negotiation to serve everyone's needs it did provide a viable foundation on which to build. That proposal was ignored by SFRD. Why?

For me and me alone, off the fireground I find it difficult to extend a hand to those that have repeatedly slapped it away. That being the case I and many others on our "side" have taken to the task of building a department that will serve our community without SFRD as a willing partner. It needn't stay that way, but that is not up to me.

Cogs

Edited January 7, 2011 by FFPCogs

[velcroMedic1987 330]

Cogs,

All legalities aside, don't you think that if the volunteer departments (aside from yours of course) would truly admit that they are not providing the best fire protection for their residents and admitted that they needed help, regardless of what the charter says, this could be done? If nobody files a law suit saying that the city violated our charter, then there would be no battle. It would only be about what is best for fire protection. The mayor himself admitted that one of the main reasons that SFRD is not combining with the volunteer departments is the threat of law suits from the volunteers. It makes it very hard to believe that the citizens safety is their first priority.

Admit a deficiency and have to give up that precious white helmet and free ride to cruise around in? No way.

They'll never admit that they can't do it and they'll continue to threaten the politicians as a big block of voters.

If the politicians are refusing to take action on the threat of lawsuits, they're cowards and incompetent. Lawsuits get threatened every day and if the city is right the city will win. If the city's goal is to save money and improve fire resposne and accountability of the departments, they would have a very strong case. What's the volunteers lawyer going to do in court when he can't prove being able to meet NFPA 1920 for a minimum response or produce all the required records and documentation of training, etc.?

Unless the volunteers in an integrated system rostered in house and responded with the SFRD, it will be a tiered response.

Stop spouting off about how the volunteers save money because if they can't put a fire out they're not saving anyone anything.

As long as nobody is holding anyone accountable and demanding action, this is going to continue endlessly and sooner or later someone is going to die while everyone protects their turf.

[FD828 77]

Admit a deficiency and have to give up that precious white helmet and free ride to cruise around in? No way.

They'll never admit that they can't do it and they'll continue to threaten the politicians as a big block of voters.

If the politicians are refusing to take action on the threat of lawsuits, they're cowards and incompetent. Lawsuits get threatened every day and if the city is right the city will win. If the city's goal is to save money and improve fire resposne and accountability of the departments, they would have a very strong case. What's the volunteers lawyer going to do in court when he can't prove being able to meet NFPA 1920 for a minimum response or produce all the required records and documentation of training, etc.?

Unless the volunteers in an integrated system rostered in house and responded with the SFRD, it will be a tiered response.

Stop spouting off about how the volunteers save money because if they can't put a fire out they're not saving anyone anything.

As long as nobody is holding anyone accountable and demanding action, this is going to continue endlessly and sooner or later someone is going to die while everyone protects their turf.

You are right. It has nothing to do with what is best for the residents of Stamford or what is going to be safer for all firefighters responding. It is and always has been about control from both sides. The volunteers don't want to lose control of their districts and the career staff doesn't want to take orders from officers whose training and qualifications to lead are not known. What I don't understand is why what Glenbrook did is so bad? Yes they have a SFRD engine in their quarters. But any time there is a call in that district, the chief of Glenbrook is in command unless he relinquishes it to the deputy from SFRD. The volunteers if they come out, can respond, they can even ride out on the SFRD engine. Where is the down side to the way GFD operates? If you had the same set up in any other of the departments, why wouldn't it work the same way? Would it be so terrible if the career staff manned an engine out of TOR and the volunteers if they showed up, manned the ladder or the rescue? Same in Belltown. Tell me what the down side is.

Edited January 7, 2011 by FD828

[dragonrescue 28]

You are right. It has nothing to do with what is best for the residents of Stamford or what is going to be safer for all firefighters responding. It is and always has been about control from both sides. The volunteers don't want to lose control of their districts and the career staff doesn't want to take orders from officers whose training and qualifications to lead are not known. What I don't understand is why what Glenbrook did is so bad? Yes they have a SFRD engine in their quarters. But any time there is a call in that district, the chief of Glenbrook is in command unless he relinquishes it to the deputy from SFRD. The volunteers if they come out, can respond, they can even ride out on the SFRD engine. Where is the down side to the way GFD operates? If you had the same set up in any other of the departments, why wouldn't it work the same way? Would it be so terrible if the career staff manned an engine out of TOR and the volunteers if they showed up, manned the ladder or the rescue? Same in Belltown. Tell me what the down side is.

Can you hear the crickets?

[TimesUp 148]

In this day and age of consolidation it bewilders me how one group can come up with so many reasons why creating a separate department is the best way to go.

[FFPCogs 863]

You are right. It has nothing to do with what is best for the residents of Stamford or what is going to be safer for all firefighters responding. It is and always has been about control from both sides. The volunteers don't want to lose control of their districts and the career staff doesn't want to take orders from officers whose training and qualifications to lead are not known. What I don't understand is why what Glenbrook did is so bad? Yes they have a SFRD engine in their quarters. But any time there is a call in that district, the chief of Glenbrook is in command unless he relinquishes it to the deputy from SFRD. The volunteers if they come out, can respond, they can even ride out on the SFRD engine. Where is the down side to the way GFD operates? If you had the same set up in any other of the departments, why wouldn't it work the same way? Would it be so terrible if the career staff manned an engine out of TOR and the volunteers if they showed up, manned the ladder or the rescue? Same in Belltown. Tell me what the down side is.

I think the record will show that GFD has an abysmal response record...far worse than any of the other VFDs. That to me is most definitely a downside and does not bode well for the volunteer system or the taxpayers should all the VFDs go the same route. As far as command goes what you suggest is not the plan on the table. SFRDs "plan" calls for SFRD to be in command of all scenes, volunteer Chiefs to be ranked equal with SFRD Captains, and volunteer officers to be in charge of volunteers only i.e. two commands, as well as the removal of two peices of apparatus from downtown to provide coverage up North. As I said earlier such an arrangement will decrease not increase the overall efficiency of SFRD and the coverage citywide. And another look at Glenbrook shows this clearly, as the majority of E-6s calls are not in Glenbrook or even Vollywood, but downtown.

Houses staffed by a combination of career and volunteer personnel cross trained to operate all the apparatus of any given station and respond with the ones needed per call provides the best bang for the buck.

Cogs

Edited January 7, 2011 by FFPCogs

[FFPCogs 863]

Can you hear the crickets?

Can you???

It's been two weeks since I asked to meet with anyone from SFRD to try and develope an alternative to the two "plans" currently on the table. Thus far the silence has been deafening and quite honestly very telling as to the sincerity of some in regards to wanting to "work together".

How about answering the question posted above this morning. Why was the only alternative that sought to integrate career and volunteer personnel ignored by SFRD?

Cogs

[FD828 77]

I think the record will show that GFD has an abysmal response record...far worse than any of the other VFDs. That to me is most definitely a downside and does not bode well for the volunteer system or the taxpayers should all the VFDs go the same route. As far as command goes what you suggest is not the plan on the table. SFRDs "plan" calls for SFRD to be in command of all scenes, volunteer Chiefs to be ranked equal with SFRD Captains, and volunteer officers to be in charge of volunteers only i.e. two commands, as well as the removal of two peices of apparatus from downtown to provide coverage up North. As I said earlier such an arrangement will decrease not increase the overall efficiency of SFRD and the coverage citywide. And another look at Glenbrook shows this clearly, as the majority of E-6s calls are not in Glenbrook or even Vollywood, but downtown.

Houses staffed by a combination of career and volunteer personnel cross trained to operate all the apparatus of any given station and respond with the ones needed per call provides the best bang for the buck.

Cogs

The "abysmal response" from GFD has NOTHING to do with SFRD. That is up to GFD. And frankly BFD is the only department that doesn't have an "abysmal response" record. And what GFD agreed to was way before any "plans" were submitted by anyone. And it should bode well with the tax payers because they would be 100% sure there would be an adequate response to any and every emergency 24/7. So don't go saying that now the "plans" on the table say "this" because none of this would have been necessary, time and money wouldn't have been wasted, and there would have been fire protection in place for every citizen tax paying or not that resides in the city at least a YEAR ago.

As far as what the plans say now about command. How can you blame the SFRD for wanting to have command? No training records have ever been turned over for any volunteer firefighters. How can any chief officer let someone command their FF's w/o knowing that person is qualified to do the job? Would you (if you were/are an officer) let your men/women take or follow orders from someone who you thought or knew to be unqualified to run a fire? Isn't the safety of you and your crew most important? Perhaps if there were city wide standards in place for firefighters and officers both line and up, the attitude of the SFRD would be different. But if the VFD's won't provide even the basic training records for its' members, I am sorry they should be in command. At least you can be sure that the SFRD deputy is not only trained but experienced as well.

Houses staffed by a combination of career and volunteer firefighters shouldn't need to swap apparatus, if the volunteers are staffed there as you say.

Edited January 7, 2011 by FD828

[FFPCogs 863]

The "abysmal response" from GFD has NOTHING to do with SFRD. That is up to GFD. And frankly BFD is the only department that doesn't have an "abysmal response" record. And what GFD agreed to was way before any "plans" were submitted by anyone. And it should bode well with the tax payers because they would be 100% sure there would be an adequate response to any and every emergency 24/7. So don't go saying that now the "plans" on the table say "this" because none of this would have been necessary, time and money wouldn't have been wasted, and there would have been fire protection in place for every citizen tax paying or not that resides in the city at least a YEAR ago.

None of this would have been necessary had SFRD and the previous administration tried to work with the VFDs instead of dictating to them THREE years ago!!

As far as what the plans say now about command. How can you blame the SFRD for wanting to have command? No training records have ever been turned over for any volunteer firefighters. How can any chief officer let someone command their FF's w/o knowing that person is qualified to do the job? Would you (if you were/are an officer) let your men/women take or follow orders from someone who you thought or knew to be unqualified to run a fire? Isn't the safety of you and your crew most important? Perhaps if there were city wide standards in place for firefighters and officers both line and up, the attitude of the SFRD would be different. But if the VFD's won't provide even the basic training records for its' members, I am sorry they should be in command. At least you can be sure that the SFRD deputy is not only trained but experienced as well.

Easily fixed by requiring all officers to meet the same mutually agreed upon and nationally recognized standards to hold rank and all firefighters to meet the same training requirements. It's been offered and ignored.

Houses staffed by a combination of career and volunteer firefighters shouldn't need to swap apparatus, if the volunteers are staffed there as you say.

Negative. A four person crew able to respond on the apparatus needed per call will reduce the number of employees required overall thus saving tax dollars. This is especially true when the career staff is only assigned during the day and volunteers cover nights in the current VFD districts....as has also been proposed and ignored.

Cogs

[dragonrescue 28]

Can you???

It's been two weeks since I asked to meet with anyone from SFRD to try and develope an alternative to the two "plans" currently on the table. Thus far the silence has been deafening and quite honestly very telling as to the sincerity of some in regards to wanting to "work together".

How about answering the question posted above this morning. Why was the only alternative that sought to integrate career and volunteer personnel ignored by SFRD?

Cogs

Who are you referring to when you say "anyone from SFRD"? Are you speaking in behalf of the mayor? If not, then your wasting your time trying to meet with someone from SFRD. The mayor needs to have a sit-down with the union and he shows no interest in doing so.

[FD828 77]

Negative. A four person crew able to respond on the apparatus needed per call will reduce the number of employees required overall thus saving tax dollars. This is especially true when the career staff is only assigned during the day and volunteers cover nights in the current VFD districts....as has also been proposed and ignored.

Cogs

Perhaps it was ignored because it is not the best idea? Perhaps it is a fact that except for BFD you CANNOT rely on the volunteers being there? I personally am for a combined service of paid and volunteers but I am not for having paid crews only part of the day. There are more benefits for both sides to have combination crews 24hrs. Don't think that you are special because your ideas were ignored. Lots of peoples ideas were ignored. The city has completing ignored the paid rank in file since they took office. They don't want to hear anything no matter how much sense it makes. Real professional right? He is only the mayor and the director of public safety. Why would he want to talk with the ones protecting the citizens that elected him?

You still didn't answer my question in regards to the volunteers training and qualifications. Why haven't those documents been provided? It's all well and good to say there should be a a city wide level of requirements (which I have said should be in place) but it is not in place at this current time and the question remains. What is the level of training of the current volunteer fire departments from the top down. How many of the "active" members are qualified for interior firefighting/EMS/driving etc.. And again I ask you, would you allow your crew to follow orders of an IC/officer that is not trained for said position?

Edited January 7, 2011 by FD828

[FFPCogs 863]

Who are you referring to when you say "anyone from SFRD"? Are you speaking in behalf of the mayor? If not, then your wasting your time trying to meet with someone from SFRD. The mayor needs to have a sit-down with the union and he shows no interest in doing so.

Funny I thought we were trying to work together, but I get it you want to just ignore the volunteers again. I guess you're right though this is a waste of time. Well at least we tried on our end and it's clear just how much you want to "work together".

Cogs

[dragonrescue 28]

Funny I thought we were trying to work together, but I get it you want to just ignore the volunteers again. I guess you're right though this is a waste of time. Well at least we tried on our end and it's clear just how much you want to "work together".

Cogs

ONE DEPARTMENT, ONE CHIEF! Nuff' said......

[FFPCogs 863]

Perhaps it was ignored because it is not the best idea? Perhaps it is a fact that except for BFD you CANNOT rely on the volunteers being there? I personally am for a combined service of paid and volunteers but I am not for having paid crews only part of the day. There are more benefits for both sides to have combination crews 24hrs.

Perhaps. I am personally for round the clock coverage at the best possible price to the taxpayers. Daytimes are the real problem for volunteers and everyone can agree on that, but it IS possible to staff houses with volunteers at night and with that comes a savings to the taxpayers. What are the benefits to 24 hr. combination coverage?

Don't think that you are special because your ideas were ignored. Lots of peoples ideas were ignored. The city has completing ignored the paid rank in file since they took office. They don't want to hear anything no matter how much sense it makes. Real professional right? He is only the mayor and the director of public safety. Why would he want to talk with the ones protecting the citizens that elected him?

I don't because they weren't. Our proposal had it's fair hearing before the Task Force and it wasn't that committee that dismissed it out of hand, it was SFRD.

You still didn't answer my question in regards to the volunteers training and qualifications. Why haven't those documents been provided? It's all well and good to say there should be a a city wide level of requirements (which I have said should be in place) but it is not in place at this current time and the question remains. What is the level of training of the current volunteer fire departments from the top down. How many of the "active" members are qualified for interior firefighting/EMS/driving etc.. And again I ask you, would you allow your crew to follow orders of an IC/officer that is not trained for said position?

I don't have access to those records for the other VFDs, but I have already given a rundown on BFDs membership's interior certification. As far as following the orders of an IC, well who determines they're level of experience or what the quaility of their training is? If they have been to numerous fires/incidents and handled them what then is the problem. Do you really believe a piece of paper certifies someones qualifications? If so than that is extremely dangerous. In answer to you question, yes I would follow their orders until such time as I was given an order that my experience leads me to question. That is the ICS after all.

Cogs

Edited January 8, 2011 by FFPCogs

[FD828 77]

Perhaps. I am personally for round the clock coverage at the best possible price to the taxpayers. Daytimes are the real problem for volunteers and everyone can agree on that, but it IS possible to staff houses with volunteers at night and with that comes a savings to the taxpayers. What are the benefits to 24 hr. combination coverage?

I don't because they weren't. Our proposal had it's fair hearing before the Task Force and it wasn't that committee that dismissed it out of hand, it was SFRD.

I don't have access to those records for the other VFDs, but I have already given a rundown on BFDs membership's interior certification. As far as following the orders of an IC, well who determines they're level of experience or what the quaility of their training is? If they have been to numerous fires/incidents and handled them what then is the problem. Do you really believe a piece of paper certifies someones qualifications? If so than that is extremely dangerous. In answer to you question, yes I would follow their orders until such time as I was given an order that my experience leads me to question.

Cogs

More personnel 24/7 for starters. Firefighters put out the fire remember? Not to mention having pride in your company and wanting to be there and make it the best it can be. Who wants to be part of a part-time company? I wouldn't. Would you want to be part of a company that you could only be there during certain hours of the day? You want to feel like you belong to a house not just coming in for day time work. This would be paid guys coming into someone else's house. How do you expect the crews to fully integrate in they aren't really there together? This would just be filling in because the volunteers are not available not really melding into 1 department. Not to mention all the training, eating meals together, cleaning the station together etc..Ya know, working together? It would breed problems in my opinion if the crews were just passing each other at shift change.

How or where is the proof that it was the SFRD that totally dismissed your plan? How do you know that it wasn't fully examined and just thought in their (whoever you are referring to) opinion that it was not a good plan? The union never had any say in ANY plan so you must not be referring to them. Chief Brown was given a task to come up with a zero cost plan and that's what he did so who is it you are referring to every time you say SFRD? I never got to put a vote in, nobody in my company did either so it can't be them. Who is it?

How are the officers made in the volunteer system? Do they have to serve for a certain amount of time? Do they have to be interior qualified? You are always talking about legalities so tell me, would there be any legalities if something happened at fire because of an IC decision if they were not properly trained? And while a "piece of paper" doesn't necessarily make someone a great leader, it at minimum shows that they took a course and possibly have a clue as to what is going on. If an officer is elected because he is most popular, buys the most beer or because there is no one else to run, that doesn't make them a smart/safe/experienced leader either.

Who did you give the rundown of BFD's interior members to? Are you an officer of BFD that has the authority to enact changes?

Edited January 8, 2011 by FD828

[FFPCogs 863]

More personnel 24/7 for starters. Firefighters put out the fire remember? Not to mention having pride in your company and wanting to be there and make it the best it can be. Who wants to be part of a part-time company? I wouldn't. Would you want to be part of a company that you could only be there during certain hours of the day? You want to feel like you belong to a house not just coming in for day time work. This would be paid guys coming into someone else's house. How do you expect the crews to fully integrate in they aren't really there together? This would just be filling in because the volunteers are not available not really melding into 1 department. Not to mention all the training, eating meals together, cleaning the station together etc..Ya know, working together? It would breed problems in my opinion if the crews were just passing each other at shift change.

Well you got me there. It could come to pass that members would only meet at shift change but since the houses belong to the volunteers they can come and go as they please when not assigned for a duty shift. Same with the rigs, we own em therefore we ride em when we're there once qualified to do so. Also under such a "plan" during the day the paid crews would ride whatever rig is dispatched from the fleet, not just one engine that they would be assigned to. In theory it would work something like this: for in distict calls volunteers would be responding from the house with the paid crew on the assigned rig if there aren't enough volunteers in house to staff another rig or on other apparatus from that house when full crews are available to staff them in house. At night the same applies except all staffing is volunteer. This was spelled out in the proposal. A similar system has been up and running for over 20 years in MD and for at least half that long in parts of VA, PA, DE CA, TX, NH, NJ and OH to name a few off the top of my head. Google combo systems, the info is there for all to see.

As far as training goes weekend sessions could be scheduled that would be comprised of both "sides" to foster unity.

By the way what would be the composition of these combination crews in the volunteer houses?

For any type of integration to work there would need to be compromise on both sides and a willingness of all to be "a family". Even now the SFRD members working in Glenbrook and Springdale are in fact coming into someone elses house, at one it appears they get along...although it does beg the question do GFD members regularly attend all the "training, eating meals together, cleaning the station together etc..Ya know, working together" that you speak of?

As for the other house...well we all know how well that's working out.

How or where is the proof that it was the SFRD that totally dismissed your plan? How do you know that it wasn't fully examined and just thought in their (whoever you are referring to) opinion that it was not a good plan? The union never had any say in ANY plan so you must not be referring to them. Chief Brown was given a task to come up with a zero cost plan and that's what he did so who is it you are referring to every time you say SFRD? I never got to put a vote in, nobody in my company did either so it can't be them. Who is it?

Let's start with all the members present at the Task Force meetings. The proposal was read and questioned addressed. There was silence in the gallery save for one or two questions from one SFRD member. Beyond that I cannot say as nothing was ever said either way. Have you read the proposal? What are your objections? On what point(s) would there be a willingness to compromise in the interest of building a unified and integrated system to better serve the community? I am always willing to reevaluate and correct any shortcomings to come up with something better to bring to the powers that be...hence the call here to meet and get started.

How are the officers made in the volunteer system? Do they have to serve for a certain amount of time? Do they have to be interior qualified? You are always talking about legalities so tell me, would there be any legalities if something happened at fire because of an IC decision if they were not properly trained? And while a "piece of paper" doesn't necessarily make someone a great leader, it at minimum shows that they took a course and possibly have a clue as to what is going on. If an officer is elected because he is most popular, buys the most beer or because there is no one else to run, that doesn't make them a smart/safe/experienced leader either.

Elected at BFD. Our members must, like SFRD, pass an in house test to be eligible for consideration after that unlike SFRD it is up to the membership to decide.

You talk about legalities relating to fireground action...or lack thereof...CT is an OSHA State not an NFPA one therefore in court those standards carry only a limited amount of weight legally. Of course in all fairness they are considered an "industry standard" and a jury may be influenced by them.

Who did you give the rundown of BFD's interior members to? Are you an officer of BFD that has the authority to enact changes?

Look back a few pages it's there.

I am a member in good standing and as such I have the authority to look for alternatives to bring to my membership for their consideration. Any changes of such a magnitude come before the membership for their approval, just as it was at the beginning of this mess. Ultimately though it is the Chief that enacts those changes the membership approves.

Cogs

Edited January 8, 2011 by FFPCogs

[CTFF 65]

In before Geppetto:

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/Long-Ridge-firefighters-seek-nearly-1M-in-past-944718.php

Long Ridge firefighters seek nearly $1M in past wages

Jeff MorganteenStaff Writer

Published: 07:57 p.m., Friday, January 7, 2011

STAMFORD -- The paid firefighters' union at the Long Ridge Fire Co. is taking legal action against the North Stamford fire department to collect nearly $1 million in unpaid wages, asking a judge to secure department funds in order to pay back raises deferred more than 10 years ago.

[Bnechis 3,961]

Daytimes are the real problem for volunteers and everyone can agree on that, but it IS possible to staff houses with volunteers at night and with that comes a savings to the taxpayers.

Didn't this debate start because one (or more of the "big 5") could not muster enough troops at night and ended up burning a couple of homes to the ground?

[FFPCogs 863]

Didn't this debate start because one (or more of the "big 5") could not muster enough troops at night and ended up burning a couple of homes to the ground?

I think this debate started when a unilateral plan was introduced by the former Mayor, everything since then has only compounded the situation.

Cogs