Update on Stamford Merger

[jcoppola 52]

The following is a letter from a volunteer chief of the Turn of River Volunteer Fire Dept that was submitted to the city's Board of Representatives. This personal attack on union firefighters has pretty much ruined the relationship between union firefighters and TOR volunteers. Also it should be noted that when TOR had paid drivers that were union members, they received the exact benefits that this individual is now attacking. In fact, most of these benefits (i.e. night differentials) were first created in the TOR dept, only to later be added to the contract of the downtown firefighters. One other point this individual seems to have left out is that the average union ff logs 6 sick days a year- the lowest of any dept in the city, and well below the national average. This letter was copied and pasted (gramatical errors and all) from the city of stamford web site.

Members of the Board:

Below are some facts about Stamford's paid fire fighters that you may be surprised to hear.

Stamford Fire Rescue work schedule: With the exception of the Chief and 2 Assistant Chiefs, all other officers and Firefighters work a 24 hour day, then have 3 days off then work another 24 hour shift. What does this really mean? SFR Firefighters work on average 7 days per month, yes 7! That's only 84 days per year. There is 104 weekend days in the year. So they are work fewer days than the average person has off from work on weekends. This is before any vacation days or sick days are used.

Over the course of that 24 hour shift, they are allowed to sleep. So theoretically they can sleep for 1/3 of their shift and maybe even more while getting paid to do so. There another perk they get paid extra money to work at night. This is called a night differential. This dates back to their old schedule when they worked 3 days on, 3 off, 3 nights on. Then it was deemed a "hardship" to work nights. But now working nights is anything but that.

Unlimited sick time with pay, yes, I said unlimited, even if it's not job related. For example, a firefighter tears their ACL while skiing on their paid vacation and needs to have surgery and rehab and end up being out of work for 1 year; they get paid their salary for that whole year.

The contributions they make toward their medical benefits are lower than the national average for unionized workers and the average union workers contributes less than the average private sector worker.

Let's talk about pensions now. A fire fighter who has at least 15 years of service is entitled to receive a pension. Let look further into this. A firefighter who came on the job in 1999 would make contributions to the pension fund. By the year 2014, their 15th year, they would have paid in approximately $55,000. For that $55,000 payment they could start to receive their pension as early of an age of 48. The amount they would receive is approximately $27,000 per year for the rest of their natural life and if their spouse outlives the firefighter they collect it until their death. Hypothetically, if a firefighter and /or their spouse can collect for 30 years; that's $810,000, at 40 years or age of 88, that's $1,080,000. So I ask you what is that benefit really worth? One thing I can tell you it worth a lot more the $55,000.

These are just some of the perks SFR firefighter's have. Their work schedule gives them the flexibility to work more than one job. Other things like getting time and a half for overtime, 4 hours minimum pay overtime even if they only work for 1 hour, and paid vacations and holidays make this job very lucrative for them. Remember, we are all tax payers in this town and we pay for these benefits. Most of the members of Local 786 are not residents of this town and their only motivation, though under the guise of public safety, is to protect the finical fiefdom they have created over the years.

These are just some of the reasons Mayor Pavia's plan should be implemented. The tax payers deserve a more fiscally responsible and efficient system.

Sincerely,

Matthew Maounis

Resident & Tax Payer

Sounds to me like someone is jealous.

All the aformentioned "perks" that we as career, professional firefighters get are called compensation for doing things during a career that should really not have to be explained to a chief or on a FD blog. Hold on a minute, how did this "chief" get his rank? by default because nobody else was qualified for the job, or maybe all his buddies "voted" him in at a "meeting"?

What a freaking joke! You want to publicly blast career firefighters...be prepared for the backlash.

I write this as a proud member of the IAFF. The organization who helps us get and keep the benefits we enjoy for doing this work to support our families.

[FD828 77]

He was too much of a COWARD to include that he is a "chief" of one of the volunteer departments supposedly ready to work side by side with the career staff. There are volunteers who act as professional firefighters, he however is a disgrace to the fire service as a whole. His own department should have him removed from his position of "power" for these antagonistic actions. A horse's a**.

[jcoppola 52]

He should have known that his identity would be called out for who he is or claims to be.

[nfd2004 750]

He probadly should have studied alot harder in school and be able to become a Career Firefighter.

But lets think about this. Any pay or benefits that ANY Fire Dept has been given was given with the full knowledge city officials at the time. It was a give and take game. Each step of the way was a battle and it took years to get anything that was given to them. It wasn't just out of the Goodness of some politicians heart. It was negotiated fair and square.

When I went on the fire dept in another city in Connecticut, people thought I was CRAZY. I started working for one third of what the average factory worker was making. The benefits were not as good as the rest of my working class friends of people. People tried to talk me out of the job because of the very low wages, and terrible benefits. While I worked my share of the holidays, most people enjoyed EVERY HOLIDAY. At the time, I loved the job and about the only thing I had more than those factory workers was job security.

Nothing has been handed to any IAFF Firefighters no matter where they come from. Stamford or other. Now as the tables have seemed to turn, Firefighters appear to be "Letching Off the System".

After reading that letter, its no wonder there are serious problems between career and volunteer firefighters. I was a volunteer firefighter in Fairfield, Ct for several years before becoming a Career Firefighter. I would NEVER consider insulting those guys. I sure wanted to be a part of them, BUT I never let jealousy take over. I had respect for them. And by the way, all my Volunteer buddies from Fairfield got on a Career Fire Dept. Most have now retired.

[jcoppola 52]

He probadly should have studied alot harder in school and be able to become a Career Firefighter.

But lets think about this. Any pay or benefits that ANY Fire Dept has been given was given with the full knowledge city officials at the time. It was a give and take game. Each step of the way was a battle and it took years to get anything that was given to them. It wasn't just out of the Goodness of some politicians heart. It was negotiated fair and square.

When I went on the fire dept in another city in Connecticut, people thought I was CRAZY. I started working for one third of what the average factory worker was making. The benefits were not as good as the rest of my working class friends of people. People tried to talk me out of the job because of the very low wages, and terrible benefits. While I worked my share of the holidays, most people enjoyed EVERY HOLIDAY. At the time, I loved the job and about the only thing I had more than those factory workers was job security.

Nothing has been handed to any IAFF Firefighters no matter where they come from. Stamford or other. Now as the tables have seemed to turn, Firefighters appear to be "Letching Off the System".

After reading that letter, its no wonder there are serious problems between career and volunteer firefighters. I was a volunteer firefighter in Fairfield, Ct for several years before becoming a Career Firefighter. I would NEVER consider insulting those guys. I sure wanted to be a part of them, BUT I never let jealousy take over. I had respect for them. And by the way, all my Volunteer buddies from Fairfield got on a Career Fire Dept. Most have now retired.

After giving it some thought, I probably reacted to the letter to the editor from Mr. Maonis rather knee-jerkedly. I have worked on negotiations committees and assisted in negotiating 2 contracts for my Local so I take any attack on the benefits we have very harshly. Like you said, the benefits we enjoy today were obtained by members who served many generations ago. We are in the fight of our lives to keep the benefits we have and we don't need some jackass telling the public that we are assaulting the system and getting carte blanche benefits. It sickens me.

I have no ill feelings against volunteers. Just some of the systems they may have in place to promote their own. Mr. Maonis' attack on our benefits is out of line. I know that they are all involved in a quarrel in Stamford and its none of my business, but this garbage spewing big mouth needs to knock it off and go back to his job and let us do ours.

And...for the record, I do hope that he sees my comments here.

Edited April 20, 2011 by jcoppola

[CTFF 65]

I'm wondering how many times the author took a test to become a career firefighter.

I would guess Mr. Maounis has never taken a test to be a career firefighter.

As best as I can tell he works in the financial industry. Intresting reading if you punch his name into google, seems he has been fined and order to go re-training to resolve an issue with the state of CT. He's just another wall street guy blaming public sector workers for the economic problems of the US.

[DRF 5]

This is difficult, but I have to thank a** Chief Matthew Maounis for finally saying something that makes sense. In the last paragraph of his most recent rant, he states "The tax payers deserve a more fiscally responsible and efficient system". He is correct, Stamford does deserve a more fiscally responsible and efficient delivery of fire services.

The SFRD plan put forward by Chief Brown will do just that.

[FFPCogs 863]

The SFRD plan put forward by Chief Brown will do just that.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion so I will chime in with mine on this statement, but before I do let me just preface this post with this:

I have known Chief Brown for many years, and I have the utmost respect for him and for his service to the City. That said IMO the plan put forth, while in keeping with the "cost neutral" mandate has some major flaws. Chief (no pun intended) among them is the fact that the redistribution of personnel and equipment will lead to less not more fire protection overall.

Implementation of this plan will see the Woodside (Scalzi) area lose it's Engine Company as that unit would be moved north into the current TOR district, leaving only the busy and often out of quarters Rescue Company to cover that area in a timely fashion as a first due Company. What is the expected delay in getting Engines 2, 3 or 1 and their all important water to alarms in that area? What happens when these units are out on other calls, which as we know is a very real possibilty based on Stamford's call volume?

Next comes the disbandment of Truck 2 thus leaving the South End devoid of a Truck Company and SFRD with one less Truck Company overall. SFRD's current distribution of apparatus is the way it is for a reason is it not? What is the justification for decreasing it's efficiency to the residents and businesses of the South End and in reality downtown as a whole? I for one would not want to be the officer that has to tell Mrs. Jones to hang on in that window with her baby for just a few more minutes as we wait for another more distant or already committed one of the two remaining Truck Companies to arrive on scene...would you?

Let's return to that call volume. As we know Stamford is a relatively busy department. Once units have been shuffled and the run cards updated to reflect these changes how often will these redistributed units be available to respond in their first due areas? A quick look at Engine 6 gives us an indication. Engine 6 responds to calls downtown far more than it does in Glenbrook or even the current volunteer districts. With this redisribution of SFRD units Citywide and the loss of an Engine and Truck Company downtown those units will have to come from somewhere to make up the shortfall especially downtown, and where would that be from? From their new first due areas in Vollywood that's where. Once these units are pulled out of "up North" to respond downtown what is left to cover those areas? The volunteers who's districts according to this plan will be reduced to nothing more than their property lines?

On to the volunteers. As stated this plan calls for reducing the VF districts to their property lines. OK fair enough, but what impact will this have on those FDs. Again the "model" VFD Glenbrook provides us with a probable answer. While I do not have the exact figures at hand it is my understanding the this "model" FD has responded to approximately 6 - 12% of their calls...thats SIX to TWELVE percent...since Engine 6 has made it's home in that district.. From another perspective we can safely assume that this redistribution would also have a negative effect on the number of volunteers in the system. Why? Because who would want to be part of an organization that serves no real purpose. Although it has been said that there would be volunteer particpation the fact is in most areas where this type of plan has been implemented the volunteers have withered and died, or worse been relegated to support functions. Coupled with that is the demotion of volunteer officers. According to the plan volunteer Chiefs would be ranked equal to career Captains, while the junion ranks of volunteer officers would serve only to "manage" any volunteer FFs that may arrive at a scene and that only if the VFDs are even dispatched to it. .

There is one more point to all this and that is the is the "cost neutrality" of this plan. To be cost neutral would require that the VFDs willingly turn over their facilities to SFRD. This is highly unlikely at best. So if the redistributed SFRD units don't have homes, ones have to be built for them do they not? What is the cost of two or three more trailer parks? Better yet what is the cost of building 5 (1 in Springdale, 2 in TOR and 2 in LR) more permanent stations? I don't see how that is even remotely "cost neutral". And before anyone gets on their high horse decrying the VFDs intransigence remember that as private organizations they are not bound to agree to a plan that does not and will not take their interests into consideration. Nor should we. There is more on "cost neutral" as well. Even if the VFDs agree to house SFRD, the cost neutrality is only temporary at best. As the South End continues in it's redevelopment the fire load and occupancy will increase dramatically. This will need to be addressed in the very near future in terms of coverage. In short order additional units will have to be placed back into service to cover that area and the rest of the City as well as the shortfalls of this redistribution become apparent. With this comes tax increases to pay for it and in the end it is not cost neutral at all, it is simply costly.

There are other alternatives that deserve scrutiny and there may yet be an alternative that truly "solves" our problems, unfortunately IMO this is not it.

Cogs

Edited April 21, 2011 by FFPCogs

[JohnnyOV 2]

On to the volunteers. As stated this plan calls for reducing the VF districts to their property lines. OK fair enough, but what impact will this have on those FDs. Again the "model" VFD Glenbrook provides us with a probable answer. While I do not have the exact figures at hand it is my understanding the this "model" FD has responded to approximately 6 - 12% of their calls...thats SIX to TWELVE percent...since Engine 6 has made it's home in that district.. From another perspective we can safely assume that this redistribution would also have a negative effect on the number of volunteers in the system. Why? Because who would want to be part of an organization that serves no real purpose. Although it has been said that there would be volunteer particpation the fact is in most areas where this type of plan has been implemented the volunteers have withered and died, or worse been relegated to support functions. Coupled with that is the demotion of volunteer officers. According to the plan volunteer Chiefs would be ranked equal to career Captains, while the junion ranks of volunteer officers would serve only to "manage" any volunteer FFs that may arrive at a scene and that only if the VFDs are even dispatched to it. .

You're right, "demoting" your volunteer officers would be a crime. Much like this...

[FD828 77]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion so I will chime in with mine on this statement, but before I do let me just preface this post with this:

I have known Chief Brown for many years, and I have the utmost respect for him and for his service to the City. That said IMO the plan put forth, while in keeping with the "cost neutral" mandate has some major flaws. Chief (no pun intended) among them is the fact that the redistribution of personnel and equipment will lead to less not more fire protection overall.

Implementation of this plan will see the Woodside (Scalzi) area lose it's Engine Company as that unit would be moved north into the current TOR district, leaving only the busy and often out of quarters Rescue Company to cover that area in a timely fashion as a first due Company. What is the expected delay in getting Engines 2, 3 or 1 and their all important water to alarms in that area? What happens when these units are out on other calls, which as we know is a very real possibilty based on Stamford's call volume?

Next comes the disbandment of Truck 2 thus leaving the South End devoid of a Truck Company and SFRD with one less Truck Company overall. SFRD's current distribution of apparatus is the way it is for a reason is it not? What is the justification for decreasing it's efficiency to the residents and businesses of the South End and in reality downtown as a whole? I for one would not want to be the officer that has to tell Mrs. Jones to hang on in that window with her baby for just a few more minutes as we wait for another more distant or already committed one of the two remaining Truck Companies to arrive on scene...would you?

Let's return to that call volume. As we know Stamford is a relatively busy department. Once units have been shuffled and the run cards updated to reflect these changes how often will these redistributed units be available to respond in their first due areas? A quick look at Engine 6 gives us an indication. Engine 6 responds to calls downtown far more than it does in Glenbrook or even the current volunteer districts. With this redisribution of SFRD units Citywide and the loss of an Engine and Truck Company downtown those units will have to come from somewhere to make up the shortfall especially downtown, and where would that be from? From their new first due areas in Vollywood that's where. Once these units are pulled out of "up North" to respond downtown what is left to cover those areas? The volunteers who's districts according to this plan will be reduced to nothing more than their property lines?

On to the volunteers. As stated this plan calls for reducing the VF districts to their property lines. OK fair enough, but what impact will this have on those FDs. Again the "model" VFD Glenbrook provides us with a probable answer. While I do not have the exact figures at hand it is my understanding the this "model" FD has responded to approximately 6 - 12% of their calls...thats SIX to TWELVE percent...since Engine 6 has made it's home in that district.. From another perspective we can safely assume that this redistribution would also have a negative effect on the number of volunteers in the system. Why? Because who would want to be part of an organization that serves no real purpose. Although it has been said that there would be volunteer particpation the fact is in most areas where this type of plan has been implemented the volunteers have withered and died, or worse been relegated to support functions. Coupled with that is the demotion of volunteer officers. According to the plan volunteer Chiefs would be ranked equal to career Captains, while the junion ranks of volunteer officers would serve only to "manage" any volunteer FFs that may arrive at a scene and that only if the VFDs are even dispatched to it. .

There is one more point to all this and that is the is the "cost neutrality" of this plan. To be cost neutral would require that the VFDs willingly turn over their facilities to SFRD. This is highly unlikely at best. So if the redistributed SFRD units don't have homes, ones have to be built for them do they not? What is the cost of two or three more trailer parks? Better yet what is the cost of building 5 (1 in Springdale, 2 in TOR and 2 in LR) more permanent stations? I don't see how that is even remotely "cost neutral". And before anyone gets on their high horse decrying the VFDs intransigence remember that as private organizations they are not bound to agree to a plan that does not and will not take their interests into consideration. Nor should we. There is more on "cost neutral" as well. Even if the VFDs agree to house SFRD, the cost neutrality is only temporary at best. As the South End continues in it's redevelopment the fire load and occupancy will increase dramatically. This will need to be addressed in the very near future in terms of coverage. In short order additional units will have to be placed back into service to cover that area and the rest of the City as well as the shortfalls of this redistribution become apparent. With this comes tax increases to pay for it and in the end it is not cost neutral at all, it is simply costly.

There are other alternatives that deserve scrutiny and there may yet be an alternative that truly "solves" our problems, unfortunately IMO this is not it.

Cogs

And hiring 50+ FF's to work for the volunteer department is a better more cost efficient solution? Why does it matter so much to the volunteers where the paid personnel come from? Control plain and simple. End of discussion. They VFD's could choose to work with SFRD, let them use their stations and possible some of their equipment, but they don't want to give up control. Hell it would still be cheaper if they formed 2 new engine companies then hire the 50+ new ff's.(Already have Engines 6,7,8,9 only need 2 for Long Ridge district) This is about control and nothing more.

[Monty 35]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion so I will chime in with mine on this statement, but before I do let me just preface this post with this:

I have known Chief Brown for many years, and I have the utmost respect for him and for his service to the City. That said IMO the plan put forth, while in keeping with the "cost neutral" mandate has some major flaws. Chief (no pun intended) among them is the fact that the redistribution of personnel and equipment will lead to less not more fire protection overall.

.........

Cogs

I think you made some valid points and have valid questions which I presonally don't have the answer to - but I'm sure others more closely involved could supply answers, or provide compromises to the original 'Brown' plan to improve it. As for reducing volunteers - that's quite likely because I'm sure (like most other volunteer departments) there are members whose first priority is not fire suppression. And that is not always a bad thing. However, those volunteers that want to be active in fire suppression stand a very good chance of being a credible addition to SFRD; in the eyes of most of the members. Like everything, there will be exceptions and I'm sure some members who wont want anything to do with volunteers but I expect they would be a small minority.

The Tri-Data study from Nov 2008, at http://www.docstoc.com/docs/2875643/Stamford-Strategic-Fire-Study seems to be very thorough and addresses call volumes, travel time etc and has recommendations for relocating stations for better coverage.

There is an interesting letter written by an ex-SFRD member that seems to make a lot of sense at http://boardofreps.org/committees/publicsafety/2010/items/ps28011/ps28011_tomczyk_110312.pdf. One of the interesting points is that he addresses the claim of the Administration needing 100+ new SFRD employees to equal the new SVFD capabilities, he points out that SFRD already has a significant amount of these members already in place.

The saga continues .....

[FFPCogs 863]

You're right, "demoting" your volunteer officers would be a crime. Much like this...

I was sure someone would jump on this particualr point and as usual I wasn't disappointed. As it now stands, from a LEGAL standpoint each VF district is an independent entity and it's officers are the representatives of that AHJ. Therefore even if the officers don't meet the same criteria as those of SFRD the fact is, unpalatable as it may be to many of us, they DON'T HAVE TO. That said there was put forth a "plan" which called for all fire officers in the City career or volunteer alike to be required to serve the same amount of time, be certified to the same standard and pass the same exam to be eligible for promotion for each rank. Whle not perfect it would remove much of the inconsistencies that currently exist. This method also complies with the current LEGAL parameters of the situation that some seem to wrongly think they can just dismiss. I for one, having authored much of that "plan", still adamantly and staunchly continue to advocate for that eventuality for the proposed new FD while, as a training officer, practicing what I preach in my own FD.

As I stated earlier there are alternatives that deserve further scrutiny.

Cogs

[FD828 77]

You can say want you want about the legalities,the AHJ's, the training requirements, who doesn't like who, who can't use what fire station, what plan is better, but the bottom line is still about who wants to be in charge.

If they WANTED to make it work, they would. Obviously they have no intention of doing this so they won't.

Edited April 21, 2011 by FD828

[FFPCogs 863]

And hiring 50+ FF's to work for the volunteer department is a better more cost efficient solution?

Hell it would still be cheaper if they formed 2 new engine companies then hire the 50+ new ff's.(Already have Engines 6,7,8,9 only need 2 for Long Ridge district)

The topic at hand was not the proposed SVFD plan but rather a view of the "Brown" plan. So while you've done a good job of outling your views on the faults of the SVFD plan you have been unable or unwilling to address the specific points and questions put forth in my post regading Chief Brown's alternative.

More specifically though let's take a look at this particular opinion.

Why does it matter so much to the volunteers where the paid personnel come from? Control plain and simple. End of discussion. They VFD's could choose to work with SFRD, let them use their stations and possible some of their equipment, but they don't want to give up control. This is about control and nothing more.

You may be correct in that this is all about control, but who is it that's having a problem with that control? After all it is SFRD that refuses to accept anything other than having their people in charge? Now while I can see how and where this attitude stems from under the current circumstances, fact is that when offered the standardized officer selection criteria as a means to rectfy this issue it was dismissed out of hand. Why....? Let us also remember that as it stands now SFRD is NOT the legal authority having jurisdiction in the volunteer districts and as such they have no legal claim to the control of them or the personnel of VFDs. I can fully appreciate how this is a troublesome situation, but none the less it is a FACT supported by a judge's ruling. So yes this is all about control, but that desire for control is not the legally recognized VFDs alone. SFRD could just as easily make a comrpomise as well now couldn't they if they wanted it to work.

Cogs

Edited April 21, 2011 by FFPCogs

[FFPCogs 863]

I think you made some valid points and have valid questions which I presonally don't have the answer to - but I'm sure others more closely involved could supply answers, or provide compromises to the original 'Brown' plan to improve it. As for reducing volunteers - that's quite likely because I'm sure (like most other volunteer departments) there are members whose first priority is not fire suppression. And that is not always a bad thing. However, those volunteers that want to be active in fire suppression stand a very good chance of being a credible addition to SFRD; in the eyes of most of the members. Like everything, there will be exceptions and I'm sure some members who wont want anything to do with volunteers but I expect they would be a small minority.

The Tri-Data study from Nov 2008, at http://www.docstoc.c...egic-Fire-Study seems to be very thorough and addresses call volumes, travel time etc and has recommendations for relocating stations for better coverage.

There is an interesting letter written by an ex-SFRD member that seems to make a lot of sense at http://boardofreps.o...zyk_110312.pdf. One of the interesting points is that he addresses the claim of the Administration needing 100+ new SFRD employees to equal the new SVFD capabilities, he points out that SFRD already has a significant amount of these members already in place.

The saga continues .....

You have hit upon the magic word...compromise. For anything of substance to come from all this will require compromise from all parties involved...period...end of story.

Cogs

[FD828 77]

The topic at hand was not the proposed SVFD plan but rather a view of the "Brown" plan. So while you've done a good job of outling your views on the faults of the SVFD plan you have been unable or unwilling to address the specific points and questions put forth in my post regading Chief Brown's alternative.

More specifically though let's take a look at this particular opinion.

You may be correct in that this is all about control, but who is it that's having a problem with that control? After all it is SFRD that refuses to accept anything other than having their people in charge? Now while I can see how and where this attitude stems from under the current circumstances, fact is that when offered the standardized officer selection criteria as a means to rectfy this issue it was dismissed out of hand. Why....? Let us also remember that as it stands now SFRD is NOT the legal authority having jurisdiction in the volunteer districts and as such they have no legal claim to the control of them or the personnel of VFDs. I can fully appreciate how this is a troublesome situation, but none the less it is a FACT supported by a judge's ruling. So yes this is all about control, but that desire for control is not the legally recognized VFDs alone. SFRD could just as easily make a comrpomise as well now couldn't they if they wanted it to work.

Cogs

I do believe that the VFD chief is in charge of all incidents in their districts unless they relinquish command are they not? And seeings how the VFD's refuse to give any training and health records can you honestly blame the city department for not wanting to take orders from someone who may not be qualified to hold a position of authority?

Edited April 21, 2011 by FD828

[FFPCogs 863]

I do believe that the VFD chief is in charge of all incidents in their districts unless they relinquish command are they not? And seeings how the VFD's refuse to give any training and health records can you honestly blame the city department for not wanting to take orders from someone who may not be qualified to hold a position of authority?

Technically yes the VFDs Chiefs are in charge at most scenes,especially in Belltown, although I personally have witnessed and heard times when the VFD chief's authority has been usurped by the SFRD Deputy...the 511/DC "incident" a few months back being a case in point.

As far as questioning the competency of the VFD officers, no I don't blame SFRD for that stance, in fact I would expect nothing less. You are preaching to the chior in many respects with much of this. But be that as it may, what some fail to accept is that like it or not this is how the system currently operates. It may not be "right" it may not be fair, but in the end it IS the way it is. Unfortunately niether you, me, SFRD, the union or anyone else has the authority to unilaterally change it. There is a process. Let me put it like this, would you, your Department or your union stand idly by or simply aquiesce to the demand of say the volunteers unilaterally requiring 2 seats on each rig for volunteer personnel at every station because that will offer a higher level of service, it's what we want and it will save money as less units would be dispatched per call? I think not. To have such a scenario play out would require negotiations, possible legal actions, and ultimately the support of the majority of those affected. While the example cited is absurd what we are facing now is the same. SFRD cannot demand anything of the VFDs, they don't enjoy that right. But they can choose to work with us in developing alternatives that solve the problem.

Cogs

Edited April 21, 2011 by FFPCogs

[Guest gotasmokerhere]

The more some of you talk about what the downtown dept does and how downtown operates, the more ignorant you sound. For example, cogs stated that career firefighters DO NOT split crews. He stated this because Chief Jacobellis of Turn of River Vol made this argument awhile back in a poor attempt at convincing the BOR that the volunteers get more vehicles to the scene (and as we all know vehicles put out fires and extricate people, not actual firefighters). Last time I checked, E1 splits the crew for water rescue calls to take the engine (with 2 ff) and the pick-up with boat (the other two ff from E1). This same operation would be used for the hose wagon, unlike what cogs stated... Perhaps it is time for the volunteers to stick to their own operating guidelines rather than creating new ones for the career firefighters. As well all know, nobody likes an IKE (I Know Everything).

The following is from the dispatch center. The location is a few doors down from one of the TOR Volunteer Fire Station. It speaks for itself. The question I pose is, at what point does a volunteer chief admit to himself and the public which he serves that the outfit he is in charge of is no longer viable and can no longer do what they are funded to do? Does someone have to get hurt or even die before this happens? Lets hope not... Read the record from bottom up

04/20/2011 19:48:03 : pos11 : AVALBUENA]

FM RESPONDING ETA 20 MINS

[04/20/2011 19:30:34 : pos11 : AVALBUENA]

REQUESTING A FIRE MARSHAL

[04/20/2011 19:30:20 : pos11 : AVALBUENA]

FIRE IS OUT...RECALL E8 CAN HANDLE

[04/20/2011 19:27:50 : pos11 : AVALBUENA]

E8 ON THE SCENE...SMALL FIRE ON THE GRILL..WILL BE USING AN EXTINGUISHER

[04/20/2011 19:27:16 : pos4 : KSCHULZE]

SHE ALSO STATED THAT SHE COULD SEE SOMETHING ELSE ON FIRE....SOUNDED LIKE SHE SAID HER DECK, BUT SHE WAS MORE CONCERNED THAT NO ONE WAS THERE YET THAN TELLING ME WHAT ELSE WAS ON FIRE

[04/20/2011 19:26:44 : pos4 : KSCHULZE]

CALLER JUST CALLED BACK TO SAY THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS RIGHT DOWN THE STREET AND THEY SHOULD BE THERE BY NOW....SHE WAS ADVISED THAT THEY ARE VOLUNTEER IN THAT STATION AND THAT THE STATION IS NOT MANNED AT ALL TIMES....

[04/20/2011 19:22:42 : pos4 : KSCHULZE]

CALLER AND BABY WILL BE EVACUATING

[04/20/2011 19:22:34 : pos4 : KSCHULZE]

Cross streets: HIGH RIDGE RD//GERIAK RD

FIRE IN THE OVEN....OVEN IS OFF....

Imagine the fright and fustration this poor lady had to go through in the seemingly minor incident! The worst part about this is that with all the rhetoric, these same volunteers have the taxpayers convinced that they are always available and responding 24/365... when will reality hit? This is not a laughing matter people.

I look forward to hearing from other company leaders that have been in similar situations where the company could no longer adequately provide fire protection. What/who prompted those actions?

[JayT464 1]

Let us also remember that as it stands now SFRD is NOT the legal authority having jurisdiction in the volunteer districts and as such they have no legal claim to the control of them or the personnel of VFDs.

Yeah yeah yeah we all know how the system is now. The system is broken, It's time to change the charter.

[CTFF 65]

All over the nation people seem to want more from their government for no increase in taxes. The Brown plan does just that, yet some in Stamford don't want anything to do with it, I guess it must be something in the water.

[FFPCogs 863]

Yeah yeah yeah we all know how the system is now. The system is broken, It's time to change the charter.

That's all well and good but until such time as that change happens we all must work within the system that is.

Cogs

[FFPCogs 863]

All over the nation people seem to want more from their government for no increase in taxes. The Brown plan does just that, yet some in Stamford don't want anything to do with it, I guess it must be something in the water.

How exactly do we get more? And yes our water is fantastic.

Cogs

[FFPCogs 863]

The more some of you talk about what the downtown dept does and how downtown operates, the more ignorant you sound. For example, cogs stated that career firefighters DO NOT split crews. He stated this because Chief Jacobellis of Turn of River Vol made this argument awhile back in a poor attempt at convincing the BOR that the volunteers get more vehicles to the scene (and as we all know vehicles put out fires and extricate people, not actual firefighters). Last time I checked, E1 splits the crew for water rescue calls to take the engine (with 2 ff) and the pick-up with boat (the other two ff from E1). This same operation would be used for the hose wagon, unlike what cogs stated... Perhaps it is time for the volunteers to stick to their own operating guidelines rather than creating new ones for the career firefighters. As well all know, nobody likes an IKE (I Know Everything).

The following is from the dispatch center. The location is a few doors down from one of the TOR Volunteer Fire Station. It speaks for itself. The question I pose is, at what point does a volunteer chief admit to himself and the public which he serves that the outfit he is in charge of is no longer viable and can no longer do what they are funded to do? Does someone have to get hurt or even die before this happens? Lets hope not... Read the record from bottom up

04/20/2011 19:48:03 : pos11 : AVALBUENA]

FM RESPONDING ETA 20 MINS

[04/20/2011 19:30:34 : pos11 : AVALBUENA]

REQUESTING A FIRE MARSHAL

[04/20/2011 19:30:20 : pos11 : AVALBUENA]

FIRE IS OUT...RECALL E8 CAN HANDLE

[04/20/2011 19:27:50 : pos11 : AVALBUENA]

E8 ON THE SCENE...SMALL FIRE ON THE GRILL..WILL BE USING AN EXTINGUISHER

[04/20/2011 19:27:16 : pos4 : KSCHULZE]

SHE ALSO STATED THAT SHE COULD SEE SOMETHING ELSE ON FIRE....SOUNDED LIKE SHE SAID HER DECK, BUT SHE WAS MORE CONCERNED THAT NO ONE WAS THERE YET THAN TELLING ME WHAT ELSE WAS ON FIRE

[04/20/2011 19:26:44 : pos4 : KSCHULZE]

CALLER JUST CALLED BACK TO SAY THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS RIGHT DOWN THE STREET AND THEY SHOULD BE THERE BY NOW....SHE WAS ADVISED THAT THEY ARE VOLUNTEER IN THAT STATION AND THAT THE STATION IS NOT MANNED AT ALL TIMES....

[04/20/2011 19:22:42 : pos4 : KSCHULZE]

CALLER AND BABY WILL BE EVACUATING

[04/20/2011 19:22:34 : pos4 : KSCHULZE]

Cross streets: HIGH RIDGE RD//GERIAK RD

FIRE IN THE OVEN....OVEN IS OFF....

Imagine the fright and fustration this poor lady had to go through in the seemingly minor incident! The worst part about this is that with all the rhetoric, these same volunteers have the taxpayers convinced that they are always available and responding 24/365... when will reality hit? This is not a laughing matter people.

I look forward to hearing from other company leaders that have been in similar situations where the company could no longer adequately provide fire protection. What/who prompted those actions?

Was she talking about TOR or that other fire station right down the street ...SFRD Engine 8 at Vine Rd & High Ridge?

[FFPCogs 863]

Perhaps it is time for the volunteers to stick to their own operating guidelines rather than creating new ones for the career firefighters. As well all know, nobody likes an IKE (I Know Everything).

Ditto my friend for SFRD vis a vis the VFDs.

Cogs

[CTFF 65]

How exactly do we get more? And yes our water is fantastic.

Cogs

The career staff would answer more calls. With units moving from the southend and woodside 2nd due districts would increase. Run totals would be up across the board more work for the same money and that is more work.

[Guest gotasmokerhere]

As the post ALREADY states Ike, the woman lived a few doors down from the vollie house...but you knew that already, right Ike?

[FFPCogs 863]

As the post ALREADY states Ike, the woman lived a few doors down from the vollie house...but you knew that already, right Ike?

Do you mean this excerpt?

[04/20/2011 19:26:44 : pos4 : KSCHULZE]

CALLER JUST CALLED BACK TO SAY THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS RIGHT DOWN THE STREET AND THEY SHOULD BE THERE BY NOW....SHE WAS ADVISED THAT THEY ARE VOLUNTEER IN THAT STATION AND THAT THE STATION IS NOT MANNED AT ALL TIMES....

According to your own post at no time does she specify which fire station she is referring to. The dispatcher advised her that it was a volunteer station. Anyone who lives in that vicinity is well aware that a SFRD station is located at Vine and High Ridge...or in this case right down the street. Either way no units volunteer or SFRD were on scene in a timely enough fashion for this concerned caller, otherwise she wouldn't have called back looking for them now would she?

BTW while I like IKE since that's not your intent, are you always this arrogant or is it that you simply can't stand differing opinions and ideas?

Cogs

Edited April 22, 2011 by FFPCogs

[348 4]

The system works and volunteers exist, right???? How come a fire on 4/15/11, at 1200pm,on Hoyclo Dr, a road in the TOR district but much closer to LRFD Sta 2, the third due engine, Eng 8, placed the initial hand line in operation?? Long Ridge Eng 74 first due with one guy did nothing. Second due TOR Eng 64 with 3 guys did nothing. Three minutes later third due Eng 8 arrived with 3 guys, and most importantly a company officer, stretched the first line off of Eng 74. How come Unit 4, the SFRD Deputy Chief, was the IC?? Were are the volunteer firefighters? Were are the volunteer chiefs? I know, it is Malloys fault. Or perhaps there are not enough qualified volunteers around or they are unable to respond in a timely fashion. It is not 1985 anymore and it is time for a change.

P.S. I know that this statement has grammatical errors but it was not sent to a governing body so I took some liberties.

[FFPCogs 863]

It is not 1985 anymore and it is time for a change.

I don't think there's a contributor here or sane person in Stamford that would disagree with this statement, it most definitely is time for a change, but IMO the "Brown" plan is not the change that's needed.

Cogs

[Bnechis 3,961]

You may be correct in that this is all about control, but who is it that's having a problem with that control?

I do believe that the VFD chief is in charge of all incidents in their districts unless they relinquish command are they not? And seeings how the VFD's refuse to give any training and health records can you honestly blame the city department for not wanting to take orders from someone who may not be qualified to hold a position of authority?

Interesting that this latest round started when a TOR Chief wrote a letter about hom much the career staff of SFRD make and tried to make it all about how they are taking advantage of the public. Now the plan supported by this chief is to hire paid personnel to work under the VFD control. Wouldn't these career people have a similar contract to SFRD? Would he have an issue with that? or is it ok if they had the same contract, but he gets to control the show.

Was this chief or any other VFD chief at the 4/15/11 fire in No. Stamford? You could complain all day about SFRD, but to be incharge of an incident, you must respond to it 1st. And it appears that he nor any of the other VFD chiefs responded during this fire.

I believe Volunteer Fire Chief Ben Franklin as Poor Richard, 1st wrote: "You get what you pay for"