Update on Stamford Merger

[FFPCogs 863]

From your point of view what points are open for negotiation or are common ground?

From my point of view,(and my opinion means absolutely nothing) everything has to start with standardized training which we both have stated. Across the board city wide standards for the ranks of all officer positions. I feel that if a VFD has a full crew (Officer, Driver and 2 ff's with the standardized training) then they should call into dispatch and be put "in service" and added to the run cards to come up recommended for whatever or wherever the call is. When they no longer have this full crew, they call in and are taken out of service. If there are volunteers that want to ride out on the career machine then so be it. The IC is the IC. If the VFD chief responds then he/she will be the IC. It could be a responding captain (they go in POV's, yes?) until a higher ranking officer arrives. But this again is all dependent on training. I am not sure what else you are looking for me to say. I believe that have laid out some of my ideas of how this could work.

As far as the volunteers coming and going, maybe the only thing that would help is if there were sleeping quarters somewhere that the coming and going would not be disruptive (unless 612 outlaws all sleeping)

Perhaps if the VFD's actually wanted SFRD it could happen. But I think it is a fact that they don't for all the reasons and fears mentioned in the hundreds and hundreds of posts. I think we all have some good ideas and even want the same end goal. Problem is that we have no control or say for that matter. The powers that be have an agenda and I don't think there is anything that we can do about it. So the union will do what it feels is best for its' members, the VFD's will do what they feel is best for them. Hopefully the public will not suffer, because it sure seems like that's where it is headed.

Thank you for the response. As I was sure was the case for all intents and purposes we are in agreement on about 90-95% of what needs to be done. It is the other 5 -10% that calls for negotiation. And you are right that much of this is out of our hands, but we both, as members of our organizations (you 786 and me BFD) have a say within our meetings. Maybe there are others that agree but have hitherto been reluctant to come forward. All change starts with a few that see the need and work despite of the obsatcles to make it so.

Cogs

[FD828 77]

If only the union had a say in what happened as well. The only thing the union can do is to deal with whatever comes down the pike. The city is calling the shots in this chess match and they could care less what anyone has to say on the matter.

[jcoppola 52]

You seem to be saying you condone Stamford volunteers operating off city rigs if they arrive on a scene without a rig but with their turnouts and SCBA (under the assumption they are qualified to at least FF 1 and EMR [MRT] of course). Is this correct? Are you speaking in terms of your opinion or is this SFRD policy? Seems like this might be a good start at turning things around and this development would clearly show that SFRD does indeed want to work with Stamford's volunteers to best serve the public.

Cogs

No one, and I mean no one, other than my own members are grabbing anything off of my apparatus unless I know about it and give it approval. That is preposterous. What company officer is going to allow equipment to "walk" when he might send one of his own company members back to the rig to get something and expect it to be there?

To me, this just promotes freelancing.

Edited April 24, 2011 by jcoppola

[CTFF 65]

Front page of the advocate today: "If this was a corporation he would be fired. If this was the military organization he would be court marshaled." Mayor Michael Pavia speaking about Peter Brown, assistant fire chief.

This is because the board of reps want to talk to chief brown about his plan. The mayor does think chief brown as a city employee should oppose his plan.

If Stamford was a city the Mayor would have already been fired.

[FireMedic049 597]

I suppose that depends on what one considers an asset. Or maybe more precisely what type of asset. We already have a clear indication of just what type of "asset" is envisioned by one of the plans and what that will mean for volunteer firefighting in Stamford. Having the districts or first due response areas reduced to the property lines of each VFD, which is part of what the "Brown" plan calls for, relegates each to a support status. Now while support functions are an asset, IMO this concept is not only a waste of our resourses, but ultimately counterproductive as it will result in all the VFDs becoming like the "model" currently in place.

I can agree that there may be different "participation" levels envisioned among the plans presented. However, each plan does appear to incorporate volunteers into the equation and would thus be an "asset" (at least in theory).

The poster's comments that I was referring to, clearly can be seen as implying that the volunteers would be an "asset" in only one plan which does not appear to be the truth. If the intent was to comment on what type of "asset" the volunteers would be in relation to the other plans, then the comments should have instead reflected that point. Basically, if the feeling is that the volunteer role isn't substantial enough in a plan to feel like an "asset", then say that rather than implying that there is no role at all.

Call it semantics, knit-picky or whatever, but saying one thing when you meant something different is a bit of a pet peive of mine.

[FireMedic049 597]

The problems for me arise from the constant unrelenting bashing of volunteers, and what IMO is the official unwillingness to negotiate in good faith from a clean slate to integrate the services under the conditions and legal framework that exist.

Two thoughts regarding this statement and where the "problem" lies.

1) There also seems to be a significant amount of "career" bashing going on too.

2) Why does the integration have to be "under the conditions and legal framework that exist" - which I assume refers to each VFDs autonomy via the Charter currently? It is my understanding that creating the proposed new "volunteer" department in the north requires a bit of legal revision and the individual VFDs giving up at least some of that autonomy granted by the Charter. So, if that's the case, then why is integration "under the conditions and legal framework that exist" the only option? Why would negotiating a single, fully-integrated department not be an option too?

[FFPCogs 863]

Two thoughts regarding this statement and where the "problem" lies.

1) There also seems to be a significant amount of "career" bashing going on too.

In what sense? If you are referring to the recent letter written by a TOR Chief, in which he expresses his views? Well that is no different than a website devoted entirely to undermining the public's confidence in ALL volunteers in Stamford by "enlightening" them to the "truth".

Or could you be referring to the constant derision put upon anyone that disagrees with the notion that SFRD must be the sole command authority in all matters fire related in Stamford?

2) Why does the integration have to be "under the conditions and legal framework that exist" - which I assume refers to each VFDs autonomy via the Charter currently? It is my understanding that creating the proposed new "volunteer" department in the north requires a bit of legal revision and the individual VFDs giving up at least some of that autonomy granted by the Charter. So, if that's the case, then why is integration "under the conditions and legal framework that exist" the only option? Why would negotiating a single, fully-integrated department not be an option too?

Because there is in place a legal framework in the form of the City Charter and each VFDs State Charter that have been dismissed and ignored repeatedly throughout this situation. A point proven by a judge's ruling. That the Charter would change to reflect any negotiated outcome is not the issue, that SFRD has repeatedly ignored the Charter as it now stands in dealing with the VFDs is. The conditions are that the VFDs are here, they are the legally recognized AHJs by both the City and the State of their delineated districts and any changes to those districts must have the approval of the VFDs to proceed. This is the current legally authorized and recognized process by which TRFD, SFCo, LRFCo and BFD are working towards a merge and which SFRD has sought and continues to seek to abrogate:

ab·ro·gate

verb \ˈa-brə-ˌgāt\

ab·ro·gat·ed ab·ro·gat·ing

transitive verb

1: to abolish by authoritative action : annul

2: to treat as nonexistent

Until such time as the Charter is changed by a 2/3 majority vote, (a lengthy and unpredictable process itself), and whether or not I or anyone agrees with the process that's in place the fact is it IS the legal process by which change must happen. Therefore IMO and as I have said many times before there can be a solution that benefits all...FDs, the City and most importantly the community... only when SFRD abides by the rules as they are to change them to what they could be.

Cogs

Edited April 24, 2011 by FFPCogs

[FireMedic049 597]

In what sense? If you are referring to the recent letter written by a TOR Chief, in which he expresses his views? Well that is no different than a website devoted entirely to undermining the public's confidence in ALL volunteers in Stamford by "enlightening" them to the "truth".

Or could you be referring to the constant derision put upon anyone that disagrees with the notion that SFRD must be the sole command authority in all matters fire related in Stamford?

I wasn't referring to any specific example. You stated that you felt that "volunteer bashing" was essentially one of two obstacles in the quest for unity. I was simply pointing out that although there may be actions and comments that could be viewed as "bashing" the volunteers and hindering the dialogue, it is pretty evident that there are a significant number of actions and comments that could be viewed as "career bashing". As such, the implication that one side is specifically responsible for the disconnect is wrong.

Because there is in place a legal framework in the form of the City Charter and each VFDs State Charter that have been dismissed and ignored repeatedly throughout this situation. A point proven by a judge's ruling. That the Charter would change to reflect any negotiated outcome is not the issue, that SFRD has repeatedly ignored the Charter as it now stands in dealing with the VFDs is. The conditions are that the VFDs are here, they are the legally recognized AHJs by both the City and the State of their delineated districts and any changes to those districts must have the approval of the VFDs to proceed. This is the current legally authorized and recognized process by which TRFD, SFCo, LRFCo and BFD are working towards a merge and which SFRD has sought and continues to seek to abrogate:

ab·ro·gate

verb \ˈa-brə-ˌgāt\

ab·ro·gat·ed ab·ro·gat·ing

transitive verb

1: to abolish by authoritative action : annul

2: to treat as nonexistent

Until such time as the Charter is changed by a 2/3 majority vote, (a lengthy and unpredictable process itself), and whether or not I or anyone agrees with the process that's in place the fact is it IS the legal process by which change must happen. Therefore IMO and as I have said many times before there can be a solution that benefits all...FDs, the City and most importantly the community... only when SFRD abides by the rules as they are to change them to what they could be.

Cogs

So what you are saying is that the VFDs aren't willing to be the "bigger person" and work towards the best solution for the community?

[FFPCogs 863]

I wasn't referring to any specific example. You stated that you felt that "volunteer bashing" was essentially one of two obstacles in the quest for unity. I was simply pointing out that although there may be actions and comments that could be viewed as "bashing" the volunteers and hindering the dialogue, it is pretty evident that there are a significant number of actions and comments that could be viewed as "career bashing". As such, the implication that one side is specifically responsible for the disconnect is wrong.

Fair enough. Sorry if i misinterpreted your query.

So what you are saying is that the VFDs aren't willing to be the "bigger person" and work towards the best solution for the community?

Couldn't the same be said of SFRD? Why is it that the volunteers are wrong in this and we should "be the bigger person"? We did not start this nor have we been unwilling to work on a compromise. And let's be clear in that volunteers do work for the community and do so for far less than our career counterparts which in and of itself is also a benefit to the community. I am sorry but I do not and will not subscribe to the belief that only career firefighters have the insight necessary to solve his mess and that as volunteers we should "be the bigger person". IMO this can only work if both "sides" take the public into acount first..over districts, control, jobs or whatever.

Cogs

[brianm1 1]

I try to stay out of this, but have to step in when important information is left out to serve one's adjenda. Believe it or not, there was a crew in house during the DAY at the time of the alarm (I thought that didn't happen?!). However, they needed a driver. I know because I got a text page saying, "crew in house, need driver for oven fire TOR Rd."

Now before everyone jumps up and down and says, "well you should train more drivers" let me point out that that isn't the agrument nor the issue. No one is trying to argue that things should stay the same. The issue is are the volunteers there, and will the mayor's plan work? With the Mayor's plan enacted, the initial engine would have been FULL (6 FFs!), with 3 career FFs and 3 volunteers. This is more than did respond that day.

I too try to stay out of this, but have to step in when false information is said to serve one's agenda

Alpineruner,

You couldn't be any further from the truth. Lets be honest here about how this incident would have been "if the mayors plan had been enacted" First, this particular call was around 8:00 Pm. According to the mayors plan there would have been only two paid personnel responding not three. More importantly did we forget what was wrong with the old system? If the mayors plan was enacted this incident would have been no different than that typical of prior to 2008.

With two paid guys staffing the firehouse do you really think those three guys would have been staffing the firehouse!!

If TOR members weren't promised paid jobs, and if there wasn't a rat race to go to calls, lots of calls to put individual job seeking members first in line for a job, do you think that those three guys would have likely been staffing the firehouse??

Do you really think that if the mayors plan was enacted, the off duty paid guys of NSFD would be staffing firehouses and responding to calls???

Prior to 2008 how many out of the roughly 44 paid drivers in BFD, GFD, TOR & LRFD would respond to calls as volunteers when they were off duty?

Agendas Huh?

If there where truly enough volunteers to consistently provide coverage then why do they need to have two- three paid guys staffing the firehouse??

If there are plenty of volunteers why not just a single paid driver like the old, old days?

[Geppetto 31]

As mentioned above ....

Mayor bristles at alternative fire service plan

Board of Reps to consider plan that would expand Stamford Fire & Rescue

Jeff Morganteen, Stamford Advocate

Sunday, April 24, 2011

STAMFORD -- City lawmakers want to discuss an alternative plan to the mayor's proposed merger of four volunteer fire departments this Thursday, weeks after city officials said the other plan -- an expansion of the city fire department into volunteer fire districts -- was too costly for consideration.

The decision to discuss the alternative plan, which was endorsed by top officials at the Stamford Fire & Rescue Department, drew heated comments from Mayor Michael Pavia Thursday directed at Peter Brown, the assistant fire chief who helped draft the plan and was invited to discuss the proposed city fire department expansion next week at the Public Health and Safety Committee of the Board of Representatives.

Pavia said Brown should be reminded he works for the city, and that he is not sanctioned to oppose the mayor's plans for the fire service.

"If this was a corporation he would be fired," Pavia said of Brown. "If this was a military organization he would be court-marshaled. Let's put this in perspective."...

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/default/article/Mayor-bristles-at-alternative-fire-service-plan-1350307.php

[FireMedic049 597]

Couldn't the same be said of SFRD? Why is it that the volunteers are wrong in this and we should "be the bigger person"? We did not start this nor have we been unwilling to work on a compromise. And let's be clear in that volunteers do work for the community and do so for far less than our career counterparts which in and of itself is also a benefit to the community. I am sorry but I do not and will not subscribe to the belief that only career firefighters have the insight necessary to solve his mess and that as volunteers we should "be the bigger person". IMO this can only work if both "sides" take the public into acount first..over districts, control, jobs or whatever.

Cogs

Yes, the same could probably be said of SFRD. I don't believe I've said that the volunteers were "wrong", however I do disagree with a lot of what I've seen from that side (looking in from the outside) on this matter.

I agree that both sides need to step up in order to achieve any true solution to the situation and agree that neither side has a monopoly on the needed insight to achieve resolution. The reason I asked about being the "bigger person" in the matter is because somebody has to take the first step and your comments struck me as though some things in the past are the obstacle for the volunteers from doing so. Additionally, it would seem to me that the VFDs have a pretty big bargaining chip in the matter in that given their autonomous legal status, each has the ability to influence the outcome in a way that the City, SFRD and the Union can't.

However, despite this and from the outside, it definitely looks like the VFDs are not seriously interested in definitively solving the matter. I (and others) strongly believe that the best solution for the entire City is to have a single FD with a single Fire Chief, yet that doesn't seem to be of any interest to the volunteer side or the Mayor. Let's be honest, the "the charter would have to be changed" excuse put forth so far in resistance to a single department is a somewhat lame one considering that it's not impossible to do so and that the Mayor's proposal also includes similar legal hurdles.

"Control" and having a substantial "role" appear to be two very important concerns for the volunteer side moving forward. So, it would seem to me that the VFDs would have some leverage to work towards a reasonable solution within the single department model (or other models) if both sides can sit down at the table. At the same time, there must be compromise.

[Guest gotasmokerhere]

For those of you that think the volunteer charters are forever existent, your wrong! Business law 101, there is no such thing as a contract between entities that doesn't expire... One could easily, easily, easily argue that when TOR chief jacobellis stated he could not guarantee a response to every emergency call, that he was publicly admitting that TOR could no longer provide the services that are apecifically stated in said charter. So in fact, it could be argued that TOR was in breach of said charter (contract) when it couldn't do what the charter called for it to do. So all this b.s. About the charter being the end all, be all needs to stop. It takes nothing more than a review by the charter review commission (of which Pavia is probably disbanding as we speak) and a 2/3 vote... Taking about four months total. So no, charter change is not an extensive project at all.

Furthermore, as we have seen in todays advocate, the real enemy is this is the mayor and his cabinet. If he thinks the most well respected fire chief in the city is clueless and should be fired because he disagrees withe mayor is a joke! How will he treat a 25 year old volunteer chief that disagrees ith him? Him and Larobina are sneeky and arrogant, and frankly don't care about the employees of stamford. Last time I checked this nation was built on democracy and the encouragment of debate! Apparently pavia doesn't agree- so I would beware both vollie and paid. I can easily predict that you vollies that are going to be hired under the new system may be working for 15 dollars an hour, straight pay no benefits. This guy is not a friend to any of us.

[FD828 77]

In what sense? If you are referring to the recent letter written by a TOR Chief, in which he expresses his views? Well that is no different than a website devoted entirely to undermining the public's confidence in ALL volunteers in Stamford by "enlightening" them to the "truth".

Or could you be referring to the constant derision put upon anyone that disagrees with the notion that SFRD must be the sole command authority in all matters fire related in Stamford?

Because there is in place a legal framework in the form of the City Charter and each VFDs State Charter that have been dismissed and ignored repeatedly throughout this situation. A point proven by a judge's ruling. That the Charter would change to reflect any negotiated outcome is not the issue, that SFRD has repeatedly ignored the Charter as it now stands in dealing with the VFDs is. The conditions are that the VFDs are here, they are the legally recognized AHJs by both the City and the State of their delineated districts and any changes to those districts must have the approval of the VFDs to proceed. This is the current legally authorized and recognized process by which TRFD, SFCo, LRFCo and BFD are working towards a merge and which SFRD has sought and continues to seek to abrogate:

ab·ro·gate

verb \ˈa-brə-ˌgāt\

ab·ro·gat·ed ab·ro·gat·ing

transitive verb

1: to abolish by authoritative action : annul

2: to treat as nonexistent

Until such time as the Charter is changed by a 2/3 majority vote, (a lengthy and unpredictable process itself), and whether or not I or anyone agrees with the process that's in place the fact is it IS the legal process by which change must happen. Therefore IMO and as I have said many times before there can be a solution that benefits all...FDs, the City and most importantly the community... only when SFRD abides by the rules as they are to change them to what they could be.

Cogs

I have to correct you on one main point. It is NOT the SFRD that has ignored the charter or violated the charter. It is the CITY. The CITY is the one that decided that the SFRD was going to do what they did. Stop putting the blame on the department and the hard working people in it. You want to blame someone, blame the right people. Malloy and his administration or the current joke of one now. We didn't ask for this mess no more then you did.

[FFPCogs 863]

I have to correct you on one main point. It is NOT the SFRD that has ignored the charter or violated the charter. It is the CITY. The CITY is the one that decided that the SFRD was going to do what they did. Stop putting the blame on the department and the hard working people in it. You want to blame someone, blame the right people. Malloy and his administration or the current joke of one now. We didn't ask for this mess no more then you did.

I don't blame the rank and file, nor do I think any of them asked for this. And I have maintained all along that it was Malloy's ill concieved merger plan that started this. But there are some questions that have gone unanswered which maybe can be addressed here.

1) When or where did the SFRD and Union administrations sit down with their volunteer counterparts in regards to this mess since 2008?

2) What if anything came out of those meetings?

3) What negotiated and mutually acceptable initiatives were implemented from those discussions? Or even passed along to the City Administration for consideration?

4) Who among the SFRD or Union leaderhips publically protested the previous Mayor's plan, it's violation of the Charter or advised against the chosen course of action as they are doing now with our current Mayor?

5) If they didn't fight the mayor then because he was the Mayor and their boss, why is it ok to do so now?

6) Why was a plan that put SFRD firefghters in every firehouse in town, included promotions and new hires, ensured all employees retained their jobs and pay scales and integrated career and volunteers in every facet of this City's fire protection (with little or no cost increase) dismissed by both the SFRD admin and the Union?

and

7) At what point did the $500,000 in overtime savings which was the stated reason for the merger and mitigating factor in it's implementation cease to be important to both the SFRD and Union leaderships?

Regardless of rank or affiliation there is an old adage which applies here:

"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem"

We, all of us, can either be part of the problem or part of the solution, the choice is ours to make. And we make that choice through our actions or lack of them as well as our words.

Cogs

Edited April 25, 2011 by FFPCogs

[FFPCogs 863]

Yes, the same could probably be said of SFRD. I don't believe I've said that the volunteers were "wrong", however I do disagree with a lot of what I've seen from that side (looking in from the outside) on this matter.

With all due respect and I mean that sincerely, there is no probably about it. And yes while you did not say the volunteers are "wrong" in so many words that is the insinuation of much of what has been said and written.

I agree that both sides need to step up in order to achieve any true solution to the situation and agree that neither side has a monopoly on the needed insight to achieve resolution. The reason I asked about being the "bigger person" in the matter is because somebody has to take the first step and your comments struck me as though some things in the past are the obstacle for the volunteers from doing so. Additionally, it would seem to me that the VFDs have a pretty big bargaining chip in the matter in that given their autonomous legal status, each has the ability to influence the outcome in a way that the City, SFRD and the Union can't.

In some respects yes, I suppose our legal standing could be considered a "bargaining chip", but for that to matter there has to be willing partners to bargain with. In another respect one could say that the "bargaining chip" is currently being used by the fact that the VFDs are excercising their legal authority to merge and are therefore possibly infuencing the outcome.

However, despite this and from the outside, it definitely looks like the VFDs are not seriously interested in definitively solving the matter. I (and others) strongly believe that the best solution for the entire City is to have a single FD with a single Fire Chief, yet that doesn't seem to be of any interest to the volunteer side or the Mayor. Let's be honest, the "the charter would have to be changed" excuse put forth so far in resistance to a single department is a somewhat lame one considering that it's not impossible to do so and that the Mayor's proposal also includes similar legal hurdles.

Again the same coud be said of the SFRD and Union leaderships. What steps have they taken to show that they are "seriously interested in definitively solving the matter" with, not in spite of the VFDs? And I am well aware of the process for a Charter revision and in no way use that as an excuse. The fact is a 2/3 majority can be a difficult thing to achieve and harder still when there is no unity shown by the parties affected on what that change will entail or ultimately cost.

"Control" and having a substantial "role" appear to be two very important concerns for the volunteer side moving forward. So, it would seem to me that the VFDs would have some leverage to work towards a reasonable solution within the single department model (or other models) if both sides can sit down at the table. At the same time, there must be compromise.

Here again I know for a fact that offers have been made by the VFDs to sit down and discuss a compromise of the "control" issues. Those offers have gone unanswered and the same response forthcoming, SFRD must be in control period. There is another aspect to this when talking about control. The VFDs are not seeking control or a role, they don't need to...they already have it legally. It is the other "side" that seeks to change that fact. It has been stated many times by various members of the volunteer sector that the idea of standardized requirements is not a new one nor is it one the volunteers are opposed to. In fact that will be the case once the 4 become 1. But for that standardization to work the volunteer officers must be an integral part of the command structure of whatever department(s) emerge, not just in "control" of volunteer personnel only. Equal standards equate to equal responsibility do they not. I agree that there must be compromise but that must come from both ends. Thus far it hasn't.

Cogs

[FD828 77]

So much is said of what the SFRD will be willing to bend on or negotiate with and it is because they won't that there is an impass. What, if anything, are the VFD's willing to bend on? Doesn't seem like they are willing to bend any more then the SFRD is supposedly not bending.

As far as not fighting Malloy and his administration in 2008, perhaps it is because, all your legalities aside, it was the best thing for the safety of the career ff's and the public? A dismal response by the volunteers, 2 career ff's on a machine? Is the public being better served now? There is still a terrible response for 4/5 of the VFD's. but for every call there is a full and garaunteed response.

[JohnnyOV 2]

There is so much accusation and assumption going on back and forth between the two sides on over 1300 posts, can any one factually write down a list of what each plan proposes operationally at this point? I'm talking a side by side comparison of what each plan entails?

[FD828 77]

Other then Cogs' plan, have the volunteers put forth a plan????

[firemn23 8]

I don't get it. Cogs what are you fighting so hard for? Are the volunteers just trying to get a paid job and holding the citizens of Stamford hostage? This just doesn't make any sense at all to have 66 pages of discussion for something that makes complete sense is mind boggling to me.

[JayT464 1]

Other then Cogs' plan, have the volunteers put forth a plan????

Volunteer Plan: Stay autonomous, answer to no one, and get paid

[Guest gotasmokerhere]

And leave the union out of this. They were never asked for input EVER or to provide a plan (even though they have the most resources). Yes, a plan was drafted with the assistance of the international, but of course that plan never saw the light of day due to certain know it alls. The union is only charged with protecting its members. This issue is between the city administration and the volunteers. That's it!

And by the way, springdale is NOT recognized by the state as a fire company, so have fun ith Fahan being the "chief" of the volunteer (but really paid) dept.

Furthermore, if a vote was taken today to have all the paid drivers go back to where they came from, it would overwhelmingly pass. They are still some of you (cogs) that think we love operating out of hostile firehouses and the union was pushing to take over vollie districts. Let's not forget how and why the paid drivers came downtown, and the ff's that actually took the city test to become downtown ff's got screwed. We lost our senoirity and numerous driving jobs to people that didn't even take the test to become dontown ff's. And now you want to go back to the same system. Well, guess what? Five years from now, the volunteer paid workers are going to want to unionize and join the dontown ff's once again. I can guarantee all of you that there won't be many 786 members that will let this ordeal happen a second time.

Lastly, how are we supposed to work together when you people (cogs and the like) present a pan that states it will take 117 union firefighters to do the equivalent work of 51 "paid drivers." Once again Ike, you obviously don't know what you're talking about. That was an obvious attempt at increasing the price tag for your comparison. You may in fact be the biggest problem of all. You have zero understanding of a career system, so you really should stop pretending to. You talk about playing nice, but have stated you have been largely involved with the "other" plan. Any reasonable person from any fire service in New England could make swiss cheese out of your plan.

[FD828 77]

Volunteer Plan: Stay autonomous, answer to no one, and get paid

At least you're honest

[redddogg317 1]

Mayor bristles at alternative fire service plan

Board of Reps to consider plan that would expand Stamford Fire & Rescue

Jeff Morganteen, Staff Writer

STAMFORD -- City lawmakers want to discuss an alternative plan to the mayor's proposed merger of four volunteer fire departments this Thursday, weeks after city officials said the other plan -- an expansion of the city fire department into volunteer fire districts -- was too costly for consideration.

The decision to discuss the alternative plan, which was endorsed by top officials at the Stamford Fire & Rescue Department, drew heated comments from Mayor Michael Pavia Thursday directed at Peter Brown, the assistant fire chief who helped draft the plan and was invited to discuss the proposed city fire department expansion next week at the Public Health and Safety Committee of the Board of Representatives.

Pavia said Brown should be reminded he works for the city, and that he is not sanctioned to oppose the mayor's plans for the fire service.

"If this was a corporation he would be fired," Pavia said of Brown. "If this was a military organization he would be court-marshaled. Let's put this in perspective."Read more: http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/default/article/Mayor-bristles-at-alternative-fire-service-plan-1350307.php#ixzz1KXTlzSSq

[Guest gotasmokerhere]

Furthermore, chief brown was told that if he does show up at thurs meeting he will be fired! Yeeaaahhh democracy...

[Dinosaur 844]

Mayor bristles at alternative fire service plan

Board of Reps to consider plan that would expand Stamford Fire & Rescue

Jeff Morganteen, Staff Writer

STAMFORD -- Pavia said Brown should be reminded he works for the city, and that he is not sanctioned to oppose the mayor's plans for the fire service.

Well heres a big part of the problem. The mayor isnt allowing dissenting opionons from the FD to be presented.

If the existing "legal framework" isnt changed there will never be any changes. At least no meaningful changes.

Instead of all the my plan their plan nonsense why dont you decide what will be the best FD for all of Stamford. That and the side by side comparison requested would help a lot of us see this for what it is rather than what some outspoken members want us to see.

[FFPCogs 863]

Well heres a big part of the problem. The mayor isnt allowing dissenting opionons from the FD to be presented.

Well see here's another big problem for those who are short of memory. When the previous administration force fed it's plan to the VFDs and then withheld their operating budgets to attempt to force compliance any dissenting opinions of that abomination were silenced or dismissed out of hand....that is until a judge ruled. Why should dissenting voices be heard now when any dissention was inappropriate then? And for those who think the Brown plan is the answer remember that is a matter of opinion at this point, nothing more.

If the existing "legal framework" isnt changed there will never be any changes. At least no meaningful changes.

Meaningful changes can take place and would be much more meaningful if they were agreed to by all parties involved through compromise.

Instead of all the my plan their plan nonsense why dont you decide what will be the best FD for all of Stamford. That and the side by side comparison requested would help a lot of us see this for what it is rather than what some outspoken members want us to see.

Trying to determine what will be the best overall solution is what some of us are trying to accomplish. As far as a side by side...that side by side comparison already happened and a choice was made. Again just as with the actions of Malloy why won't some here do what they demanded of the VFDs then...buck up and deal with it.

Cogs

[mstrang1 213]

Cogs said

"Well see here's another big problem for those who are short of memory. When the previous administration force fed it's plan to the VFDs and then withheld their operating budgets to attempt to force compliance any dissenting opinions of that abomination were silenced or dismissed out of hand....that is until a judge ruled. Why should dissenting voices be heard now when any dissention was inappropriate then? And for those who think the Brown plan is the answer remember that is a matter of opinion at this point, nothing more."

Cogs-

First off, I hear congratulations are in order, Captain Cogliano. Second, didn't your mother ever tell you two wrongs don't make a right? The wrongs of the old administration do not justify the wrongs of the new "administration".

[FD828 77]

Well see here's another big problem for those who are short of memory. When the previous administration force fed it's plan to the VFDs and then withheld their operating budgets to attempt to force compliance any dissenting opinions of that abomination were silenced or dismissed out of hand....that is until a judge ruled. Why should dissenting voices be heard now when any dissention was inappropriate then? And for those who think the Brown plan is the answer remember that is a matter of opinion at this point, nothing more.

Trying to determine what will be the best overall solution is what some of us are trying to accomplish. As far as a side by side...that side by side comparison already happened and a choice was made. Again just as with the actions of Malloy why won't some here do what they demanded of the VFDs then...buck up and deal with it.

Cogs

So because the last adminstration peed in your Cheerios, it's ok for the new admistration to act in this fashion? Or is it really crap, but because the VFD's seem to be favored it makes it ok?

[FFPCogs 863]

Cogs said

"Well see here's another big problem for those who are short of memory. When the previous administration force fed it's plan to the VFDs and then withheld their operating budgets to attempt to force compliance any dissenting opinions of that abomination were silenced or dismissed out of hand....that is until a judge ruled. Why should dissenting voices be heard now when any dissention was inappropriate then? And for those who think the Brown plan is the answer remember that is a matter of opinion at this point, nothing more."

Cogs-

First off, I hear congratulations are in order, Captain Cogliano. Second, didn't your mother ever tell you two wrongs don't make a right? The wrongs of the old administration do not justify the wrongs of the new "administration".

Thank you. On that note and just to reiterate I do hope you realize that I do not speak for my department, the vounteers or anyone else when conversing here. Oh and before I forget...to allay some of the fears some may have on such a development rest asured that I already meet the standards I so often call for in others, such as Instructor I, Health and Safety Officer, Incident Safety Officer and Fire Officer I and II along with various others from the DoD

On to the meat of your post:

Just as I was taught by good ole Mom, I didn't say two wrongs make a right , what I said was that some should practice what they preach

Cogs

Edited April 25, 2011 by FFPCogs