Update on Stamford Merger

[Bnechis 3,961]

Perhaps unrelated to this situation, but does this mean anything for the Stamford guys? Doesn't he hold some kind of public safety boss position there?

According to the Mayor, Valentine is highly qualified to be the public safety commissioner because, he is willing to do it for $10,000 per year (if memory serves). Since he has been out of town working his "A" job the whole time, what this means for Stamford is he will still be out of town and they wont have to pay him.

[FD828 77]

Here's the deal from my personal perspective. Niether plan adequately supports the volunteer sector and as such I am a vocal..maybe the most vocal...proponent for the development of a third cooperatively developed option that realistically addresses the needs of, perfrormance of, and costs of each sector and then integrates them wholly and in a mutually beneficial, representative and cost effective fashion to best serve the community we are all charged with protecting.

The 40 additional SFRD personnel scenario was to illustrate what the bare minimum hypothetical costs of SFRD providing full citywide coverage might be, and how those same funds could be used to support and enhance the volunteer sector (in conjunction with the full integration of both sectors) in a more effective way.

Cogs

The only problem here is the statement of "40 ADDITIONAL SFRD personnel" this is very misleading - There is NO additional personnel being added under the "Brown" plan so there would be NO INCREASE in cost for the SFRD operations. The same number of SFRD guys working today would be working then. The Chief would just be relocating where guys/apparatus are stationed. 52 ff's now, 52 ff's then. SFRD is currently sending a full response for all calls in the North District, so basically other then where the appartatus and ff's are located, the day to day operations would be the same. The only way there would be a cost increase is if the VFD's refuse to accept this plan if approved and refuse to allow the SFRD to utilize their stations to better serve and protect the residents of THEIR community that they so strongly claim they are there for. That IMO would be short sighted and childish at best. This is about our safety as firefighters and the safety of the public. SFRD will have to accept whatever the final outcome/plan is wether we agree with it or not. Will the VFD's?

The VFD's want and need paid personnel they just don't want SFRD.

[SFRD372 43]

Bye, bye Bobby!!!! Off to Boston.....now Stamford might have a "real" Public Safety Commissioner. Oops, his replacement might be someone who works at #3 Company, now that would be a true travesty!......stay tuned for more saga as the volunteers continue to try and make this a career vs. volunteer issue instead of the most important one, PUBLIC SAFETY, and the fact that the volunteer's miss many, many calls.....let's just subpoena the 911 tapes and get the true actual numbers of no volunteer apparatus responses to calls! How can the "facts" be disputed! As I have always said in the past, volunteer's please continue to volunteer. You are needed, you are, for the most part, dedicated and the true rank and file members are sincere and genuine. This proposed fire plan is just altered ego's by high Official's, both public and private, who want to get their agenda done, whether it's right or wrong! And it is truly wrong!

[CTFF 65]

Because The brown plan has not been reviewed to the same level that the mayor's plan has been, we get people opposed to it throwing out hypothetical numbers on staffing.

Tomorrow nght will be telling, does the Mayor produce the numbers as described in the brown plan? Will the numbers be accurate?

[Geppetto 31]

The Mayor's Fire Plan and the Stamford Vol. Fire Dept.

November 30, 2011

Stamford Patch

http://stamford.patch.com/blog_posts/the-mayors-fire-plan-and-the-stamford-vol-fire-dept

[FFPCogs 863]

I'm aware of your past statements regarding the desire for a full integration, however this current discussion did not appear to include that aspect.

We must be having a misconnect then because I have mentioned in just about every reponse that incentives would be tied to performance standards as this is a major and non negotiable component of my proposed solution to this debacle and has been since day one.

If the SFRD plan is not going to be sufficient to meet the city-wide need and thus need to rely on the volunteers in some fashion for "back up", then there shouldn't be an end result of no volunteers unless the volunteers themselves fail to provide that "back up".

While you may think I'm missing your point or misunderstand you the fact is I'm not and I don't. I get it...it is the volunteers who in your eyes would be the villians, but it is not quite so simple, nor should it be treated as such. While I realize that the Brown plan does not specifically call for the elimination of volunteers it seems you are missing my point on what is the liklely outcome should that plan be implemented and why. Like I mentioned earlier* it is not as simple as volunteers simply shirking their responsibility, there is far more to it than that...with all do respect, to think otherwise is not only niave but irresponsible. When considereing what the impact of such a momentous change would be we must consider all angles not just the ones that support our beliefs. The implemenation of this plan would be akin to trying to force a complete revision of SFRDs labor contract down the union's throat with provisions like no overtime, ever (a common practice in the business and corporate worlds with salaried employees), no sick leave, no paid vacation, and a drastic reduction in benefits and expecting the union to just accept it. Not a realistic expectation is it? What the Brown plan does for volunteers is viewed by many to be much the same, as is the reaction of the volunteers to it is much the same as would be the union's towards such unrealistic changes in their labor contract.

*Here's an excerpt with some editing of an earlier response as a reminder of the why:

Then maybe you do not understand that should the "Brown plan" be implemented there is the very real probability that there will be no more volunteers (or at best not an adequate number) or their attendant equipment, apparatus and properties within 3- 5 years for SFRD to rely on. And you can say all you want about a lack of dedication of volunteers that would quit because they "didn't get their way". But in light of the fact that under this proposed plan they would be left with no representation, no districts, no collective voice and would always come second in terms of budget ect. to the needs and demands of the union, with I might add no recourse to address such a situation, is there any wonder why. Plus as history has clearly shown, in most instances where this type of forced "integration" has occured the volunteer sector as an effective firefighting component has disappeared in relatively short order, regardless of the condition of that sector at the outset of the integration. The concern is very real one and it is so for valid and historically proven reasons.

Stay Safe

Cogs

Edited December 1, 2011 by FFPCogs

[FFPCogs 863]

Because The brown plan has not been reviewed to the same level that the mayor's plan has been, we get people opposed to it throwing out hypothetical numbers on staffing.

The only problem here is the statement of "40 ADDITIONAL SFRD personnel" this is very misleading -

No more so than the notion of a "no cost" redistribution of SFRD resources. I'll grant that at the outset there will be no additional expenses for SFRD personnel, but there will be a cost, just not a monetary one. The cost will be to the residents of those areas affected by the redistribution of those apparatus and crews in the form of the inevitable reduction in service they will be recieving. It's easy to move fire trucks around a map and assure everyone there will be no change, but the fact is those moves will have an impact...a cost...they have to, unless of course those units are an unnecessary operational asset now. I find it impossible to believe that the disappearence of an aerial in the South end will not impact the service level there...or citywide for that matter as SFRD goes from 3 aerials with all their equipment to 2, not to mention the loss of those skilled and highly proficient truck crews as they move over to an Engine and are sent North to be replaced at least some of the time by an Engine Company acting as a Truck (and please don't try to tell me that an Engine crew is just as proficient at truck work as a dedicated Truck Company that performs those skills every day...that would be an insult to the truck guys at the very least, if not an outright lie). Then of course there is the issue of response times. Woodside would see an increase in the time, those critical few minutes with the fire doublng in size and severity for every one of them, that it takes an Engine Company to get to that now Engine deprived first due area from 1s 2s or 3s, even without traffic, there's no way around that fact. And it would be the same for those in the South End stuck waiting for a Truck (or Engine acting as Truck) Company from elsewhere to arrive that few potentially fatal minutes later than it would have taken if T-2 still existed. These are very real possibilities that need only happen once to cause an unnecessary or preventable tradgedy from occuring...is this not the same argument so often cited against volunteers? Will a paycheck prevent these lapses somehow? No I think not and as a result at least 32 of those hypothetical 40, along with their apparatus, will be needed in very short order to offset these deficencies and bring the level of service back to what it is now in those areas. So just as with the Mayor's plan there will be monetary cost increases with the Brown plan within the first few years as well to fix the operational deficiencies created by it's implementation. If you want to go on believing and propagating the fantasy that there won't be that's fine, but don't expect that others will blindly follow suit and not question the obvious...to do so is ludicrous and quite frankly as far as I'm concerned an insult to even the most marginally intelligent person.

Stay Safe

Cogs

Edited December 1, 2011 by FFPCogs

[Guest truck1234]

Isn't there a state law or a city ordinance that requires a city that size to have a career dept.?

[FFPCogs 863]

Isn't there a state law or a city ordinance that requires a city that size to have a career dept.?

No nor should there be.

Now I'm not saying Stamford's volunteers are where they should be, and no offense intended, but requiring by law that a City have a career dept because of it's size or population is tantamount to extortion. By that logic if a City's volunteer FD(s) are to be able to handle the needs of the City it wouldn't matter because the taxpayers would be forced to pay for a career service they don't need whether the want to or not. And conversely should there then be a law requiring Cities and Town with say 30,000 or less to have volunteers exclusively? Not very practical or prudent either way if you ask me. As a point of reference there is a well known all volunteer FD (except the Chief) that covers a City of about 150,000 near Houston TX and while I'll be the first to admit they are probably the exception rather than the rule I would bet my last dollar that the residents there are quite happy with that arrangement.

Stay Safe

Cogs

Edited December 1, 2011 by FFPCogs

[Guest truck1234]

How many calls does SRFD do per year and do they do ems bls als?

[FFPCogs 863]

How many calls does SRFD do per year and do they do ems bls als?

The call volume I'm not certain of but I'm sure someone will chime in with that info. As for EMS I believe most if not all SFRD guys are EMTs and they are dispatched as first responders along with the VFDs where applicable, to all serious medical calls citywide save Long Ridge.

Cogs

[Geppetto 31]

Stamford Delays Decision on Fire Plan

Anthony Buzzeo

Daily Stamford

12/02/11

http://www.thedailystamford.com/news/stamford-delays-decision-fire-plan

&

Fire Service Plan Meeting Opens Old Wounds

A rivalry between Stamford's unionized and volunteer firefighters proved to be another obstacle to Mayor Pavia's fire service plan at Thursday night's Board of Representatives meeting.

Jamal Powell

Stamford Patch

12/02/11

http://stamford.patch.com/articles/fire-service-plan-meeting-opens-old-wounds

Edited December 2, 2011 by Geppetto

[Geppetto 31]

Powerpoint Presentation from meeting -

http://boardofreps.org/committees/publicsafety/2010/items/ps28011/ps28011_pp_111201.pdf

[CTFF 65]

if you'd like to waste an hour and forty-eight minuets of your life you can watch the meeting from last night here:

http://cityofstamford.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=854

[FFPCogs 863]

if you'd like to waste an hour and forty-eight minuets of your life you can watch the meeting from last night here:

http://cityofstamfor...d=2&clip_id=854

Hey for once we actually agree on something.

[Guest truck1234]

If I were a career ff in SRFD I would be concerned about work with the voll co. City in PA is laying off 8 career and using vollie MA to suppliment.

[FireMedic049 597]

If I were a career ff in SRFD I would be concerned about work with the voll co. City in PA is laying off 8 career and using vollie MA to suppliment.

Which city?

[Guest truck1234]

Chambersburg PA.

[Geppetto 31]

City reps scrutinize volunteer fire department consolidation

Jeff Morganteen

Stamford Advocate

December 2, 2011

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/City-reps-scrutinize-volunteer-fire-department-2341232.php

[helicopper 1,050]

So, if Stamford's volunteer companies are all overflowing with new volunteers to the point where they're being turned away, why is this even an issue? There should be no issues at all and they should be getting out on calls and the issue of consolidation or whatever you call it would be moot.

You'd think they could have found a more eloquent speaker and focused on the positive instead of harping on the negative. Wow.

I didn't watch the whole video of the meeting but did catch parts of it. It seems that the speaker contradicted himself when he spoke at one point about how strong the volunteer forces are and later said that the volunteer departments are absolutely dependent on the career FF to get the apparatus out.

Just from an outsider's perspective it seems that there are alot of inconsistencies and contradictions in the presented material.

[FD828 77]

if you'd like to waste an hour and forty-eight minuets of your life you can watch the meeting from last night here:

http://cityofstamfor...d=2&clip_id=854

"Chief" Whittbread hit the nail on the head with his presentation. His comments said it all. It truly stated what this whole thing is about. Control. He made the statement that they would be able to "CONTROL" the paid firefighters that work for the new VFD where they cannot CONTROL the SFRD career ff's. He also said that they would be in CHARGE/COMMAND of all calls that SFRD responds to in their district. Besides some of the misinformation (volunteers wouldn't be able to ride out on SFRD engines even if they are sitting right there in the station, there is no room for career ff's to live at the stations - for example) he really let the public know what this is all about. VFD's in CONTROL and if they don't get their way, they WILL NOT allow SFRD in their stations and force more hard decisions about public safety and money spending instead of working together. For all our sakes I hope the public and the BOR were paying attention. And they say it's the union and career ff's that are causing all the problems? Perhaps it is the "Chiefs" and not the firefighters(from both sides) at all!

So my original question still stands, if after all is said and done, if the BOR/public choose to have 1 fire department with 1 chief, will the VFD's accept this decision and work with SFRD in the name of public safety? Or will they exercise their right to sue and use the TOR judgement and cost the taxpayers more money? SFRD will have to accept whatever the final outcome is, how about it VFD's?

[FFPCogs 863]

"Chief" Whittbread hit the nail on the head with his presentation. His comments said it all. It truly stated what this whole thing is about. Control. He made the statement that they would be able to "CONTROL" the paid firefighters that work for the new VFD where they cannot CONTROL the SFRD career ff's. He also said that they would be in CHARGE/COMMAND of all calls that SFRD responds to in their district. Besides some of the misinformation (volunteers wouldn't be able to ride out on SFRD engines even if they are sitting right there in the station, there is no room for career ff's to live at the stations - for example) he really let the public know what this is all about. VFD's in CONTROL and if they don't get their way, they WILL NOT allow SFRD in their stations and force more hard decisions about public safety and money spending instead of working together. For all our sakes I hope the public and the BOR were paying attention. And they say it's the union and career ff's that are causing all the problems? Perhaps it is the "Chiefs" and not the firefighters(from both sides) at all!

Ahh yes CONTROL that is a major part of all this and always has been from the beginning...for both "sides"

So my original question still stands, if after all is said and done, if the BOR/public choose to have 1 fire department with 1 chief, will the VFD's accept this decision and work with SFRD in the name of public safety? Or will they exercise their right to sue and use the TOR judgement and cost the taxpayers more money? SFRD will have to accept whatever the final outcome is, how about it VFD's?

These are a very valid questions that unfortunately do not have simple yes or no answers. IMO in a nutshell, unless the volunteers are guaranteed representation in terms of command, training, SOP/G development, basically all operations and administration along with probably most importantly input into and guaranteed portions of the budget, I don't see how we could enter into an agreement. Would you work for the City without a labor contract? And if the volunteers go it will be the taxpayers who suffer no ifs, ands, or buts. Again IMO if we just relinquish "control" we will be left at the mercy of the City administration and that of SFRD and the union, all of whom it can be argued, have within their ranks cadres of individuals who want the volunteers gone. To use a modified version of a very old notion in our Country....no consolidation without representation.

This is not about being anti-union, or putting the public last, far from it. This is about building a truly integrated service that benefit the community and, based on the outcome of similar "mergers" elsewhere, protecting ourselves and continuing to serve our neighbors. For both SFRD/union and their volunteer counterparts that means coming to terms with the fact that control must be shared by both "sides". For the volunteers that may mean things like more oversight, higher, standardized and more stringent training and response standards and an acceptance of SFRD personnel in "the house". For SFRD it may mean things like cross staffing and working in a command structure that incorporates volunteers at every level. There is of course much more to this than that and much work to be done in getting there, but I think you get the idea. Maybe it's time for some to wrap their heads around the idea of shared control, instead of keeping them planted so firmly up their collective as*ses.

Stay Safe

Cogs

Edited December 3, 2011 by FFPCogs

[CTFF 65]

So it's the volunteer way or the highway as I understand it, right?

[Guest truck1234]

I don't see the career ff working along side the vollie ff its like oil and water they don't mix.

[FFPCogs 863]

So it's the volunteer way or the highway as I understand it, right?

Then apparently you don't understand it. It should be niether the SFRD/Union way or the volunteer way...it should be...it MUST be...both. That you continue to see this as an us against them "battle" belies the fact that it is you who does NOT want to work together. With all due respect it seems that for many career members it must be their way or the highway just as it was under Malloy...remember him he's the guy who started all this. Unilateral action didn't work then and it can't work now if the public is to be served, why is that such a hard concept for some to grasp???

Cogs

Edited December 3, 2011 by FFPCogs

[FFPCogs 863]

I don't see the career ff working along side the vollie ff its like oil and water they don't mix.

Although I disagree if this is indeed a fact then they must remain seperate. Edited December 3, 2011 by FFPCogs

[Guest truck1234]

What is the cost to run the volunteer FD's that service Stanford and what do the citizens get. Do they respond to every call ems fire and auto alarms with proper personnal. Are all of their firefighters interior our do you get a mixture drivers exterior etc. and how many hours of training do they require a year.

[mstrang1 213]

I don't see the career ff working along side the vollie ff its like oil and water they don't mix.

I have worked as a career FF in a split house(E7/Springdale FC) and a career engine operating in a volunteer district (E9 in TORFD district) and have found, for the most part, operations run smoothly. Yes, sometimes egos (on both sides)get in the way, but oftentimes this is due to training/operational/communication differences. As I have stated several times before, I have worked at incidents with volunteers with nary a hitch. I also have worked at scenes with no volunteer presence. I see you just recently joined this forum. Go back through the over 1700 posts in this thread and you will find examples of departments working well together and the opposite. You will find lawsuits brought against the city and the union. You will see injunctions. You will see threats and police reports. It is a big mess. At the operational level, things (mostly) run smoothly. I, and many of my Union Brothers, do not want the Volunteers gone. Yes, some may. Some Volunteers want the Career guys gone. Some think that the Career guys are needed. No one ever said officially (or unofficially, for that matter) that they want the volunteers gone. I am going to show up for work every day and respond every time I am called. If volunteers respond to those same calls, great. More bodies means more work can get done faster and more efficiently.

As a firefighter at Engine 9, I realize that a volunteer will (hopefully) be driving T68 to give me water. I also realize that LDH1 is being driven by a Career Firefighter to attain that same goal. I do not care if the water coming out of the nozzle is provided by TORFD, LRFCo, SFRD, volunteer, paid, whoever. I just want water on that fire.

[mstrang1 213]

What is the cost to run the volunteer FD's that service Stanford and what do the citizens get. Do they respond to every call ems fire and auto alarms with proper personnal. Are all of their firefighters interior our do you get a mixture drivers exterior etc. and how many hours of training do they require a year.

The cost varies by company. The citizens get a mix of volunteer, career(SFRD), Paid Drivers (LRFCo). Volunteers are called for every incident. Depending on which company, the number of responders and the training of those individuals is questionable. Their is a mixture of levels of service. One of my stated issues is that I, as a career firefighter, do not know the level of training of the volunteers responding alongside me. The City (or the Union) has asked for training records from volunteer companies, and I believe they have never received them. If I am wrong, I apologize.

[brian19fd 22]

Not to go off topic here- but was Stamford with holding their test results from last test becuase of all of this?!?