Update on Stamford Merger

[FFPCogs 863]

I don't need to create new tension, there's plenty of it already there and niether I or any of my volunteer colleagues created it. You can call it trolling or whatever the hell else you want Cap, but those who want to see a truly successful and cooperative future combined fire service know that the input of all is of value in building such....and that includes criticisms and a good hard look at what brought us here in the first place. So while it may be the leaderships that implement the course, the more obstacles removed by the rank and file the easier the transition will be, since after all it is we who will be working together. Communication on any level is a good thing and at least as far as vollies go it could make all the difference in the world. You see what has become clear is that there is a misunderstanding of how thing work in Vollywood. Unlike the military, ultimately it is the memberships of the individual departments that decide the course their department takes. The more open and free discourse there is about our probablre combined future the more informed and therefore better decision they can make...otherwise we run the risk of it being one based on misinformation, misconceptions and the inherent mistrust that has grown over the years.

Far better to have broad support for the Charter Rivision and help assure it's passge, then face yet more contention and see it fail at the polls. Frank, honest and open communication is the only way to achieve that support.

Edited May 23, 2012 by FFPCogs

[SFRD E-9 18]

I'll throw MY thoughts in here on Pete's question and I mean mine only. No rumors here. I will use Danbury for an example as it is close and similar as far as a combination department. This is all assuming career staff are spread throughout the entire city. This is also based on the fact that like in Danbury, the volunteer pieces of equipment responding are staffed buy a fully qualified crew. In Danbury that is driver/operator and at least 2 fully certified interior FF's (there is an exception to this for tankers and the two squad companies which are air and lighting units). Danbury Volunteer's don't really do EMS with the exception of one company and I'm not sure if they still do.

Example:

A call goes out for an Automatic Alarm in a district that a volunteer department is in. Both career and the appropriate volunteer unit/s are dispatched. Who ever is the first on scene gives the initial size up and proceeds to investigate. They report their findings to the responding deputy chief. If it turns out to be a fire or some other cause then that first due piece does what it has to until the rest of the responding assignment arrives. If a volunteer "senior" officer is first on scene then they will assume command until the deputy arrives. Once he does then they will meet and either transfer command or do what the two decide is best. If more volunteer FFs show up in their private vehicles, then they would report to the command post and get an assignment (accountability, tagging in etc.)

As far as this type of call it's as simple as that. No big deal.

EMS, Rescue, MVA calls are a little different story. As it sits right now having two engines, a fly car, 901 and an ambulance responding to a basic ems call is ridiculous, unnecessary and dangerous to the public.

If the volunteers are to going to respond to them then they need to part of the CAD system. What I mean by this if there is a certified crew hanging out at the fire house and has enough manpower to properly staff an apparatus then they should contact dispatch and have that unit put into the system so the CAD system can automatically suggest them to the appropriate call. This way not only will they be dispatched within their own district but will be utilized throughout the entire system/city if necessary. This should make that "CERT" issue/concern go away. Now that I think about this as i'm typing, this part should have been implemented a long time ago!

By doing the above, for an example, TOR has their rescue staffed with "certified" personnel and have called dispatch and are put into the CAD as available. A call comes in for an MVA on the parkway. Their rescue is dispatched instead of Rescue1 leaving them available if needed elsewhere.

I'm gonna stop here because I could go on and on with different scenarios, departments etc. The bottom line is it can work. There will have to be a little give and take everywhere. Anyone who has been in the "system" for a while, and no offense to the newer guys but I mean more than 20 years, know what changes have taken place. The old days are long gone and we need to be more flexible to stay viable.

Training, SOG's, SOP's, medical physicals etc all have to become standard. This way there is no "he said she said". In Danbury, the yearly refreshers, and main drills are set up and run by the Career training officer. The career staff and volunteer staff go through these same drills. This way there is continuity and everyone is on the same page. This also takes some of the burden off of the volunteer officers and allows them make better use of what time they have to give to their department.

Again this is MY $.02 and Mine only. It's no secret. I grew up in the Danbury Vol. Fire Department and am proud of it. I spent 14 years there as an active member holding numerous officers positions before getting hired as a career fire fighter almost 13 years ago. I am glad to have a lot of my training come from the career guys there. Most of those guys back then where truly seasoned veterans and had "been there done that" and passed on to us what they learned along the way. I am lucky to have had the unique experience of coming from a combination system so I understand both sides. I also am lucky because when I first got involved in the fire service we were still using just long coats, 3/4 boots and a helmet. No hoods or pants. You were a "puke" if you chose to where an airpack to a car fire or dumpster fire etc. I got to see a lot of changes and the majority of them are for the good.

I truly believe if everyone puts their egos and attitudes aside this new system can and will work!

Edited May 23, 2012 by SFRD E-9

[FFPCogs 863]

Thank you SFRD E-9 for your response. From what I read that sounds absolutely doable although to be honest i envision a somewhat more integrated command system. That said I couldn't agree more that this should be give and take and i and have no problem giving when the end result is one that builds a true combination system to serve our City.

i must agree on one more very important point you made, and that is that we can make it work and in fact it will no matter what. i happen to believe though that it will work much better and serve the city better when we do so together as partners. Your response was to me a great first step in that direction which I intend to share with my fellow members. Again thanks.

[x152 179]

Sorry Pete.....thats how I see it.....trolling and hoping that someone spouts off with something for you to yell "gotcha".

We continue to demonstrate that the parties involved in the delivery of fire services can work and train together. It may not be what they nay-sayers want to hear, but we successfully ran another joint training session in Turn of River this past Monday. As a personal witness to this and several previous such drills, I really always walk away wondering why our energies could not have been more properly directed for all of this time?

So the challenge is we can either rant on the keyboard for an eternity or we can step up and start anew?

I am comfortable standing behind my record. Anyone else want to offer a better suggestion?

[SFRD E-9 18]

Like I said in my post above and I want to reiterate to everyone. This is just MY own opinion! Matter of fact I won't even call it an opinion or how it "should" be. These are just my views based on 27 years of experience from having been a volunteer and a career fire fighter in two combination departments. Now don't get me wrong, I have been at calls way back in the day when fists were thrown between volly's and paid guys. I think most of these fights were because of the ego and attitude thing. Some may of been over something that someone did or didn't do right or wrong. But again because of that old ego and attitude thing arguments were started in stead of letting cooler heads prevail and fix the problem at hand and worry about the pissing later which really should have been figuring out what went wrong and finding a solution to the problem. I give a lot of credit to two paid guys from Danbury for ending the majority of the issues between the paid and volunteer departments. One is the current chief of Greenwich, Peter J. Siecienski who was one of the career training officers . He was one of the guys who helped to create what they call the Stop Light System which is a way off identifying who is who and their training level at a glance on the fire scene. Before this time you had to have three fully interior ffs on the engine before it could respond allowing it to match the career engines. Because volunteer numbers in Danbury were dropping and once a guy got into his 50s, 60s, etc some guys didn't want to maintain their interior status therefore putting them off the machine forever.

Hence forth the Stop Light System:

RED LIGHT: Fire Ground support only

YELLOW LIGHT: Exterior Fire Fire Fighting

GREEN LIGHT: Interior Fire Fighter

Now under each of these headings where other qualification like a driver license has. You can be a pump operator, fire police (yes Danbury has a great fire police unit), EMT etc.

This ultimately allowed for the response guidelines to change allowing for 2 Green Light and either 1 Red or Yellow Light as long as they had a driver/pump operator qualification. This allowed those "older" guys back into active status or anyone else that didn't want to be interior. I believe the background of the I.D. tags have the appropriate color for identification (been awhile and not sure if this still how it's done).

At this point in time is when the Career Training Officer began taking over the responsibility of providing the yearly refreshers and other main required drills for the volunteer fire fighters. What they ended up doing was setting up quarterly drills. The drill schedule was handed out at the beginning of the year allowing people to schedule their time to be able to attend. The same drill was run for the career guys as well the volunteers. It took place over several weekends of each quarter allowing plenty of time for everyone to be able to hit one of the dates. At the same time it allowed for better training record keeping. At the end of each quarter a report was generated of the attendance and handed out to the volunteer company officers. Any volunteer who did not make one of the required drills was taken off active response until he or she made up what was required. This really helps to keep OSHA off your back! It also alleviated those responsibilities from the volunteer officers as well as the record keeping and reporting.

The other guy was Jim Thorne who took over as training officer from Pete as he moved up the ladder. Jim (nor Pete) never had that ego/attitude thing (at least not that I ever saw) although he would always tell it like it was. Jim really brought the training together to finish what Pete had started. He taught and treated you as a fire fighter. It didn't matter if you were paid or volunteer because he new that if and when the "Sh_t" hit the fan, he wanted to make sure you new what you were doing and that peoples lives, civilian, paid and volunteer were on the line. It was a no BS approach and I really liked the way he taught.

I have tried to carry this through in my career. I don't care if your paid or volunteer either. To me the bottom line is if you are going to be involved in Public Safety then play the game by the rules. Don't pad the truth, rosters, abilities, etc. and make sure that the training is the real deal. We all know that volunteerism is on the downslide and has been for many years. It's documented by The National Volunteer Fire Council (NVFC). Most importantly is no one is to blame. It's the sign of the times and the economy. We must, especially the Volunteer Fire Departments, embrace this fact and work out the best situation to mitigate the problem. For me, my above post can assist in this. It's not the end all be all but it "Could" be a start.

Just like an addiction, the first step in recovery is to recognize and except the fact that you have a problem!

Edited May 23, 2012 by SFRD E-9

[SageVigiles 1,194]

Like I said in my post above and I want to reiterate to everyone. This is just MY own opinion! Matter of fact I won't even call it an opinion or how it "should" be. These are just my views based on 27 years of experience from having been a volunteer and a career fire fighter in two combination departments. Now don't get me wrong, I have been at calls way back in the day when fists were thrown between volly's and paid guys. I think most of these fights were because of the ego and attitude thing. Some may of been over something that someone did or didn't do right or wrong. But again because of that old ego and attitude thing arguments were started in stead of letting cooler heads prevail and fix the problem at hand and worry about the pissing later which really should have been figuring out what went wrong and finding a solution to the problem. I give a lot of credit to two paid guys from Danbury for ending the majority of the issues between the paid and volunteer departments. One is the current chief of Greenwich, Peter J. Siecienski who during my time in Danbury was the training officer. He was one of the guys who helped to create what they call the Stop Light System which is a way off identifying who is who and their training level at a glance on the fire scene. Before this time you had to have three fully interior ffs on the engine before it could respond allowing it match the career engines. Once a guy got into 50s, 60s, etc some guys didn't want to maintain their interior status therefore putting them off the machine forever.

RED LIGHT: Fire Ground support only

YELLOW LIGHT: Exterior Fire Fire Fighting

GREEN LIGHT: Interior Fire Fighter

Now under each of these headings where other qualification like a driver license has. You can be a pump operator, fire police (yes Danbury has a great fire police unit), EMT etc.

This ultimately allowed for the response guidelines to change allowing for 2 Green Light and either 1 Red or Yellow Light as long as they had a pump operator qualification. This allowed those "older" guys back into active status or anyone else that didn't want to be interior. I believe the background of the I.D. tags have the appropriate color for identification (been awhile and not sure if this still how it's done).

At this point in time is when the Career Training Officer began taking over the responsibility of providing the yearly refreshers and other main required drills for fire fighters. What they ended up doing was setting up quarterly drills. The drill schedule was handed out at the beginning of the year allowing people to schedule their time to be able to attend. The same drill was run for the career guys as well the volunteers. It took place over several weekends of each quarter allowing plenty of time for everyone to be able to hit one of the dates. At the same time it allowed for better training record keeping. At the end of each quarter a report was generated of the attendance and handed out to the volunteer company officers. Any volunteer who did not make one of the required drills was taken off active response until he or she made up what was required. This really helps to keep OSHA off your back! It also alleviated those responsibilities from the volunteer officers as well as the record keeping and reporting.

The other guy was Jim Thorne who took over as training officer from Pete as he moved up the ladder. Jim never had that ego/attitude thing (at least not that I ever saw) although he would always tell it like it was. Jim really brought the training together to finish what Pete had started. He taught and treated you as a fire fighter. It didn't matter if you were paid or volunteer because he new that if and when the "Sh_t" hit the fan, he wanted to make sure you new what you were doing and that peoples lives, civilian, paid and volunteer were on the line. It was a no BS approach and I really liked the way he taught.

I have tried to carry this through in my career. I don't care if your paid or volunteer either. To me the bottom line is if you are going to be involved in Public Safety then play the game by the rules. Don't pad the truth, rosters, abilities, etc. and make sure that the training is the real deal. We all know that volunteerism is on the downslide and has been for many years. It's documented by The National Volunteer Fire Council (NVFC). Most importantly is no one is to blame. It's the sign of the times and the economy. We must, especially the Volunteer Fire Departments, embrace this fact and work out the best situation to mitigate the problem. For me, my above post can assist in this. It's not the end all be all but it "Could" be a start.

Just like an addiction, the first step in recovery is to recognize that you have a problem!

One of the best posts on this issue I've ever seen.

[FFPCogs 863]

Sorry Pete.....thats how I see it.....trolling and hoping that someone spouts off with something for you to yell "gotcha".

We continue to demonstrate that the parties involved in the delivery of fire services can work and train together. It may not be what they nay-sayers want to hear, but we successfully ran another joint training session in Turn of River this past Monday. As a personal witness to this and several previous such drills, I really always walk away wondering why our energies could not have been more properly directed for all of this time?

So the challenge is we can either rant on the keyboard for an eternity or we can step up and start anew?

I am comfortable standing behind my record. Anyone else want to offer a better suggestion?

Good for you Cap you are after all entitled to your opinion just as I am mine. I too am also quite comforatble standing behind my record and what it has produced and with the suggestions I have put forth..

Edited May 24, 2012 by FFPCogs

[FFPCogs 863]

Like I said in my post above and I want to reiterate to everyone. This is just MY own opinion! Matter of fact I won't even call it an opinion or how it "should" be. These are just my views based on 27 years of experience from having been a volunteer and a career fire fighter in two combination departments. Now don't get me wrong, I have been at calls way back in the day when fists were thrown between volly's and paid guys. I think most of these fights were because of the ego and attitude thing. Some may of been over something that someone did or didn't do right or wrong. But again because of that old ego and attitude thing arguments were started in stead of letting cooler heads prevail and fix the problem at hand and worry about the pissing later which really should have been figuring out what went wrong and finding a solution to the problem. I give a lot of credit to two paid guys from Danbury for ending the majority of the issues between the paid and volunteer departments. One is the current chief of Greenwich, Peter J. Siecienski who was one of the career training officers . He was one of the guys who helped to create what they call the Stop Light System which is a way off identifying who is who and their training level at a glance on the fire scene. Before this time you had to have three fully interior ffs on the engine before it could respond allowing it to match the career engines. Because volunteer numbers in Danbury were dropping and once a guy got into his 50s, 60s, etc some guys didn't want to maintain their interior status therefore putting them off the machine forever.

Hence forth the Stop Light System:

RED LIGHT: Fire Ground support only

YELLOW LIGHT: Exterior Fire Fire Fighting

GREEN LIGHT: Interior Fire Fighter

Now under each of these headings where other qualification like a driver license has. You can be a pump operator, fire police (yes Danbury has a great fire police unit), EMT etc.

This ultimately allowed for the response guidelines to change allowing for 2 Green Light and either 1 Red or Yellow Light as long as they had a driver/pump operator qualification. This allowed those "older" guys back into active status or anyone else that didn't want to be interior. I believe the background of the I.D. tags have the appropriate color for identification (been awhile and not sure if this still how it's done).

At this point in time is when the Career Training Officer began taking over the responsibility of providing the yearly refreshers and other main required drills for the volunteer fire fighters. What they ended up doing was setting up quarterly drills. The drill schedule was handed out at the beginning of the year allowing people to schedule their time to be able to attend. The same drill was run for the career guys as well the volunteers. It took place over several weekends of each quarter allowing plenty of time for everyone to be able to hit one of the dates. At the same time it allowed for better training record keeping. At the end of each quarter a report was generated of the attendance and handed out to the volunteer company officers. Any volunteer who did not make one of the required drills was taken off active response until he or she made up what was required. This really helps to keep OSHA off your back! It also alleviated those responsibilities from the volunteer officers as well as the record keeping and reporting.

The other guy was Jim Thorne who took over as training officer from Pete as he moved up the ladder. Jim (nor Pete) never had that ego/attitude thing (at least not that I ever saw) although he would always tell it like it was. Jim really brought the training together to finish what Pete had started. He taught and treated you as a fire fighter. It didn't matter if you were paid or volunteer because he new that if and when the "Sh_t" hit the fan, he wanted to make sure you new what you were doing and that peoples lives, civilian, paid and volunteer were on the line. It was a no BS approach and I really liked the way he taught.

I have tried to carry this through in my career. I don't care if your paid or volunteer either. To me the bottom line is if you are going to be involved in Public Safety then play the game by the rules. Don't pad the truth, rosters, abilities, etc. and make sure that the training is the real deal. We all know that volunteerism is on the downslide and has been for many years. It's documented by The National Volunteer Fire Council (NVFC). Most importantly is no one is to blame. It's the sign of the times and the economy. We must, especially the Volunteer Fire Departments, embrace this fact and work out the best situation to mitigate the problem. For me, my above post can assist in this. It's not the end all be all but it "Could" be a start.

Just like an addiction, the first step in recovery is to recognize and except the fact that you have a problem!

SFRD E9

I want to thank you again for taking the time to share your views. As we both know neither you nor I or anyone of us is going to change the world, but by submitting your experience and views on it you have offered a model for consideration which may hold some keys to mutual support. Like other concepts and ideas presented in the past there will be points which most will see as useful and this can be a huge help in bridging gaps and identifying commonalities which are the buildling blocks of cooperation.

By the way I've read Chief Siecienski's thesis "Developing Collaborative Efforts in a Combination Fire Dept". Although written in 1999 it is still a very interesting, useful and enlightening read.

Edited May 24, 2012 by FFPCogs

[FFPCogs 863]

Sorry Pete.....thats how I see it.....trolling and hoping that someone spouts off with something for you to yell "gotcha".

Upon rereading this it dawned on me what the misconception is. I for one am not looking to "get" anyone and it makes me wonder why anyone would think there's anyone or anything to 'get' unless there's something to be "got" in the first place. So just like what has plaqued us all along from the outset of our mess, we're off on the wrong foot ibecause of miscommunication, misinterpretation and mistrust. I simply want to know who, in their own words, we may shortly be forced into bed with. Honestly I would think you or anyone else involved would want to know the same so as to reduce the rhetoric, hearsay and BS.

So the challenge is we can either rant on the keyboard for an eternity or we can step up and start anew?

Start anew? Ok let's put it out clearly so there is no confusion as to why actions are taken and comments made. All I want (and I am confident my fellow members want) and will continue to work for is a combined fire service where my men and I are capable of operating as equals based on our training and qualifications....or in other words by virtue of what we've learned, earned and produced. No career or volunteer labels, just firefighters and fire officers working as one department.....period. Anything else will get a challenge from me and I can safely say the majority of my fellow BFD members as well. So there's a nice clear picture and firm footing from which to start anew. Edited May 25, 2012 by FFPCogs

[FD828 77]

Cogs, just out of curiosity, if you say that you and the majority of your members want these things, when are you going to vote to separate and move away from the mayors "plan"? If not, then why not? You want everyone to work together and see what the career guys think should/could happen with the future of our fire service, but the fact remains, your department as well as the other volunteer departments (except Glenbrook) are in bed with the mayor and his so called plan. Publically denounce the mayors plan, otherwise there is really nothing to discuss. You can say all you want that you and your members want to work with SFRD (which I honestly believe you do), but the fact that your department is still trying to form a second paid/volunteer department speaks volumes more then your postings about cooperation.

[FFPCogs 863]

FD828 to the best of my knowledge there is no longer a "Mayor's plan" since the funding was cut. No money no plan. So now it is time to look ahead to when the probable occurs and we are united via a Charter revision. That brings everything full circle to who it is we will be "partners" with. My position is clear and in fact it is the same one I've held all along, Representation, standardization and integration. Just curious to see if others agree and if so to what extent. Maybe if enough common ground exists the denunciation some seek may yet be forthcoming, but more likely it won't have to be..

Edited May 25, 2012 by FFPCogs

[FD828 77]

I agree there is common ground, that we all could probably agree to with concessions from all sides. So why do we have to wait for the charter revision? Why can't the volunteer chiefs sit down with the SFRD chiefs now? Who is stopping that? Or are the volunteers still hoping that the charter revision doesn't happen? Are the volunteers going to lobby their residents to vote against the charter revisions? Is the mayor hoping that the charter revision doesn't happen? How many law suits will be filled? Seems like to me that none of this was necessary.

[FFPCogs 863]

I agree there is common ground, that we all could probably agree to with concessions from all sides. So why do we have to wait for the charter revision? Why can't the volunteer chiefs sit down with the SFRD chiefs now? Who is stopping that? Or are the volunteers still hoping that the charter revision doesn't happen? Are the volunteers going to lobby their residents to vote against the charter revisions? Is the mayor hoping that the charter revision doesn't happen? How many law suits will be filled? Seems like to me that none of this was necessary.

Quite frankly FD I cannot answer your questions with any degree of certainty as I am not privy to what the other VFDs may or may not do. Speaking for myself here i can say that I and others within my FD are seeking to move forward under the assumption that the Charter will change. Of course there are some adjustments I would like to see to that process and I will work tirelessly inasmuch as I can to see them come to fruition. Regardless of the outcome of those efforts though I am fully aware that a far more interactive realtionship with SFRD is coming and the fact is it is welcomed...no matter what rhetorical nonsense may appear on these pages from those who seek to "prove" otherwise. That said it would be far more welcomed if there were a greater degree of mutual respect and forthright communication on the expectations of all the parties involved. I have tried to outline mine and as far as I'm aware that of my fellow members as clearly as I can without reservation...hopefully others will follow suit.

[skylark 3]

Cogs, just out of curiosity, if you say that you and the majority of your members want these things, when are you going to vote to separate and move away from the mayors "plan"? If not, then why not? You want everyone to work together and see what the career guys think should/could happen with the future of our fire service, but the fact remains, your department as well as the other volunteer departments (except Glenbrook) are in bed with the mayor and his so called plan. Publically denounce the mayors plan, otherwise there is really nothing to discuss. You can say all you want that you and your members want to work with SFRD (which I honestly believe you do), but the fact that your department is still trying to form a second paid/volunteer department speaks volumes more then your postings about cooperation.

Now that the big 3 are retired from SFRD the volunteers should feel at ease because it was always thought that they were against the volunteers. (although 2 were members of the volunteer departments before joining SFRD) That being said with the new system being put on the November ballot perhaps the former TOR, BFD or Springdale Chief will be appointed as the new Assistant Chief overseeing the volunteer departments. Now thats an incentive to vote for it, don't you think?

[FFPCogs 863]

Now that the big 3 are retired from SFRD the volunteers should feel at ease because it was always thought that they were against the volunteers. (although 2 were members of the volunteer departments before joining SFRD) That being said with the new system being put on the November ballot perhaps the former TOR, BFD or Springdale Chief will be appointed as the new Assistant Chief overseeing the volunteer departments. Now thats an incentive to vote for it, don't you think?

A volunteer division Asst Chief is a major step in the right direction and if all parties can sit down and develop a mutually acceptable plan to move forward it should suffice. The cynic in me though believes it won't. Therefore IMO a Fire Commission comprised of career, volunteer and publically elected represenatatives offers the best hope of building and managing a truly integrated combination department. The Charter Revision Commission disagreed, maybe others won't.

[FD828 77]

A volunteer division Asst Chief is a major step in the right direction and if all parties can sit down and develop a mutually acceptable plan to move forward it should suffice. The cynic in me though believes it won't. Therefore IMO a Fire Commission comprised of career, volunteer and publically elected represenatatives offers the best hope of building and managing a truly integrated combination department. The Charter Revision Commission disagreed, maybe others won't.

By the last sentence in this statement are you saying that you are against the charter revision? At least how it is now? Forgive me because I don't know the answer, but it is a "yes" or "no" vote for the charter revision is it not? This goes right back to my original question. You speak your mind, you don't hold back, and you state that your fellow members feel as you do. So, are you and your members going to fight the charter revision? Do you hope that it doesn't pass? I know that you cannot speak of the other departments, I know you think that according to you and I quote, "I and others within my FD are seeking to move forward under the assumption that the Charter will change." This doesn't really answer the question. So are we all embracing the coming change together or is it going to be "us/them" until we are all forced to do something? IMO, until we agree that the change is coming and embrace it, things will continue the way they are.

[Monty 35]

Definitely putting words in to Cogs mouth - but my take on what I read is .. In an ideal world he'd like the charter revision proposal changed to have a commission made up of people from various organizations. If he can't get that then the current proposal for the charter revision is better than the current situation.

Assuming he can vote from overseas ..... my guess - and it's obviously only that, is that he would vote for the current proposal.

[FFPCogs 863]

Definitely putting words in to Cogs mouth - but my take on what I read is .. In an ideal world he'd like the charter revision proposal changed to have a commission made up of people from various organizations. If he can't get that then the current proposal for the charter revision is better than the current situation.

Assuming he can vote from overseas ..... my guess - and it's obviously only that, is that he would vote for the current proposal.

Thanks Monty, you pretty much sum up my view but I will clarify a bit.

When I say the "Charter Commission disagreed maybe others won't" in regards to creating a representative fire commision I mean I will undertake every opportunity to get the language to be placed on the Charter changed until those opportunities have passed. I steadfastly believe a Fire Commission made up of representatives from the career, the volunteer and the public is in everyone's best interest as all the parties affected would have a say. I know others within BFD agree with this goal but that is not a definitive answer as to their ultimate decision in the polling booth.

Whether or not that change in language happens is another story and quite frankly until I see a final version of what WILL be on the referendum I cannot say how I will vote one way or the other. Obviously if the Fire Service issues are broken down into segments such as one chief as one, revised districts as another ect ect I would vote on each according to what I beleive is best..and for the record I will say I would vote for one Chief contingent upon some concrete safeguards (other than a fire commission) being in place vis a vis volunteer representation. If on the other hand all aspects of the Fire Service are on one line it may be that I will have to vote no for the whole package as there may be aspects I consider detrimental to our Fire Service as a whole. Again it is all dependent on the final language on the ballot. And let's be completely clear on something else...I cannot and will not speak for ANYONE else, BFD member or not, on how they might vote the Charter Revision referendum, that is solely their right and perogative and their vote will be theirs alone to cast when the time comes.

Oh and BTW I have arranged my leave schedule so I can be home to vote in person....no uncounted absentee ballot for me, thank you very much.

This doesn't really answer the question.

The same can be said, in fact must be said, of my SFRD colleagues here. I believe in being honest, forthright and open as I have nothing to hide, apparently other contributors here are not quite so forthcoming.

It has been weeks since I posed a question to my SFRD colleagues here asking for their opinions on our future as they envision it. The sad truth is I have answered every question put to me here openly and honestly but as of yet I have failed to recieve any answer save one, to the questions I have posed. So again I will ask...as we move forward what do you, my SFRD colleagues and fellow EMTBravo members, envision as our mutual future in terms of command, responses, volunteer represenation, integration ect?

Cogs

Edited June 1, 2012 by FFPCogs

[Geppetto 31]

Pretty quiet as of late; No news of interest you say? But wait -

City wants fire union decertified

Jeff Morganteen

Stamford Advocate

Sunday, June 17, 2012

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/City-wants-fire-union-decertified-3640403.php

[FFPCogs 863]

Thanks for the update G, wasn't aware this latest wrinkle was coming down the pike.

[TimesUp 148]

Looks like the city is grasping at staws. Waste of more time and the taxpayers money. Will never go anywhere!

[Geppetto 31]

Extinguish the endless fire battles

Stamford Advocate Editorial

June 21, 2012

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/Extinguish-the-endless-fire-battles-3653563.php

[FFPCogs 863]

Agreed let the Charter "extinguish the endless fire battles", which brings me to revisit a concept I floated here a few weeks back which was, not suprisingly, universally panned by my career colleagues in Stamford. That concept is one of a representative Fire Commission, which there is still time to enact BTW.

So here's some food for thought on the subject:

Most see this as just another attempt to "protect" the volunteers. Well yes of course it is about protecting volunteers, but it is also about protecting all of Stamford's FFs and those we serve.

Much has been made of this as being a way for volunteers to maintain the status quo. It isn't about the status quo, it's about offering a voice for all the involved parties at the upper echelons of the administration divorced from politics for all "sides". Yes such a Commission would protect volunteers from a Mayor, like Malloy, who wants to destroy them, but guess what, it would also protect our career brothers from a future Mayor who wants to emasculate them as well. It is just as feasible that a Mayor could be elected who, being "fiscally responsible" aka New London and other towns, looks to cut jobs, "save money" and make a name for themself. Remember as envisioned thus far the Mayor will appoint the Dir. of PSH&W, the Fire Chief and the expanded Fire Commission and it's not a real stretch to imagine them all being lackeys as they have at times been in the past. It quite conceivable that down the road it will be the FD becoming the foil when a villian is needed, and with the volunteers "contained" and no longer "the problem" who's left?. Well I think you can figure that out. Remember under Malloy had the Charter not existed in it's present form, there would be no volunteers now...and as appealing as that may be to some the very same axe could easily swing the other way onto the necks of our career brethren. So with no avenue for appeals or recourse and political hacks and cronies making the decisions, it's a could very well be a done deal. And while it is true they offer a level of protection, ultimately CBA's only go so far....as many a dept has found out. Both "sides" in this have alot to protect and both need a means in which to do so. Both also bring much to the table...all the better if they have a venue in which to do so together.

In the end a cautionary word...careful what you wish for, you just might get it.....and realize it only when the knife is lodged firmly in your back

.

Edited June 26, 2012 by FFPCogs

[FD828 77]

Under Malloy, couldn't all the volunteer departments have made the same agreement as Glenbrook did? Make sure I get this right... They would still have the volunteer department (building, apparatus and equipment), still have their funding, still be able to respond on all calls, still train, still be in command of all calls in their district (if the chief responds of course), still recruit and retain members AND have a fully staffed crew to respond immediately for ALL emergencies in those districts that they are sworn to protect?????? After all that I can see how Malloy was trying to abolish the volunteers!

[sqd47bfd 20]

Under Malloy, couldn't all the volunteer departments have made the same agreement as Glenbrook did? Make sure I get this right... They would still have the volunteer department (building, apparatus and equipment), still have their funding, still be able to respond on all calls, still train, still be in command of all calls in their district (if the chief responds of course), still recruit and retain members AND have a fully staffed crew to respond immediately for ALL emergencies in those districts that they are sworn to protect?????? After all that I can see how Malloy was trying to abolish the volunteers!

Malloy held a gun to the heads of the volunteer departments, and wanted them to become party to an agreement with a LOT of important details left out, to be "worked out" after the agreement was in place. NOBODY does business this way. It was a power grab using the excuse of $500k in overtime as the catalyst.

[CTFF 65]

Malloy held a gun to the heads of the volunteer departments, and wanted them to become party to an agreement with a LOT of important details left out, to be "worked out" after the agreement was in place. NOBODY does business this way. It was a power grab using the excuse of $500k in overtime as the catalyst.

After thousand of posts, on a few boards it seems we are back to the same spot.

I can see your point of view in regards to Malloy. I'd argue the SVFD signed plan also has many important details left out and to ME that is proof the volunteers are fine with doing business in this manner. Of course the "SFRD Plan" has not had the opportunity to be openly discussed either.

The ability to resolve the issue is going to come to a public vote via charter change.

A novel concept would be coming up with a plan all could live with and asking the public to support that with a vote in regards to charter change.

[SageVigiles 1,194]

A novel concept would be coming up with a plan all could live with and asking the public to support that with a vote in regards to charter change.

Excuse me good sir, just who do you think you are injecting something like logic into a discussion such as this??? For shame...

[FFPCogs 863]

Well I'm having a little trouble with my computer at the moment so I can't quote, but the point is I agree 100% with CTFF. The problem has been and it seems remains how do we get to building a plan that we can all live with. For my money it involves input from all of us since no one else seems to want to move forward. Yes we are all nothing but small cogs (no pun as I anything but small) in the wheel, but many voices usually have an impact far greater than a few.

On another note it is possible for SFRD and volunteers to come together as this article illustrates:

http://stamford.patc...#photo-10462222

Let me just say that although we have our disagreements, we at BFD, all of us, repect and value our colleagues from SFRD, the service they provide and the dedication in providing it that we share. So on behalf of the BFD thanks to all who attended. Hopefully this will be the first of many such events.

Edited June 28, 2012 by FFPCogs

[sqd47bfd 20]

After thousand of posts, on a few boards it seems we are back to the same spot.

I can see your point of view in regards to Malloy. I'd argue the SVFD signed plan also has many important details left out and to ME that is proof the volunteers are fine with doing business in this manner. Of course the "SFRD Plan" has not had the opportunity to be openly discussed either.

The ability to resolve the issue is going to come to a public vote via charter change.

A novel concept would be coming up with a plan all could live with and asking the public to support that with a vote in regards to charter change.

And, your argument is a valid one. The fact that the SVFD plan has basically gone in the toilet reflects this fact. The "SFRD plan" has merits, but it's flaw is that Chief Brown was asked to come up with a cost neutral plan, and this is unfair to him if the SVFD plan did not have the same constraints. By hook or by crook the charter change should put an end to this debacle, hoping to see a new era in Stamford's fire service with a plan all can live with.

[lad45der 78]

That was a very nice affair last night. Congratulations to all of belltowns members for their efforts in those two calls ..

Thank you for inviting us as well.

Mark Kuhar

Sfrd Rescue 1 group 4