Update on Stamford Merger

[FFPCogs 863]

Pete:

I’ll withhold comment for now, but as an FYI and clarification:

The SAFER application that was submitted by Turn of River Officials was completed at the end of August 2013, signed on 08/30/13.

That would place the submission 9 months AFTER City residents overwhelmingly voted for the charter changes.

Stay tuned, this will get interesting.

Cap,

I realize the vote was clear and if that had been it that would be it. But that is not what happened. Once the challenge was entertained by the courts the Charter revision was in limbo until the judge ruled in mid December...which was after the application was submitted. Now don't get the wrong idea here, I'm not commenting one way or the other on the validity of the submission, I'm simply stating that when that submission was made there was no Charter change in effect (technically speaking) so ToR was still an independent entity free to secure such a grant. With the judges decision that state of affairs has since changed, although he did find their management agreement is still valid as did judge Tobin previously, so it will be interesting indeed to see how this all plays out

Edited February 24, 2014 by FFPCogs

[Monty 35]

I'm no lawyer - perhaps someone might admit it and clear things up. But ... did the courts put any kind of stay on the change? You hear in the press about challenges and in some cases the new laws are in force until the court decides, in other they are on hold until the court decides (eg Gay Marriage in Utah) the case.

This sounds like more money for some lawyers somewhere

[x152 179]

I really don’t believe debating the dating or timing is the biggest issue at stake here.

[kpelley 0]

_{The issue with the application has nothing to do with the Charter. It's about the lies and very relevant information left out on purpose. As with the last TOR FEMA grant, a lot of the same misinformation was given. Let us not forget the almighty management agreement TOR loves to hold up, all new hires must come off the current City hiring list.}

[FFPCogs 863]

_{The issue with the application has nothing to do with the Charter. It's about the lies and very relevant information left out on purpose. As with the last TOR FEMA grant, a lot of the same misinformation was given. Let us not forget the almighty management agreement TOR loves to hold up, all new hires must come off the current City hiring list.}

Well if in fact a fraudulent submission was made then I'm sure the proper authority will be informed, if they haven't been already.

[FFPCogs 863]

This sounds like more money for some lawyers somewhere

Yep..and they're the only real winners here

[TRex 9]

I know a thing or two about how the grant process works. One of the courses for the B.S. degree in Emerg. Mang.,was all about FEMA and the grant process. All I can provide at this point other than the new non matching funding requirements is that a panel of "experts" sits and applies their criteria to the answers provided on the app. and in the explanation narrative. I seriously doubt that any claims are actually verified given the enormity of the number of requests submitted. One thing does remain certain though, there will be an accounting of the dollars at the end of the process and that at times is the main concern of the Fed. Therefore, only the bean counters will verify just the numbers, unless of course a complaint is filed. I being a federal tax payer would certainly hope that money is going to places where it actually as needed.

I am having a difficult time understanding how the city collectively has been successful in getting what amounts to back to back SAFERs! I believe there is a question on the application that asks if there has been any other recent grants awarded for that jurisdiction. The last SAFER which was just over a year ago included 8 fire fighters to additionally staff the two engines that primarily respond and are stationed in that district. Does anyone believe they would have been successful if the expert panel knew this fact?

Yes ladies, that is correct. Two fully staffed 24/7 career units, backed by a large support system within the city including the other volunteer companies. I can only imagine that they answered no, otherwise I highly doubt they would have been successful, or perhaps they would have. I wonder if their application indicated this fact any where within it. If not, it might not be a lie, but certainly a misrepresentation. I too am no lawyer, but a taxpayer concerned about money be thrown where it is not needed. Kudos to there grant writer. I am told he is a grant guru. Imagine Cogs, if all of this talent were being bridled and being directed for the greater good of ALL, and not just for ToR! Was any of the personnel offered to Belltown, or Long Ridge?

P.S. Does anyone know of any other CT department that received any SAFER money. As best as I could tell, ToR was the only one.

[FFPCogs 863]

I know a thing or two about how the grant process works. One of the courses for the B.S. degree in Emerg. Mang.,was all about FEMA and the grant process. All I can provide at this point other than the new non matching funding requirements is that a panel of "experts" sits and applies their criteria to the answers provided on the app. and in the explanation narrative. I seriously doubt that any claims are actually verified given the enormity of the number of requests submitted. One thing does remain certain though, there will be an accounting of the dollars at the end of the process and that at times is the main concern of the Fed. Therefore, only the bean counters will verify just the numbers, unless of course a complaint is filed. I being a federal tax payer would certainly hope that money is going to places where it actually as needed.

I am having a difficult time understanding how the city collectively has been successful in getting what amounts to back to back SAFERs! I believe there is a question on the application that asks if there has been any other recent grants awarded for that jurisdiction. The last SAFER which was just over a year ago included 8 fire fighters to additionally staff the two engines that primarily respond and are stationed in that district. Does anyone believe they would have been successful if the expert panel knew this fact?

Yes ladies, that is correct. Two fully staffed 24/7 career units, backed by a large support system within the city including the other volunteer companies. I can only imagine that they answered no, otherwise I highly doubt they would have been successful, or perhaps they would have. I wonder if their application indicated this fact any where within it. If not, it might not be a lie, but certainly a misrepresentation. I too am no lawyer, but a taxpayer concerned about money be thrown where it is not needed. Kudos to there grant writer. I am told he is a grant guru. Imagine Cogs, if all of this talent were being bridled and being directed for the greater good of ALL, and not just for ToR! Was any of the personnel offered to Belltown, or Long Ridge?

P.S. Does anyone know of any other CT department that received any SAFER money. As best as I could tell, ToR was the only one.

T,

I'm must admit that I am somewhat stupefied myself that ToR was able to secure this grant at this time, but I guess their grant writer does do one hell of a job since he has a very successful track record. Beyond that I haven't seen the application so I can't comment on it's content. I have no idea, nor will I speculate on how this will play out, but I can say that for me personally I would oppose placing career members in our firehouse at this time, be they ToR hires or anyone else's. This is not out of any misguided anti-career bias (remember I too get paid to fight fires for a living) but more so because at this point in time we are doing well as we are. And I also agree that if all the talent we have on hand were to put their efforts into more productive goals, we would all be much better off for it, but unfortunately I don't think we're there just yet.

[TRex 9]

C,

I will agree. Your organization certainly does set a good example of how it should work as a 100 % volunteer operation.

[FFPCogs 863]

C,

I will agree. Your organization certainly does set a good example of how it should work as a 100 % volunteer operation.

Thank you T, that recognition means alot to me and I know my colleagues at BFD appreciate it as well.

[x152 179]

Pete:

I think we will both agree that “if something appears to be too good to be true....then it probably is not...."

In this case, far from it.

TR:

I would disagree with the idea that the author of the grant should be complimented.

Success should be determined by sincerity and accuracy. What I read was completely disingenuous with regard to the fire service response system that has been in place for more than five years.

[TRex 9]

X,

I would agree that success should be based on sincerity and accuracy; in a perfect world. I believe in that principle. However, if we are to be truly realistic the bottom line is getting the grant, at least for them. If they were sincere and factual in their motivations, they would not have received the award. It irks me that another department probably in CT that sincerely and accurately need the funding may have been denied it.

Their grant writer is successful. Politicians are successful. It is all about perceptions, not truth. However, isn't that the goal, success? I only wish at times that my goal were to be always successful. I am to a fault though, striving to be sincere and accurate. At least as fellow fire fighters and leaders among each other I consider myself successful by being sincere and accurate. There can be no other way in our line of work. Agreed?

[FFPCogs 863]

Like the energizer bunny, it keeps going and going and going.......

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/Federal-grant-complicates-fire-merger-talks-5321301.php

[FFPCogs 863]

Here's the latest if anyone cares....

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/City-Turn-of-River-settle-litigation-5425618.php

[FireMedic049 597]

Here's the latest if anyone cares....

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/City-Turn-of-River-settle-litigation-5425618.php

I haven't read the actual agreement yet, but based on the content of the article, on the surface this agreement certainly seems to run counter to the single fire department, single fire chief model voted for in the charter revision. Allowing the volunteer organization to have control over the assignment and un-assignment of career personnel at their fire stations is mind-boggling when trying to create an integrated, city-wide combination fire department. The concept of the supposed top dog of the city-wide fire department's (Fire Chief Brown) decisions being subject to veto by his subordinates is simply ridiculous.

[lad45der 78]

Come along kids let's take this time to go learn how to force doors. There's nothing to see here,let the adults duke this out.

[FFPCogs 863]

And now the latest installment from the riveting, edge of your seat drama that is Stamford's Fire Service:

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/Hiring-of-volunteer-firefighters-sparks-5536785.php

[Dinosaur 844]

And now the latest installment from the riveting, edge of your seat drama that is Stamford's Fire Service:

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/Hiring-of-volunteer-firefighters-sparks-5536785.php

Help a brother out here. Did they "hire" volunteers or "hire" paid/career firefighters?

[Bnechis 3,961]

In the short term, this will help 8 volunteer firefighters become career firefighters, but in the long term it removes 8 volunteers from the volunteer service.

Since it is illegal (federal law) for them to volunteer in Stamford once hired. This becomes one more nail in the coffin of the volunteer fire service in Stamford.

[CTFF 65]

Help a brother out here. Did they "hire" volunteers or "hire" paid/career firefighters?

The city didn't hire, they "promoted" volunteers to paid/career positions. To be promoted you had to be a volunteer within Stamford and in good standing, just apply and an interview. No written test, NO CPAT prior to hiring and you moved ahead of everyone sitting on the active civil service list.

[TimesUp 148]

How many volunteers interviewed for these positions that were filled?

[Bnechis 3,961]

How many volunteers interviewed for these positions that were filled?

Article said that 44 applied.

[16fire5 693]

The article also said Turn of River had so much say because the 24 new guys are going to work in their firehouse. I'm guessing this is a mix up since no one would put 24 probies in the same firehouse at the same time. Wouldn't you spread them out?

[FFPCogs 863]

Help a brother out here. Did they "hire" volunteers or "hire" paid/career firefighters?

40+ current volunteers were given interviews by the Fire Commission, 8 of those were "promoted" to the career section and paid status pending the successful completion of CPAT and a 13 week local academy.

[gamewell45 258]

If it was done legally and according to the article it was, then there should be no issue other then the decrease of volunteer numbers in the affected fire district which obviously will become the topic of discussion if the numbers of volunteers continue to shrink.

[FFPCogs 863]

In the short term, this will help 8 volunteer firefighters become career firefighters, but in the long term it removes 8 volunteers from the volunteer service.

Since it is illegal (federal law) for them to volunteer in Stamford once hired. This becomes one more nail in the coffin of the volunteer fire service in Stamford.

Yes I would say that will be the likely outcome, at least for ToR. Now whether or not this ultimately helps or hinders any of the other local volunteer departments remains to be seen. There is the possibility that the other VFDs may see a surge of sorts in membership if some of the remaining ToR members become disgruntled or redundant and seek to serve elsewhere.

[CTFF 65]

The article also said Turn of River had so much say because the 24 new guys are going to work in their firehouse. I'm guessing this is a mix up since no one would put 24 probies in the same firehouse at the same time. Wouldn't you spread them out?

The 8 backdoor "promotion" positions are assigned to the tor district unless they ask for a transfer, tor doesn't care where the legit tested firefighters go.

[FireMedic049 597]

The article also said Turn of River had so much say because the 24 new guys are going to work in their firehouse. I'm guessing this is a mix up since no one would put 24 probies in the same firehouse at the same time. Wouldn't you spread them out?

No mix up. The grant was awarded to TOR to hire 24 FFs. As such, the new hires have to be assigned to work there.

If I understood the article correctly, these new FFs will be on the city payroll, which will make them city employees. They will also be members of the existing firefighters' local. This will create a situation where you'll have two groups of employees in the same job classification, performing the same job, for the same employer, represented by the same union, but receiving different compensation packages. Maybe it's the Executive Union Officer in me talking, but this is going to be a mess!

[Bnechis 3,961]

No mix up. The grant was awarded to TOR to hire 24 FFs. As such, the new hires have to be assigned to work there.

If I understood the article correctly, these new FFs will be on the city payroll, which will make them city employees. They will also be members of the existing firefighters' local. This will create a situation where you'll have two groups of employees in the same job classification, performing the same job, for the same employer, represented by the same union, but receiving different compensation packages. Maybe it's the Executive Union Officer in me talking, but this is going to be a mess!

The article indicated that the city was going to make up the difference in the compensation the TOR failed to ask SAFER for.

[FireMedic049 597]

The article indicated that the city was going to make up the difference in the compensation the TOR failed to ask SAFER for.

I don't know. The article is ambiguous at best regarding that. The TOR person is pretty much saying the grant will cover all of them due to paying a lower level of total compensation (specifically benefits) than current city firefighters. The PSD for the city is saying the grant won't cover all of the costs and will make up the difference from "(department) savings from having hired the firefighters", but is that the city department or TOR? Additionally, it's not clear if the difference that will be made up is the amount needed to provide compensation equal to that of the existing career firefighters or the "reduced" compensation level that the TOR person alluded to.

Considering that TOR put in for the grant independently and openly stated the intent to pay the grant hires a lower compensation package compared to the city firefighters, it's probably not a case of them asking for "not enough" money from SAFER.