Update on Stamford Merger

[Guest 786XP]

Did anyone pick-up on this quote from the last article:

<City Rep. Joseph Coppola, R-15, a former volunteer chief of the Belltown Fire Department, said he was "pleasantly surprised" to hear of the plan. He said he believes it can work, and said he plans to encourage support among his fellow lawmakers.

"This is an opportunity to have the volunteers still active in this city," Coppola said.>

A plan to add 61 new career jobs to a new tax district Fire Department with a budget that will surely be between $5-10 million annually, is "an opportunity to have the volunteers still active in this city". That is quite a sum of potential money to spend annually to keep volunteers still responding in the city.

Mr. Coppola and his party member's voting record is quite conservative and they were vehement in their latest budget go-round a trying to keep the tax increase as close to zero as possible. This budget also cut hundreds of City jobs, ceased projects, and ended certain services.

Now, it is ok to create a brand new tax, fund a new "volunteer" fire department with 60+ new career positions and an uncalculated potential budget?

Not sure about you, but sounds somewhat hypocritical to me, or maybe he misspoke?

PS - Barry, dead on with that assessment, thank you for your wisdom.

[dragonrescue 28]

Did anyone pick-up on this quote from the last article:

<City Rep. Joseph Coppola, R-15, a former volunteer chief of the Belltown Fire Department, said he was "pleasantly surprised" to hear of the plan. He said he believes it can work, and said he plans to encourage support among his fellow lawmakers.

"This is an opportunity to have the volunteers still active in this city," Coppola said.>

A plan to add 61 new career jobs to a new tax district Fire Department with a budget that will surely be between $5-10 million annually, is "an opportunity to have the volunteers still active in this city". That is quite a sum of potential money to spend annually to keep volunteers still responding in the city.

Mr. Coppola and his party member's voting record is quite conservative and they were vehement in their latest budget go-round a trying to keep the tax increase as close to zero as possible. This budget also cut hundreds of City jobs, ceased projects, and ended certain services.

Now, it is ok to create a brand new tax, fund a new "volunteer" fire department with 60+ new career positions and an uncalculated potential budget?

Not sure about you, but sounds somewhat hypocritical to me, or maybe he misspoke?

PS - Barry, dead on with that assessment, thank you for your wisdom.

No, he didn't misspeak......HYPOCRITICAL is more like it.....

[T. John 21]

A new website is now online, presented by Stamford Local 786.

http://www.stamfordfiretruths.org/

"The purpose of this site is to help educate and inform Stamford residents on pertinent matters related to firefighting, technical fire science issues and responses to emergencies within the community. We encourage Stamfordites to utilize this site to increase your ability to participate in the current dialogue about fire protection."

They are also on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/FireTruths

[Geppetto 31]

Fire officials concerned about new fire plan

06/09/2010

TOM EVANS

Stamford Times

STAMFORD -- The proposed new plan for fire services in the city, including the creation of a new taxing district and up to $300 tax increases for residents, has fire officials wondering how the money will be spent....

http://www.thestamfordtimes.com/story/487565

[FFPCogs 863]

Fire officials concerned about new fire plan

06/09/2010

TOM EVANS

Stamford Times

http://www.thestamfo...om/story/487565

Interesting article but not at all suprising.

That Mr. Keatley is upset because "his organization has been left out of the conversation from the beginning" is an erroneous statement being that he did address the Task Force on numerous occasions prior to the Mayor's decision and therefore was not "left out of the conversation". Not only that but he and others had absolutely no qualms about the VFDs being "left out" when our previous Mayor inflicted his "plan" on us all, starting this debacle. As far as him negotiating for the labor force, he has the right and duty to do so for his union which is SFRD, not those of this new entity as of yet. To speak on anything having to do with any new firefighters for the SVFD is to put the cart before the horse. Firstly because there is no labor force of the SVFD as of yet for him to speak for and secondly because when or if there is one they may not want to be affiliated with the Local 786 or the IAFF, nor do they have to be.

It is also rather interetsting to hear Chief Passero voice his concerns now, after a plan has emerged instead of during the task force meetings when he had ample opportunity to do so. For that to have happened though he would have had to attend more than one meeting. His lack of input is his own and one he should not be lamenting now, he had his chance to speak. So come what may it is his responsibility for what happens to Glenbrook.

There is of course another factor that seems to be overlooked here by many detractors and that is the fact that by the City Charter each of the VFDs is an independent entity that can do what is in their own best interest. Now many might not like or may even scoff at that fact but it is a fact just the same, and one that Mayor Pavia and the rest of us have to contend with and accept, like it or not.

Lastly I am not so sure that we are talking about a tax increase, but rather a redistribution of taxes. By this I mean it is quite possible that the cost of fire protection in the SVFD district will be paid directly to the district as it is in other cities and towns that have a fire tax district, but that cost will be deducted from the overall property taxes paid to the City. In other words if I pay $5500 a year in property taxes now to the City of Stamford which then distributes the money between services, in the future I will pay the City $5200 and the SVFD $300 per year. My overall taxes will be the same, only it's distribution will be different. This how the fire tax had been envisioned by some of us when we first brought it up, although it may be that this will change as circumstances do.

Take care and

Stay Safe

Cogs

____________

Peter Cogliano

FF/ T.O.

Belltown Fire Dept

currently working with Dyncorp/LOGCAP IV

Camp Leatherneck

Afghanistan

[Geppetto 31]

Mayor Pavia: How the new Fire Department Plan works

Stamford Advocate

June 10, 2010

As you may know, the city of Stamford has been hamstrung by a disjointed fire service for nearly 20 years. Shortly after taking office, I created a task force to resolve this issue and last week we presented our recommendation to consolidate the volunteer fire departments into one force, the Stamford Volunteer Fire Department. I want to give you my direct perspective on why this is the best next step, and how and why it will work....

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/default/article/Mayor-Pavia-How-the-new-Fire-Department-Plan-519489.php

[FFPCogs 863]

Mayor Pavia: How the new Fire Department Plan works

Stamford Advocate

June 10, 2010

http://www.stamforda...Plan-519489.php

Thank you Mayor Pavia!!

[FD828 77]

Thank you Mayor Pavia!!

So when all the volunteers or at least the active ones are hired... who is left to volunteer? As for hiring non-civil service firefighters.... Anyone remember the fiasco in Rye Brook?????? That was a GGGRRREEAATT success....NOT. I also wonder if the new SVFD will be calling SFRD for mutual aid when the 8000 sq ft mansion is burning to the ground.

[gamewell45 258]

So when all the volunteers or at least the active ones are hired... who is left to volunteer?

Not everyone wants to be a career firefighter.

[redddogg317 1]

Interesting article but not at all suprising.

That Mr. Keatley is upset because "his organization has been left out of the conversation from the beginning" is an erroneous statement being that he did address the Task Force on numerous occasions prior to the Mayor's decision and therefore was not "left out of the conversation". Not only that but he and others had absolutely no qualms about the VFDs being "left out" when our previous Mayor inflicted his "plan" on us all, starting this debacle. As far as him negotiating for the labor force, he has the right and duty to do so for his union which is SFRD, not those of this new entity as of yet. To speak on anything having to do with any new firefighters for the SVFD is to put the cart before the horse. Firstly because there is no labor force of the SVFD as of yet for him to speak for and secondly because when or if there is one they may not want to be affiliated with the Local 786 or the IAFF, nor do they have to be.

It is also rather interetsting to hear Chief Passero voice his concerns now, after a plan has emerged instead of during the task force meetings when he had ample opportunity to do so. For that to have happened though he would have had to attend more than one meeting. His lack of input is his own and one he should not be lamenting now, he had his chance to speak. So come what may it is his responsibility for what happens to Glenbrook.

There is of course another factor that seems to be overlooked here by many detractors and that is the fact that by the City Charter each of the VFDs is an independent entity that can do what is in their own best interest. Now many might not like or may even scoff at that fact but it is a fact just the same, and one that Mayor Pavia and the rest of us have to contend with and accept, like it or not.

Lastly I am not so sure that we are talking about a tax increase, but rather a redistribution of taxes. By this I mean it is quite possible that the cost of fire protection in the SVFD district will be paid directly to the district as it is in other cities and towns that have a fire tax district, but that cost will be deducted from the overall property taxes paid to the City. In other words if I pay $5500 a year in property taxes now to the City of Stamford which then distributes the money between services, in the future I will pay the City $5200 and the SVFD $300 per year. My overall taxes will be the same, only it's distribution will be different. This how the fire tax had been envisioned by some of us when we first brought it up, although it may be that this will change as circumstances do.

Take care and

Stay Safe

Cogs

____________

Peter Cogliano

FF/ T.O.

Belltown Fire Dept

currently working with Dyncorp/LOGCAP IV

Camp Leatherneck

Afghanistan

First Pete let's set the record straight on many points you mentioned here:

1. President Keatley's statement was right on point. We were NOT involved in any converaations EVER with Mayor Pavia/Larabina at all. Being asked to speak to the panel ONCE during the 2 month time and being asked to give a possible legal opinion from the union's point of view while "sitting in the audience" can no way shape or form be deemed as being involved in such an important matter that directly affects the possible lively hood of our members.

2. About the Volunteer Chief's being "left out" of the contract merger negotiations, that is not true statement. All parties were at the table in the begining of the negotiations, yes I was there ( unlike this task force debacle and the union never making it to the table). It was not until TOR filed their lawsuit that they were asked to leave the table for legal reasons. Now the rest of the negotiaions may have not been handled 100% the right way BUT at least the Volunteer chiefs were involved, unlike we are NOT INVOLVED now. So if this Mayor is supposed to come in and be the all mighty savior and do things in the city the right way..or as everyone likes to say the opposite of Mayor Malloy then why didn't he?? Could it be to pay back political favors from the volunteer departments..maybe..and if this is true just how different is he from all the accusations made against Malloy. Just like I tell my 5 year old son when he copies his cousins bad habits "two wrongs don't make it right"

3. I'll stick up for Chief Passero a little bit also. We all see what's happening. Glenbrook is being punished for doing what they considered the right thing. Acknowledging they needed the help due to lack of volunteers for a proper response, why else was Glenbrook not included in the "plan"?? and should he or a Glenbrook represantative been included on the panel also? Maybe

Edited June 12, 2010 by redddogg317

[redddogg317 1]

Not everyone wants to be a career firefighter.

That maybe true if not for the fact that most of the young volunteers that are on the rosters of a few of the volunteer dep. in the city took our recent test. So once again if this BS happens and all of the kids are hired what will happen to the volunteer back up AGAIN??

Feels like I just jumped into a time machine and I do not like the trip...conductor can I have a refund please!!!!!

[Bnechis 3,961]

To speak on anything having to do with any new firefighters for the SVFD is to put the cart before the horse. Firstly because there is no labor force of the SVFD as of yet for him to speak for and secondly because when or if there is one they may not want to be affiliated with the Local 786 or the IAFF, nor do they have to be.

While it will be there right not to organized, it is highly unlikely that they will not. With the history of employee abuse that has been previously reported in regards to career firefighters working in one or more of the VFD's in Stamford I would bet they will be union represented. Now what happens if they chose to be represented by Local 786? This will most likely creat additional friction between the managment of the SCFD (thats Stamford Combination Fire Department - Lets call it what it is not what we hope the citizens will think it is).

Now how can having multiple barganing units in one union cause a problem in Stamford? Generally the courts and arbitrators look at similar "units" for comparison and these 2 will be prime. So the unit in the north proves that the community can "afford" a 5% raise instead of the 3% that the south got. Next contract the south says, they are the comparison unit and they automatically get 5% and the trend continues. This can drive up the costs in the same way that Nassau & Suffolk PD go back and forth to be the highest paid PD's in the nation (different unions, but they use the comparison).

What happens if the volunteer numbers stay poor and the union then claims that there members in the north are being placed in an unsafe situation compared to those in the south. The courts could again could say make the conditions the same. So you could have the tail wagging the dog.

Lets say this works in the 1st few years, what happens at any point if the vollunteers continue to drop off (as is the local, regional and nation trend)? at some point you will be forced into the exact same situation you have today.

Two (or actually 3) Fire Departments in Stamford is better than 6 but you are only pushing the fight from 1776 off till 1861. At some point in the future everyone will pay for not truly resolving the problem.

"those who fail to learn from history are doomed to relive it"

[dragonrescue 28]

Not everyone wants to be a career firefighter.

Firefighting is not a hobby!

[dragonrescue 28]

While it will be there right not to organized, it is highly unlikely that they will not. With the history of employee abuse that has been previously reported in regards to career firefighters working in one or more of the VFD's in Stamford I would bet they will be union represented. Now what happens if they chose to be represented by Local 786? This will most likely creat additional friction between the managment of the SCFD (thats Stamford Combination Fire Department - Lets call it what it is not what we hope the citizens will think it is).

Now how can having multiple barganing units in one union cause a problem in Stamford? Generally the courts and arbitrators look at similar "units" for comparison and these 2 will be prime. So the unit in the north proves that the community can "afford" a 5% raise instead of the 3% that the south got. Next contract the south says, they are the comparison unit and they automatically get 5% and the trend continues. This can drive up the costs in the same way that Nassau & Suffolk PD go back and forth to be the highest paid PD's in the nation (different unions, but they use the comparison).

What happens if the volunteer numbers stay poor and the union then claims that there members in the north are being placed in an unsafe situation compared to those in the south. The courts could again could say make the conditions the same. So you could have the tail wagging the dog.

Lets say this works in the 1st few years, what happens at any point if the vollunteers continue to drop off (as is the local, regional and nation trend)? at some point you will be forced into the exact same situation you have today.

Two (or actually 3) Fire Departments in Stamford is better than 6 but you are only pushing the fight from 1776 off till 1861. At some point in the future everyone will pay for not truly resolving the problem.

"those who fail to learn from history are doomed to relive it"

Great points Barry, but you're missing the "Big Picture". This will be some one else's problem when it falls apart. This mayor will be long GONE! He really doesn't give a crap about long term........POLITICAL FAVORS at it's best!

[Guest capnlinus]

Honestly, what I hear from many of the volunteer department members on this and another forum is not what I would expect I would hear from a group of FFs who purportedly have the best interest of the citizens in mind. And it just furthers my impression that this is a job and power grab by active volunteer members who wish to circumvent the civil service and CPAT process, and Union busting by the Mayor.

What I don't hear is "how do we improve response time and meet the national standard for FF and citizen safety?" What I don't hear is "how do we integrate operations so that we provide the highest level of service to our city?"

I am truly incredulous. Where is the concern for the brothers and sisters who may lose their livelihood? This is their career, not some fun hobby that they play at when it is convenient for them to saunter down to the firehouse and take in a run. Where is the concern for their families? Where is the concern for the citizens of Stamford?

Where is the concern for the family in Long Ridge who lost their home in part because of a command decision made by a Chief Officer that was so clearly based on turf protection over safety? Where is the concern for the firefighters, both career and volunteer, who were placed in greater danger because of that decision? Where is the outcry for a review of that call, the urgency to find out if those 3 firefighters were injured as a result of that decision? Where is the urgency to, while not placing blame, correct the system so that this NEVER happens again?!

And please, is there anyone here who believes this Mayor will keep his promise not to lay off city firefighters? Or that this isn't political retribution against SFRD, Local 786, and Glenbrook FD for working with Mayor Malloy to fix this mess? If so, then you should possibly consider booking a vacation this summer on the Gulf Coast. After buying stock in BP.

To the volunteers in Stamford, understand clearly I am NOT anti volunteer. I have met many volunteers from all over the state, including Stamford, that are dedicated firefighters. Anyone who knows me or has had a class with me will tell you that my primary focus, like many of you, is keeping firefighters safe. Simple as that.

But what I can not stomach, what I find infuriating, is the use of politics and hidden agendas that in the end will risk civilian and firefighter safety needlessly, and risk the careers of upwards of 60 dedicated, trained city firefighters.

I am forced to wonder, Cogs and other Stamford volunteers, how long your support for this plan would continue if the decision to staff this new "volunteer" department was changed from current active volunteers to be one where SFRD firefighters are transferred to this new city department. How can people say this is NOT a job grab by the Volunteer departments and Union busting by the Mayor?

If it seems to you that over the course of this debate I have lost patience for the arguments of those who think the Mayor's plan, or anything resembling the current system, is acceptable you would be correct. I firmly support the idea of one fire department. Like it or not, the Assistant Chief's plan of 1 department, rejected by the Mayor, is far and away the best one presented.

I work full time for a fire department that is a combination of career and paid on call firefighters. We work together very well, one department, under one Chief. The outlying stations have not lost their identities. The job gets done. And we provide the same level of protection for every citizen in the town. We aren't perfect. We have our struggles like every organization. But we work together, under 1 system.

We are not building rockets here. There is no valid reason why Stamford, Connecticut's 4th largest city, should not have 1 fire department under 1 Chief. None at all.

[FFPCogs 863]

I am forced to wonder, Cogs and other Stamford volunteers, how long your support for this plan would continue if the decision to staff this new "volunteer" department was changed from current active volunteers to be one where SFRD firefighters are transferred to this new city department. How can people say this is NOT a job grab by the Volunteer departments and Union busting by the Mayor?

All have brought up valid concerns/opinions which firmly support their point of view and add to the discussion.

Glenn

In reference to the above I presented an option which did just that (staffed each VFD house with SFRD personnel) to the task force, so I would and do support SFRD people staffing the firehouses so as to ensure no jobs are lost. But only under certain conditions, the major ones being daytime only career staffing and a unified command based on standardized training/testing which includes volunteer officers as equals, not subordinates. This option is well worn on these pages and almost universally derided here and elsewhere, but the fact is given the proper support it can and would work...just as it does elsewhere. But that is not the direction anyone seems to have wanted so now we have what we have and it is time to get down to the business of making it work.

I have also noticed that in the defense of Mr. Keatley's comments and in the repeated derision of the Mayor's plan most here have conveniently left out that there is a not only a valid but a legal reason that things have taken the direction they have...it's called the City Charter, and as much as some want to ignore it, that document (as outdated as it is) has dictated much of what course the solution had to take.

Stay Safe

Cogs

____________

Peter Cogliano

FF/ T.O.

Belltown Fire Dept

currently working with Dyncorp/LOGCAP IV

Camp Leatherneck

Afghanistan

Edited June 13, 2010 by FFPCogs

[FireMedic049 597]

I have also noticed that in the defense of Mr. Keatley's comments and in the repeated derision of the Mayor's plan most here have conveniently left out that there is a not only a valid but a legal reason that things have taken the direction they have...it's called the City Charter, and as much as some want to ignore it, that document (as outdated as it is) has dictated much of what course the solution had to take.

And the City Charter can't be modified?

[Guest capnlinus]

And the City Charter can't be modified?

That would be my question also. Doesn't the Mayor's disast....oh, plan, require a charter revision anyway, because of the change in districts and so forth?

Cogs,

As far as daytime only staffing. Unless the volunteers are going to commit to staffing duty shifts, how are they going to maintain the same level of service as would be provided during the day with the career firefighters manning the house?

[FFPCogs 863]

That would be my question also. Doesn't the Mayor's disast....oh, plan, require a charter revision anyway, because of the change in districts and so forth?

Yes it does, but the time to chart the course of that change has come and gone it would appear. All "sides" had the opportunity to put forth their "plans" and from them the Mayor made his decision. It may not be a solution that some want, it may not even be the best one, but it is the vision for the future that has been laid out. Let me just clarify that it may seem to many to be a step backwards, but to me it is a large leap forward if for no other reason than it calls for the operational standardization of all the VFDs sans Glenbrook (at this time). Anyone who has known me for more than a short time can attest to the fact that I and a few others put this operational consolidation idea on the table over 25 years ago, only to be dismissed as lunatics. To me this is a step that is long overdue and one that may one day in the not too distant future allow for the total and equal integration of all of Stamford's fire dept's into one unified service.

Cogs,

As far as daytime only staffing. Unless the volunteers are going to commit to staffing duty shifts, how are they going to maintain the same level of service as would be provided during the day with the career firefighters manning the house?

We've been around the block on this one more than a few times so I won't belabor the point with why I believe this to be a positive and necessary step. Truth be told daytime only career staffing is not even remotely possible without the commitment of the current and future volunteers of Stamford to night shifts to make it happen. That being said what this amount to is not so much a change in operations but rather a change in the culture of the volunteer fire service in Stamford. Now many people here (and elsewhere) have rightfully pointed out all the pitfalls as to why this is an impossibility, but they have refused to accept that this type of system does have a proven track record elsewhere and that that track record of success was built upon the very same foundations we have here. In our meetings with the Montgomery and PG County Chiefs (both paid and volunteer) on how their systems work we brought up all of the concerns and opinions against this idea...all of which existed there and all of which were addressed to create a workable integrated combination system...the cornerstone of which is volunteer staffing. That it can be done is not in question, if others will work towards it here is. My "job" as the major advocate of this approach is to continue to work towards making it a reality by utilizing facts and the experiences of others to broaden the horizons of people here. The goal....the hope...is that we can emulate the success of those workable systems without the trial and error they've already experienced.

Stay Safe

Cogs

Peter Cogliano

FF/ T.O.

Belltown Fire Dept

currently working with Dyncorp/LOGCAP IV

Camp Leatherneck

Afghanistan

Edited June 13, 2010 by FFPCogs

[FireMedic049 597]

Yes it does, but the time to chart the course of that change has come and gone it would appear. All "sides" had the opportunity to put forth their "plans" and from them the Mayor made his decision. It may not be a solution that some want, it may not even be the best one, but it is the vision for the future that has been laid out.

Your response comes across to me as saying that revising the charter to allow for a single FD wasn't a part of the proposals, that a decision has been made and we're sticking with it. It really doesn't answer our question as to why changing the charter to allow for the creation of a single FD didn't seem to be a viable option.

[FFPCogs 863]

Your response comes across to me as saying that revising the charter to allow for a single FD wasn't a part of the proposals, that a decision has been made and we're sticking with it. It really doesn't answer our question as to why changing the charter to allow for the creation of a single FD didn't seem to be a viable option.

To be quite honest given the right parameters I would wholeheartedly support a Charter revision to create one unified department. But having one FD where volunteer Chiefs are subordinate to career Captains and volunteer officers oversee only volunteer personnel and are subordinate to career firefighters is not a viable option and that is what was proposed. As has so often been said by many people here "you cannot have two chains of command on the fireground" and that is what we would've got...two commands. I can say with complete candor that unity of command is a concept I fully agree with and as offensive as it may be to some, to me if that means creating two departments and two seperate fire districts to achieve it, then so be it.

The simple truth is the only way that a truly integrated combination department can work is when all personnel meet the same standards regardless of affiliation for their positions...then there can be no discrepancy over who commands or controls what since all have met the same requirements for their positions. This among other things is what I proposed to the task force and it appears that this point at least, the standardization of requirements for all positions, will be a goal of this new entity and one I fully support.

Stay Safe

Cogs

_____________

Peter Cogliano

FF/ T.O.

Belltown Fire Dept

currently working with Dyncorp/LOGCAP IV

Camp Leatherneck

Afghanistan

[Guest capnlinus]

To be quite honest given the right parameters I would wholeheartedly support a Charter revision to create one unified department. But having one FD where volunteer Chiefs are subordinate to career Captains and volunteer officers oversee only volunteer personnel and are subordinate to career firefighters is not a viable option and that is what was proposed.

Why not? A career captain with years of experience and training should not be subordinate to a volunteer Chief simply because of some arbitrary rank. For example, take a career Captain 15, 16 years on the job in a busy city department. Say he has Fire Officer II or better, maybe a degree, and has been a career officer for 5-7 years. Yet he is supposed to take orders from a "Chief" (in the same department, not talking about mutual aid) who might have fire 1 or 2 and got his rank by being elected by his membership.

The scenario I just described to you is quite common in CT. If you think a volunteer should be giving a career officer orders, then that volunteer officer should damn well have the experience and certficates to match, and should have earned his position through the same type of competitive and fair testing process as career officers.

[junior215 0]

At this point it appears the 2 department option WILL pass and all will have to deal with it. I would like to pose several questions that I feel have not been addresed yet:

1. Who will be the IC at calls in North Stamford? Will there be a "chief" responding on all calls to take command or will it be the paid driver/FF?

2. Will the paid FF be compensated for performing supervisory duties on calls?

3. Is the Long Ridge Fire District being expanded because it is the only fire district that can hire WITHOUT going off the city list? Meaning they can hire whoever they want?

The last question is the one that is most interesting. The reason why the former paid drivers of TOR, Glenbrook and Belltown were able to be "merged" easily is because they were already employees of the city of Stamford (if my facts are straight)and voted to come to SFRD by a slim majority.

COGS, I know you have input so please clarify, if you know the answers. Thanks!

[FFPCogs 863]

Why not? A career captain with years of experience and training should not be subordinate to a volunteer Chief simply because of some arbitrary rank. For example, take a career Captain 15, 16 years on the job in a busy city department. Say he has Fire Officer II or better, maybe a degree, and has been a career officer for 5-7 years. Yet he is supposed to take orders from a "Chief" (in the same department, not talking about mutual aid) who might have fire 1 or 2 and got his rank by being elected by his membership.

The scenario I just described to you is quite common in CT. If you think a volunteer should be giving a career officer orders, then that volunteer officer should damn well have the experience and certficates to match, and should have earned his position through the same type of competitive and fair testing process as career officers.

Apparently you missed the second paragraph of my response so I'll reiterate it.

"The simple truth is the only way that a truly integrated combination department can work is when all personnel meet the same standards regardless of affiliation for their positions...then there can be no discrepancy over who commands or controls what since all have met the same requirements for their positions"

Such a scenario as the one I described above is possible for Stamford, in fact it is not only possible but working elsewhere and if I can influence matters in any way I will do my damnest to make it so. As far as experience goes there are some VFDs in CT that see more work and thus gain more experience than some career depts...the dept's in the Valley come to mind...so simply being a volunteer does not in and of itself preclude an officer from being a damn good one. Nor does being paid for 15 or 20 years but only going to one or two fires a year make you a good officer simply because you are paid. But those "exceptions" to the "rule" aside I fully agree that ALL requirements must be the same for ALL officers...and firefighters for that matter...period. I am not one who makes a distiction between career and volunteers based solely on their affiliation for I have met and worked with many great volunteer firefighters and ditto with a number of career lobs as well. People who take firefighting seriously and put the effort in to being the best they can be at it are simply firemen to me...whether we get paid to do it or not is irrelevant.

Stay Safe

Cogs

_____________

Peter Cogliano

FF/ T.O.

Belltown Fire Dept

currently working with Dyncorp/LOGCAP IV

Camp Leatherneck

Afghanistan

Edited June 14, 2010 by FFPCogs

[FFPCogs 863]

At this point it appears the 2 department option WILL pass and all will have to deal with it. I would like to pose several questions that I feel have not been addresed yet:

1. Who will be the IC at calls in North Stamford? Will there be a "chief" responding on all calls to take command or will it be the paid driver/FF?

2. Will the paid FF be compensated for performing supervisory duties on calls?

3. Is the Long Ridge Fire District being expanded because it is the only fire district that can hire WITHOUT going off the city list? Meaning they can hire whoever they want?

The last question is the one that is most interesting. The reason why the former paid drivers of TOR, Glenbrook and Belltown were able to be "merged" easily is because they were already employees of the city of Stamford (if my facts are straight)and voted to come to SFRD by a slim majority.

COGS, I know you have input so please clarify, if you know the answers. Thanks!

Junior I don't have the answers to these questions, only conjecture at this point but I, like everyone else I'm sure, am wondering the same things. What I do know is that your assesment of the "merging" of the former VFD employees is my understanding of how it went down as well. I would assume that any new hires would be employees of the to be created tax district as opposed to the City and may or may not be affiliated with 786 or the IAFF. My hunch is that there will be a CBU exclusively for the SVFD employees and that they will deal directly with the tax district or commission or whatever entity oversees the "new" department.

Stay Safe

Cogs

_____________

Peter Cogliano

FF/ T.O.

Belltown Fire Dept

currently working with Dyncorp/LOGCAP IV

Camp Leatherneck

Afghanistan

Edited June 14, 2010 by FFPCogs

[FireMedic049 597]

To be quite honest given the right parameters I would wholeheartedly support a Charter revision to create one unified department. But having one FD where volunteer Chiefs are subordinate to career Captains and volunteer officers oversee only volunteer personnel and are subordinate to career firefighters is not a viable option and that is what was proposed. As has so often been said by many people here "you cannot have two chains of command on the fireground" and that is what we would've got...two commands. I can say with complete candor that unity of command is a concept I fully agree with and as offensive as it may be to some, to me if that means creating two departments and two seperate fire districts to achieve it, then so be it.

The simple truth is the only way that a truly integrated combination department can work is when all personnel meet the same standards regardless of affiliation for their positions...then there can be no discrepancy over who commands or controls what since all have met the same requirements for their positions. This among other things is what I proposed to the task force and it appears that this point at least, the standardization of requirements for all positions, will be a goal of this new entity and one I fully support.

Stay Safe

Cogs

_____________

Peter Cogliano

FF/ T.O.

Belltown Fire Dept

currently working with Dyncorp/LOGCAP IV

Camp Leatherneck

Afghanistan

So then what you are saying is that the Mayor took the easy way out instead of actually "fixing" the system once and for all?

[redddogg317 1]

So then what you are saying is that the Mayor took the easy way out instead of actually "fixing" the system once and for all?

That's it in a nutshell!!!!

[Guest capnlinus]

I would assume that any new hires would be employees of the to be created tax district as opposed to the City and may or may not be affiliated with 786 or the IAFF. My hunch is that there will be a CBU exclusively for the SVFD employees and that they will deal directly with the tax district or commission or whatever entity oversees the "new" department.

So we agree on the belief that these new employees of the "volunteer" fire department would organize. Local 786 I believe is the exclusive bargaining unit for all career firefighters within the city, so I believe they would have some significant say on how this would occur. But I am not sure about that.

I did see your whole post about officers and so forth. And anyone who knows me will tell you I am NOT anti volunteer. However, I disagree with the basic premise of your assertion that being in a busy volunteer department will give you experience commensurate with career firefighter experience. Doing the job day and day out, being immersed in the environment, doing the routine runs every day all day (the fire alarms, the CO calls, the medicals, etc) leads to a familiarity, a comfort level and experience level that allows a career firefighter to have an inherent edge over a volunteer firefighter, regardless of how busy that volunteer is. It is the same reason that the Recruit program is more than a local FF1 program.

I am not, in any way, trying to disparage the dedication of volunteers, and I too have come across many that are outstanding firefighters. However, there is an unmistakable advantage to doing the job full time. It allows you to see the fine details, the nuances that make you more efficient at your job.

For example, I recently visited a friend of mine who I went through flight school with. We both went to the same schools, flew the same DC-8's for the same airline. Only 11 years ago I left professional aviation. He stayed in it and is now a first officer on the A-320 for a major airline. I still fly, he still flies. He has a proficiency level, sees things and recognizes things that I no longer do, simply because he does it professionally. Doesn't make me an unsafe pilot. It makes him better at it than I am. Because it is his profession, whereas it is now my hobby.

There is a difference, and if we are going to have an honest discussion about what option really, truly provides the best service to the citizens of Stamford, then let's be honest about it. I said it before, lets talk about what we are talking about.

And in the vein of openess and honesty, are you interested in one of these jobs?

[dragonrescue 28]

So then what you are saying is that the Mayor took the easy way out instead of actually "fixing" the system once and for all?

The mayor will not think this is the easy way out when he has an emergency at his house and the circus shows up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[FFPCogs 863]

So then what you are saying is that the Mayor took the easy way out instead of actually "fixing" the system once and for all?

No, what I'm saying is that given the circumstances he made the best possible choice and I support it. In time maybe we can put in place the proper parameters on all sides to unify "once and for all" but until then two is better than six especially if both adhere to common standards and put in place the conditions that allow all to meet them.

Just a couple of questions to those of you who refer to the Rural Metro experiment in Rye Brook.

Do you advocate SFRD taking a similar stance vis a vis the SVFD, such as?

"The Port Chester fire chief acknowledged that he was ordered by village officials not to respond to calls from Rye Brook"

"problems turned into a crisis during the fire at the $1 million house on Rocking Horse Trail last December. Six full-time firefighters responded. Port Chester did not respond to calls for help"

"Mayor Cresenzi said that a crowd gathered at the fire, and that its members seemed to include firefighters from neighboring communities who were willing to let the fire burn to prove a point"

And if so who is it then that is putting the public in jeopardy?

Stay Safe

Cogs

_____________

Peter Cogliano

FF/ T.O.

Belltown Fire Dept

currently working with Dyncorp/LOGCAP IV

Camp Leatherneck

Afghanistan

Edited June 14, 2010 by FFPCogs