Update on Stamford Merger

[SFRD372 43]

Nice rant, but I don't believe anyone is advocating for an end run around the law in order to create a single department structure.

I think some of us are just confused as to why the excuse for not pursuing this course seems to be a pretty consistent "it's against the Charter", when making a change to the Charter is an option, but there doesn't seem to be much of an issue with pursuing the required "legal changes" in order to create the new fire district and fire department that seems to not do much for actual unification of the Stamford fire service.

As has been said before, from an outside perspective this proposed course of action seems to have more to do with preserving the "status quo" while providing the "illusion of change" rather than attempting to actually solve the "problems" and provide the desired "uniform delivery of services" to all of Stamford.

From a firefighter who came from the "old system" this new system certainly WILL NOT work. The volunteer firefighters from each and every department in the City of Stamford are forgetting one major aspect of all this. They are VOLUNTEERS!!! The Union, nor the City of Stamford, want to remove or get rid of volunteer firefighters. That is a TRUTH! The volunteers hid behind this wall that they will be removed or abolished, nonsense! Let's talk about the facts......the career (past) employee's from Belltown, Glenbrook, Springdale, and Turn of River did all of the paperwork in reference to payroll, vacations, sick-time, hiring, uniform ordering, benefits, etc. If it were not for the career employee's these MAJOR functions would not have been completed. Approximately nine (9) years ago the volunteer fire departments decided it was in their "best interests" to hand over the employee's to The City of Stamford as municipal employees. It was just too time consuming and overbearing to handle all of the paperwork necessary for employees. They all stated they just wanted to be "volunteers"...From that date until the career employees were "merged" with The City of Stamford Fire Rescue Dept. all was good. Now, all of a sudden and out of the blue the alledged volunteer houses want to have this all dumped back in their laps. I can tell you from past experience THIS WILL NOT WORK. How can a volunteer fire Chief, or the Mayor of Stamford defend that replacing a 3 or 4 man engine company with 2 firefighters will provide "better" fire protection for all City residents??? That is absured. I have arrived at many working fires with just two career firefighters and it simply is a "bad situation". The volunteer firefighters respond by saying that the career firefighters cannot possibly staff all types of fire apparatus with the current workforce in place. That is true, the career firefighters will stay on their respective apparatus and the VOLUNTEER"S will respond with the other apparatus, after all, the volunteer's state that they can adequately staff and respond with their own apparatus!! Then let them do so......I agree that the volunteers in Stamford should merge into one (1) VOLUNTEER fire department.....by all means be there for your neighbor! Continue volunteering and leave career employees up to the City of Stamford Fire Rescue Dept.

[jrf344 5]

Here is my 2 cents. between 1993 and 1996 the Paid volunteers (oxymoron) average salary was equivalent to SFRD Lieutenants pay. Some were making equivalent to a DC. Then the Mayor was threatened with not being able to protect 1 of the big five districts without more employees. So Mayor Malloy gave them a city engine with 4 FF's 24/7 365 at no cost to the tax payers. Good for the tax payers not good for the Volunteer district so they sued and won tax payers money wasted. There were 2 studies done, 1 just prior to 1995 and 1 a couple of years ago at a cost of approximately $133,000.00 for the last one alone. Funny how both studies said basically the same thing. There is your tax paying money wasted again by the administration not the volunteers of the SFRD. No offense Mr Mayor or Bobby Valentine but stick to what you know. Fire Service is not it.

[Geppetto 31]

Fire union hypes up blog criticizing mayor's plan

Jeff Morganteen

Stamford Advocate

June 20, 2010

STAMFORD -- The professional firefighters' union is taking the fight over the future of the city's fire service to the blogosphere.

The Stamford Professional Firefighters Association recently announced the launch of the website, www.stamfordfiretruths.org, in what the head of the firefighters' union is calling the first phase of its new public relations blitz....

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/Fire-union-hypes-up-blog-criticizing-mayor-s-plan-530862.php

[Alpinerunner 61]

Ok, forget the spin. Direction question:

How many more houses are you and the rest of the volunteers going to allow to burn down before you decide to take an honest look inside and fix the problem?

If i lived in north stamford and it was my house you let burn down, i would sue until i owned the respective volunteer department and then donate it to the city of stamford.

This proposed plan is fixing the problem. It is replacing the 2 paid guys in at Long Ridge with 6. The alternate proposal from the city would only staff one of the LRFC houses with an engine.

[x152 179]

This proposed plan is fixing the problem. It is replacing the 2 paid guys in at Long Ridge with 6. The alternate proposal from the city would only staff one of the LRFC houses with an engine.

Sorry Alpine, not an accurate statement.

The City Fire plan stated that each Long Ridge Station would be staffed with 1 - 3 person (minimum) Engine Company. That would be 1 Officer and 2 Fire Fighters in each of their Stations 24/365.

In addition, the 10 personnel from LRFC could have been absorbed into the existing career system and utilized to staff a tanker or other vehicle or used to offset overtime, as used in the present staffing situation.

Regardless of whether you support or oppose this plan, I am still intrigued as to where the "fix" is in the new plan. So far, I have only seen a proposal to build walls and create a new title.

Having been witness to one recent and blatant example of the lack of a unified structure within the fire services, I am having trouble seeing where this new system will address the problems of the old.

Since the information about this plan appears to be exclusive to members of the volunteer companies, perhaps you could help out those from the other side.

I would really love to learn more of the details. Perhaps in doing so, there would be more answers and fewer questions.

Thanks-

Edited June 21, 2010 by x152

[Alpinerunner 61]

That's not what I heard from the city in the task force open meetings. If the plan was revised I did not hear about it then I apologise. The proposal I heard was to decommission truck 3 (maybe truck 2, but I think it was 3), and move those members to an engine at Long Ridge ST1. TOR E8 and E9 would stay the same, and no staffing for Belltown. 2 Chains of command would stay in place. I would only assume that future expansion plans would include getting back T3, and adding a crew at Belltown and Long Ridge ST2.

If the departments/districts are fully separated, yes, you have 2 departments in the city, but operationally you still have 1 chain of command. That is one big fix. The other is that the employees would be able to cross-staff the apparatus, taking whichever was more important for the call, like they used to. As far as I've heard, the current and proposed system from the SFRD has no tanker, rescue, or ladder staffed in any of the volunteer districts.

If it hasn't been posted here before, here is the mayor's take on his plan

http://www.cityofstamford.org/controls/eventview.aspx?MODE=SINGLE&ID=488

Edited June 21, 2010 by Alpinerunner

[FD828 77]

That's not what I heard from the city in the task force open meetings. If the plan was revised I did not hear about it then I apologise. The proposal I heard was to decommission truck 3 (maybe truck 2, but I think it was 3), and move those members to an engine at Long Ridge ST1. TOR E8 and E9 would stay the same, and no staffing for Belltown. 2 Chains of command would stay in place. I would only assume that future expansion plans would include getting back T3, and adding a crew at Belltown and Long Ridge ST2.

If the departments/districts are fully separated, yes, you have 2 departments in the city, but operationally you still have 1 chain of command. That is one big fix. The other is that the employees would be able to cross-staff the apparatus, taking whichever was more important for the call, like they used to. As far as I've heard, the current and proposed system from the SFRD has no tanker, rescue, or ladder staffed in any of the volunteer districts.

If it hasn't been posted here before, here is the mayor's take on his plan

http://www.cityofstamford.org/controls/eventview.aspx?MODE=SINGLE&ID=488

I think you are slightly confused. The plan in which Truck 2 is decommissioned for an engine in Long Ridge was part of Chief Brown's plan. That plan is not being presented as the plan for the "new" fire service. The mayor's plan does NOT include ANY personnel or equipment from SFRD. Engines 7, 8, and 9 will leave their current locations and return downtown. Then they will hire 61 ff's for this new combination department. There will basically be a solid wall separating North Stamford from South Stamford. There will be 2 separate departments operating within the city of Stamford.

Edited June 21, 2010 by FD828

[Alpinerunner 61]

I get all that. In my first paragraph I was talking about Chief Brown's plan. Wasn't that the plan submitted by SFRD to the task force? Aren't they one in the same?

Everyone seems so against the plan proposed by the mayor, and are trying to say that it won't solve the problems. I'm trying to point out that it DOES fix the manpower issue in Long Ridge, it DOES fix the issue of chain of command, and it DOES provide a tanker, ladder, and rescue for the proposed district. Not only that, but Chief Brown's plan doesn't do this. If would be one thing if it were equal in services provided and command structure, and simply used SFRD personnel, but from what I can tell it isn't even equal.

[x152 179]

That's not what I heard from the city in the task force open meetings. If the plan was revised I did not hear about it then I apologise. The proposal I heard was to decommission truck 3 (maybe truck 2, but I think it was 3), and move those members to an engine at Long Ridge ST1. TOR E8 and E9 would stay the same, and no staffing for Belltown. 2 Chains of command would stay in place. I would only assume that future expansion plans would include getting back T3, and adding a crew at Belltown and Long Ridge ST2.

If the departments/districts are fully separated, yes, you have 2 departments in the city, but operationally you still have 1 chain of command. That is one big fix. The other is that the employees would be able to cross-staff the apparatus, taking whichever was more important for the call, like they used to. As far as I've heard, the current and proposed system from the SFRD has no tanker, rescue, or ladder staffed in any of the volunteer districts.

If it hasn't been posted here before, here is the mayor's take on his plan

http://www.cityofstamford.org/controls/eventview.aspx?MODE=SINGLE&ID=488

Thanks for the response and I think the actual Brown plan is different than what you may have heard during the previous meetings.

I appreciate the info, but still do not see the 1 chain of command. I see 2 very different organizations operating within the same City boundaries.

I am all for change and different perspectives, but I still have not seen anything to show how the 2 potential large Fire Departments in the City will be on the same page? From what I have seen presented, there will be 2 organizations with very different structures.

In my capacity, I have tried to tear down walls and barriers amongst the various groups. With the exception of 1 location, I think we have done a good job at fostering mutual respect.

However, in the spirit of honest conversation, can anyone honestly show how this will ultimately produce a unified fire service? Or is the goal to produce 1 southern unified service and 1 northern unified service?

Thanks

[Guest capnlinus]

Alpine, still wondering if you are interested in one of these jobs, as Cogs has stated repeatedly he is, regardless of the consequences.

It seems pretty clear that the Mayor's plan is a return to the rather unsuccessful past, and an opening for patronage of his political allies. I don't see where this plan is remotely workable.

[mstrang1 213]

Alpine-

With the Mayors plan, what you essentially get is manpower that would cross-staff the rescue, ladder and tanker and engines. Currently Long Ridge does not have a ladder or rescue in their district, so I am assuming you are talking about TOR stations. So, under the Mayors plan, at a fire you may get engines, a tanker, ladder and rescue staffed by the 6 or 8 paid personnel in those current districts, but they are all drivers (deja vu?). That is what the Mayor says will be the response for a house fire in the current Long Ridge district. Cross-staffing does nothing to help put a fire out, it just brings more apparatus with no manpower (See recent NIST report). Chief Browns plan does have only staffed engines in both Long Ridge houses and Engine 5 (actually a decently equipped Quint) at TOR Sta. 1. This plan allowed for the volunteers inclusion as "support" for engine company work, including tanker, rescue, and truck work. In most career departments, these are sought after riding assignments for senior and well trained members, and should be treated by the volunteers this way.

[Alpinerunner 61]

Thanks for the response and I think the actual Brown plan is different than what you may have heard during the previous meetings.

I appreciate the info, but still do not see the 1 chain of command. I see 2 very different organizations operating within the same City boundaries.

I am all for change and different perspectives, but I still have not seen anything to show how the 2 potential large Fire Departments in the City will be on the same page? From what I have seen presented, there will be 2 organizations with very different structures.

In my capacity, I have tried to tear down walls and barriers amongst the various groups. With the exception of 1 location, I think we have done a good job at fostering mutual respect.

However, in the spirit of honest conversation, can anyone honestly show how this will ultimately produce a unified fire service? Or is the goal to produce 1 southern unified service and 1 northern unified service?

Thanks

The latter. I believe the mayor's plan will produce 1 unified southern district and 1 unified northern district. As long as the districts are mostly self sufficient with regards to manpower, and operate under one chain of command, then that should be considered a unified service. The key is being self-sufficent. If the two departments respond together and provide provide mutual aid to eachother on a regular basis, as they do now, then I wouldn't consider it a unified service.

I also agree that there is a mutual respect between the various groups, but I still think that having the two groups work together is not conducive to having volunteers have a significant role on fire scenes. I think too many of the union members (not all, and maybe they are just a loud minority) don't trust volunteers and simply see every functional volunteer as a stolen paid position. In fact I see this sentiment on this site a lot. They won't trust them on the knob, and won't get tool time. I don't think they will be allowed (or will be huge hurdles) to ride out on an engine first due, which is critical for being "useful". I think everyone can agree that running to the firehouse and waiting for a driver and crew to staff a volunteer engine when a call comes in doesn't work.

[Alpinerunner 61]

Alpine, still wondering if you are interested in one of these jobs, as Cogs has stated repeatedly he is, regardless of the consequences.

It seems pretty clear that the Mayor's plan is a return to the rather unsuccessful past, and an opening for patronage of his political allies. I don't see where this plan is remotely workable.

To answer your question: I don't know yet. I have a good paying, stable job that I am happy with now. I will have to see what the compensation details are. But I am leaning towards a fire career somewhere. However, that is not my priority. My proirity is keeping a system where volunteers are respected, needed, and used.

However, these are the kinds of replies I don't understand. Please come up with a specific criticism to back up "not remotely workable", because the way things were before Malloy stepped in was pretty workable with a few exceptions that needed tweaking, not throwing out. The volunteer districts took care of their districts with the help of their paid staff. I think the evidence for this is how rarely they needed to call downtown. One of the big problems were not enough manpower per shift in Long Ridge, and not enough staff in ToR to keep overtime down when vacations, etc came up. Belltown may have had the same problem. The volunteers were happy becaue they were needed and relied on, and the career staff provided a reliable base of experience and knowledge. That sytem has worked since the 1940's when the volunteer houses got career staff. As the trend of less volunteers happened, more career manpower was needed. Again no need to throw the system out.

So I ask, what makes that system not remotely workable?

Alpine-

With the Mayors plan, what you essentially get is manpower that would cross-staff the rescue, ladder and tanker and engines. Currently Long Ridge does not have a ladder or rescue in their district, so I am assuming you are talking about TOR stations. So, under the Mayors plan, at a fire you may get engines, a tanker, ladder and rescue staffed by the 6 or 8 paid personnel in those current districts, but they are all drivers (deja vu?). That is what the Mayor says will be the response for a house fire in the current Long Ridge district. Cross-staffing does nothing to help put a fire out, it just brings more apparatus with no manpower (See recent NIST report). Chief Browns plan does have only staffed engines in both Long Ridge houses and Engine 5 (actually a decently equipped Quint) at TOR Sta. 1. This plan allowed for the volunteers inclusion as "support" for engine company work, including tanker, rescue, and truck work. In most career departments, these are sought after riding assignments for senior and well trained members, and should be treated by the volunteers this way.

Yes, being able to cross staff for ToR is very important because they are the only stick, and their rescue covers the Merritt. It would be nice to staff Belltown's rescue and Tower, too. Cross-staffing does bring the RIGHT allotment of apparatus to a scene, and with multiple stations responding with their career members, and the volunteers, you have your manpower. Also, they are not all drivers. Only 1 man on a 3 man crew drives.

[Bnechis 3,961]

The latter. I believe the mayor's plan will produce 1 unified southern district and 1 unified northern district. As long as the districts are mostly self sufficient with regards to manpower, and operate under one chain of command, then that should be considered a unified service.

I think your use of unified needs some clarification. Unified under ICS means more than one agency operating together, SFRD is only unified when it is working with the VFD's or with EMS, PD, DPW etc. The proposal to merge 4 VFD's will not make them unified, it will make them a single entity. Unified is when the work together as seperate agencies.

The key is being self-sufficent. If the two departments respond together and provide provide mutual aid to each other on a regular basis, as they do now, then I wouldn't consider it a unified service.

Yes the key is to be self-sufficent, if they still need mutual aid on a regular basis then it will prove that this plan is a total failure.

I think everyone can agree that running to the firehouse and waiting for a driver and crew to staff a volunteer engine when a call comes in doesn't work.

So how will this plan solve this?

[FFPCogs 863]

The more I read here the more it becomes apparent just what the true motives are. As some have said this whole thing is about turf, control, politics and power and so it is, but the major player here is the union which seeks all these things at the expense of the VFDs. The "old" system worked and could have remained working if it had not been assailed under the guise of "controlling overtime" by the previous administration and the union. Case in point about motives becoming apparent being ....no one especially the union, even mentions controlling overtime anymore because it's no longer (and never was) important. The deceit and outright lies that have pervaded this affairs since the beginning are becoming more and more evident everyday especially on the blatantly biased and hype fueled Stamford Fire Truths website (oh and I'm honored to have been quoted on said site).

In a nutshell it can be summed up like this

Volunteers regard all firefighters as brothers, while union firefighters regard only union firefighters as brothers and single out volunteer FDs as "rival organizations". That is the IAFFs stance in general and that is 786s stance specifically towards Stamford's VFDs. It is that attitude that has been at the heart of this since the beginning and it is that attitude which has prevented any meaningful action towards unification and integration...and no amount of hype on a PR firm designed website can change that

Stay Safe

Cogs

_____________

Peter Cogliano

FF/ T.O.

Belltown Fire Dept

currently working with Dyncorp/LOGCAP IV

Camp Leatherneck

Afghanistan

[mstrang1 213]

Yes, being able to cross staff for ToR is very important because they are the only stick, and their rescue covers the Merritt. It would be nice to staff Belltown's rescue and Tower, too. Cross-staffing does bring the RIGHT allotment of apparatus to a scene, and with multiple stations responding with their career members, and the volunteers, you have your manpower. Also, they are not all drivers. Only 1 man on a 3 man crew drives.

Alpine-

Cross staffing is not truly a viable option. You are assuming a 3 man crew in all stations, although I see nothing in the Mayors plan that supports this, and the math does not totally add up. There will be 6 stations(2LR, 2 TOR, 1 BFD, 1 SPFD) manned by 61 "career" firefighters". Assuming there are 4 shifts, that means it will be 15 per shift divided between these 6 houses. That means that if they all are staffed equally, that is 2.5 guys per house.

So if the scenario is a fire in the current Long Ridge district, you would get option 1) 2 guys each on 2 engines from the LR houses, 1 guy on the tanker from TOR, 1 on the truck, and 2 guys from the other TOR house. We also have that ".5" per house to figure in. But that works out to 8 (maybe 10) guys riding on about 5 apparatus. That is about half drivers, and barely enough to satisfy 2 in 2 out.

Option 2) 1 guy on each engine out of each LR house (4 guys-3 engines/1 tanker) and and the 4.5 guys from TOR houses staff tanker (1 guy), truck (1 or 2 guys), rescue (1 guy). That leaves possibly 1 guy to be a second man on one of those apparatus. That option gives you 8 or 9 guys on 7 pieces of apparatus.

Either of these options does not have a proper ratio of firefighter to apparatus ratio. It depends on the volunteers to show up to every call, or failing that, Mutual Aid from SFRD, Pound Ridge, New Canaan, etc. In regards to cross staffing, if all the members take the rescue, and oops, you need the truck, what now?

[spin_the_wheel 460]

The old saying...its not personal its business comes to mind with the unions. Its simple their is much power in numbers. Hey they have every right to get the best for their employees, Im a union guy. BUT dont take a stance of "its for the public best interest to have a paid force" and "career this and career that" look what happened with Rural Metro, they are paid career firefighters....but non union..they are a for profit organization, and so not only did the Volunteers not want them around the career union did not as well. I think career non union guys are looked at in a worse light then volunteers, because they really are taking union jobs away from career union firefighters. This is why the local is coming down so hard on this new proposal.

An old city Chief that was in my Dept once told me "the best way for the volunteers to get along with the career guys would be for all the volunteers to pay union dues."

He might have had something there. But again the union wants union jobs for the members and perspective members, its their job to do this, they cannot stand by when the area next to them is going to hire non union guys.

Edited June 22, 2010 by spin_the_wheel

[JAD622 40]

In a nutshell it can be summed up like this

Volunteers regard all firefighters as brothers, while union firefighters regard only union firefighters as brothers and single out volunteer FDs as "rival organizations".

Stay Safe

Cogs

_____________

Peter Cogliano

FF/ T.O.

Belltown Fire Dept

currently working with Dyncorp/LOGCAP IV

Camp Leatherneck

Afghanistan

So if you consider Union Firefighters your "Brother" then how do you take a position knowing it will probably cost some of them their job?

[CTFF 65]

So if you consider Union Firefighters your "Brother" then how do you take a position knowing it will probably cost some of them their job?

Ever heard the Story of Cain and Abel?

[Guest capnlinus]

However, these are the kinds of replies I don't understand. Please come up with a specific criticism to back up "not remotely workable", because the way things were before Malloy stepped in was pretty workable with a few exceptions that needed tweaking, not throwing out. The volunteer districts took care of their districts with the help of their paid staff. I think the evidence for this is how rarely they needed to call downtown. One of the big problems were not enough manpower per shift in Long Ridge, and not enough staff in ToR to keep overtime down when vacations, etc came up. Belltown may have had the same problem. The volunteers were happy becaue they were needed and relied on, and the career staff provided a reliable base of experience and knowledge. That sytem has worked since the 1940's when the volunteer houses got career staff. As the trend of less volunteers happened, more career manpower was needed. Again no need to throw the system out.

So I ask, what makes that system not remotely workable?

I see several problem areas. And this comes with the caveat I am not a Stamford resident or employee. This situation, like say a NASCAR crash, is just hard to ignore.

There is a system in place now that seems to be working, at least better than this new plan. Nearly everyone here agrees the most efficient system is one department, under 1 Chief, and 1 set of SOPs. Nobody has said that department would not have a place for volunteers. So why take a step back to a system that most said did not work well. It is no longer the 1940s and Stamford is no longer a quaint small town.

How is this department going to handle all the things that must be handled in any department, but especially a medium to large one, which this would be?

Who will do the administrative paperwork, the training, the maintenance, etc, etc, etc.

Why create 2 separate departments in this city? Are there 2 police departments? 2 Boards of education? 2 Highway departments? It makes no sense to me.

How can you justify one resident getting a better level of service than another resident based on where they live? This is 2010 and Stamford is the 4th largest city in this state. This system is antiquated, redundant, and frought with incredible amounts of uncertainty. Not the least of which is the hiring situation.

Why do I think it isnt workable? Because of those questions and many, many more. One single combination department is really the only way to go. The rest is just a pissing match over history and tradition. Turf.

[Guest capnlinus]

The more I read here the more it becomes apparent just what the true motives are. As some have said this whole thing is about turf, control, politics and power and so it is, but the major player here is the union which seeks all these things at the expense of the VFDs. The "old" system worked and could have remained working if it had not been assailed under the guise of "controlling overtime" by the previous administration and the union. Case in point about motives becoming apparent being ....no one especially the union, even mentions controlling overtime anymore because it's no longer (and never was) important. The deceit and outright lies that have pervaded this affairs since the beginning are becoming more and more evident everyday especially on the blatantly biased and hype fueled Stamford Fire Truths website (oh and I'm honored to have been quoted on said site).

In a nutshell it can be summed up like this

Volunteers regard all firefighters as brothers, while union firefighters regard only union firefighters as brothers and single out volunteer FDs as "rival organizations". That is the IAFFs stance in general and that is 786s stance specifically towards Stamford's VFDs. It is that attitude that has been at the heart of this since the beginning and it is that attitude which has prevented any meaningful action towards unification and integration...and no amount of hype on a PR firm designed website can change that

Are you kidding with this? All firefighters are your "brothers?" But you clearly state you would take one of these potential jobs, effectively taking one away from a "brother." Everything I read in this post is a stereotypical, anti-union self serving rant, betraying your true reasons for supporting this plan. It preserves, in your mind, your ability to volunteer, and will probably get you a city job. Good to know.....brother.

Edited June 22, 2010 by capnlinus

[x152 179]

Alpine:

Thanks again for the response. However, I must be facing some type of disconnect, because "unified" and "separate" are really not intertwined.

Again, the details of this concept appear to be well known throughout the Stamford volunteer system, but the career side have not been told much of anything.

It really is an exercise in futility for us to try and rework a plan or offer justifiable solutions. City Hall has cast their plan and for us to banter about what should be or could be is really moot.

I am trying to gain understanding to the model. My questions are many and mostly due to the fact that it completely is foreign in the logic, construction, and position of almost anyone in the Fire Services or Municipal Government.

Whether this plan works will really be a matter of personal perspective. Time will ultimately dictate which side will be stating "I told you so".

I am pretty sure of one thing........given the state of what most municipal governments and communities with multiple fire jurisdictions are facing in the need to streamline (i.e. consolidate), I really find it hard to believe that 5 years down the road, there will not be a new push for both sides to combine into one entity.

And thus, the process will start all over again.

Historically, we have seen our predecessors lack foresight into thinking about the "what-ifs" and leaving the next generations large piles of garbage to sort through. So I will end with the question: What mechanism are being designed to create parallel structures and principals for the 2 separate organizations to "blend" down the road, if such a need is warranted or demanded? If any?

[FireMedic049 597]

The more I read here the more it becomes apparent just what the true motives are. As some have said this whole thing is about turf, control, politics and power and so it is, but the major player here is the union which seeks all these things at the expense of the VFDs.

How is the Union the "major player" in this, but are not a participant in the proposed plan nor have a seat at the table?

In a nutshell it can be summed up like this

Volunteers regard all firefighters as brothers, while union firefighters regard only union firefighters as brothers and single out volunteer FDs as "rival organizations". That is the IAFFs stance in general and that is 786s stance specifically towards Stamford's VFDs. It is that attitude that has been at the heart of this since the beginning and it is that attitude which has prevented any meaningful action towards unification and integration...and no amount of hype on a PR firm designed website can change that

Nice generalization and mischaracterization of union firefighters.

Given everything I've read about the fire service of Stamford, I can see why Local 786 may specifically view the Stamford VFDs as "rival organizations". However, from that same information, I can clearly see that the Stamford VFDs view Local 786 as a "rival organization".

By the way, I'm still waiting for an answer to my question to you. Was a single department structure ever on the table?

[FFPCogs 863]

How is the Union the "major player" in this, but are not a participant in the proposed plan nor have a seat at the table?

You can't really be that niave can you?

Nice generalization and mischaracterization of union firefighters.

Talk to the IAFF it's their policy

Given everything I've read about the fire service of Stamford, I can see why Local 786 may specifically view the Stamford VFDs as "rival organizations".

And just what exactly is it that you can see specifically?

However, from that same information, I can clearly see that the Stamford VFDs view Local 786 as a "rival organization".

As well they should given the tactics and propaganda used against them throughout this whole mess

By the way, I'm still waiting for an answer to my question to you. Was a single department structure ever on the table?

Yes it was as was every other proposal.

Stay Safe

Cogs

_____________

Peter Cogliano

FF/ T.O.

Belltown Fire Dept

currently working with Dyncorp/LOGCAP IV

Camp Leatherneck

Afghanistan

Edited June 23, 2010 by FFPCogs

[FFPCogs 863]

Are you kidding with this? All firefighters are your "brothers?" But you clearly state you would take one of these potential jobs, effectively taking one away from a "brother." Everything I read in this post is a stereotypical, anti-union self serving rant, betraying your true reasons for supporting this plan. It preserves, in your mind, your ability to volunteer, and will probably get you a city job. Good to know.....brother.

Then you haven't been comprehending what you've been reading, but that is to be expected when one toes the party line so tightly they can't think for themselves. All I've gleaned from your diatribes is a load of regurgitated spoon fed propaganda mixed with quotes taken out of context time and again. But hey if that makes you feel better have at it, the truth speaks for itself despite your pathetic attempts to circumvent it.

Stay Safe

Cogs

_____________

Peter Cogliano

FF/ T.O.

Belltown Fire Dept

currently working with Dyncorp/LOGCAP IV

Camp Leatherneck

Afghanistan

[FireMedic049 597]

You can't really be that niave can you?

I'm not and you aren't this stupid either. The Mayor wants to implement a plan in which the primary impact on the Union at this point is the reassignment of some of their members and reduced responses into the Northern areas. So how are they a "major player" in this current chapter?

Talk to the IAFF it's their policy

I don't need to talk to them, I'm a proud member and Executive Officer of my Local and I think I have better understanding of their policy than you do. The International's stance ISN'T that volunteer FDs are "rival organizations" simply because they are volunteer FDs.

I was also referring to your generalization that Union firefighters only regard other Union firefighters as "Brothers". This is blatantly false and many, many IAFF Local's members work in combination departments along side of volunteers every day. Many others in non-combination departments do so also. I will not deny that there are some members who have that view, but I'm sure it's a minority just as I'm sure that the majority of volunteers don't "hate" Union firefighters.

And just what exactly is it that you can see specifically?

How about changing the locks on the fire station to keep out the City career personnel assigned there? How about installing security cameras to monitor the career personnel assigned to the station?

As well they should given the tactics and propaganda used against them throughout this whole mess

So, don't point fingers at only the Union.

Yes it was as was every other proposal.

So, if a single department structure was an option in this process, then all paid personnel in a single department structure would be represented by Local 786. As such, why were they not afforded the opportunity to be an active participant in the meetings? Any restructuring of the department would involve matters that are subject to the collective bargaining process. So, as I've said before, the exclusion of Local 786 says to me that the single department structure was never a real consideration.

[FFPCogs 863]

Here's a link to an editorial in todays Advocate

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/opinion/article/Volunteer-chiefs-support-Mayor-Pavia-s-fire-plan-533060.php

Stay Safe

Cogs

_____________

Peter Cogliano

FF/ T.O.

Belltown Fire Dept

currently working with Dyncorp/LOGCAP IV

Camp Leatherneck

Afghanistan

[jcoppola 52]

Here's a link to an editorial in todays Advocate

http://www.stamforda...plan-533060.php

Stay Safe

Cogs

_____________

Peter Cogliano

FF/ T.O.

Belltown Fire Dept

currently working with Dyncorp/LOGCAP IV

Camp Leatherneck

Afghanistan

Are you kidding me??? Of course the volunteer chiefs support this BS "plan"!!! Now lets see it work. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

I only hope that rag Stamford Advocate trash newspaper gives the union a chance to have their editorial published.

The more I read the more I am sickened by this disgrace.

I cannot comprehend how the 4 remaining chiefs can go public with a claim that this proposed system can provide a higher level of fire protection.

[JAD622 40]

I cannot comprehend how the 4 remaining chiefs can go public with a claim that this proposed system can provide a higher level of fire protection.

Self serving agenda's

[jcoppola 52]

Self serving agenda's

Blatently so, unfortunately at the cost of public safety, and other city jobs. BS. TOTAL BS.