Update on Stamford Merger

[IzzyEng4 427]

Gentlemen and Ladies of the forum................

I think at this time with our recent loss up here in the Nutmeg State, I ask if we can have a moratorium of this discussion as our focus right now should be with our brothers and sisters in Bridgeport and the families and friends of Lt. Steven Velazquez and Firefighter Michel Baik.

I know this is a hot debated topic but I think right now, at this moment we should focus on supporting or fellow firefighters In Bridgeport, CT for the time being.

I pray this is something we can agree upon for the time being.

Izzy

[redddogg317 1]

Gentlemen and Ladies of the forum................

I think at this time with our recent loss up here in the Nutmeg State, I ask if we can have a moratorium of this discussion as our focus right now should be with our brothers and sisters in Bridgeport and the families and friends of Lt. Steven Velazquez and Firefighter Michel Baik.

I know this is a hot debated topic but I think right now, at this moment we should focus on supporting or fellow firefighters In Bridgeport, CT for the time being.

I pray this is something we can agree upon for the time being.

Izzy

Izzy,

You are 100% correct. That is the point I was trying to make in my last statement. Subject closed for now and on to more important matters....supporting our brothers and sisters from Bridgeport

[Geppetto 31]

The "Update on Stamford Merger" thread is locked due to the tragedy In Bridgeport and several frustrations being thrown into the mix. Several pertinent items have occurred since then (the locking that is) which will lose timeliness. Please add these to that thread when you think it appropriate. No disrespect to the fallen. RIP brothers.

Canceled call has fire officials irked

07/27/2010

By TOM EVANS

Stamford Times

STAMFORD -- Controversy is again swirling around the Long Ridge Fire Company, after a canceled fire call Saturday night left no apparatus responding to an alarm at 69 Middle Patent Road.

In an inter-office memo dated Monday, William J. Smith, deputy chief of Stamford Fire & Rescue, said that a chief from Banksville, N.Y. (just over the state line) was the only one on scene.

"A BVFD chief only responded to the alarm and reset the panel," Smith wrote. "There were no fire engines (or) trucks that actually made it to this alarm. I questioned dispatch to make sure that I understood (Long Ridge Fire Company Engine 71) canceling all units before any on-scene investigation had been conducted." ...

http://www.thestamfordtimes.com/story/489499

And

Fire plan splits task force

Jeff Morganteen, Stamford Advocate

July 26, 2010

...Among the task force members already affiliated with the career or volunteer fire service, reactions were split along party -- or department -- lines.

Stamford Fire & Rescue officials who served on the task force are among the plan's biggest critics. Former and current volunteer chiefs that were part of the task force were its biggest supporters.

The lack of a single chief has irked some civilian task force members.

"To me, the consolidation around leadership was the centerpiece of our recommendations," task force member and GE executive Dudley Williams said. "I really do think there needs to be one standard of fire protection for every citizen and household in Stamford. I don't see how we truly get there without there being one leader that everyone is accountable to."

Local attorney and task force member John Leydon was more supportive of the mayor's plan. He said going from six independent fire chiefs to two was an improvement.

"I understand that it's a fluid process and it's a very challenging one," Leydon said of the implementation of the mayor's plan....

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/default/article/Fire-plan-splits-task-force-591189.php

[IzzyEng4 427]

No problem Capt. The Stamford thread will be re-opened after the funerals and the weekend. We'll merge them into the main thread when we get a chance.

[IzzyEng4 427]

I want to thank everyone here on EMTBravo for observing the moratorium of this thread. Granted this is a hotly debated topic about the City of Stamford and there are many, many sides to this issue, the fact of the matter with recent events gives us a stark reminder of the dangers we face regardless of our affiliations.

I implore everyone here once again as we re-open the Stamford thread to be respectful, concise, and have an open mind with this issue regardless on what side of the fence you are on this issue with.

Please keep this thread a "Stamford issue" and do not use or cite recent outside incidents / happenings that do not relate to Stamford. Keep the focus on Stamford!

Again thank you all for understanding during the recent happenings in CT and for putting this discussion on hold temporarily.

--Izzy

I yield the thread to the Membership.

[Geppetto 31]

Threads update -

Stamford fire officials condemn Long Ridge fire response

Stamford Advocate 07/28/10

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/default/article/Officials-condemn-Long-Ridge-fire-response-594635.php

Canceled call has fire officials irked

Stamford Times 7/27/2010

http://www.thestamfordtimes.com/story/489499

Pavia pitches fire plan

Stamford Advocate

7/29/2010

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/default/article/Pavia-pitches-fire-plan-595576.php

City Rep’s Hamas comment draws attention from NY Post

7/29/2010

http://blog.stamfordadvocate.com/stamford411/2010/07/29/city-reps-hamas-comment-draws-attention-from-ny-post/

Conn. fire dept. union demands pol resignation over 'Hamas' comment

NY Post - 7/29/2010

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/conn_fire_dept_union_demands_pol_rxJTpvDsbOVqTJI1rDp8cN

That'll keep you busy!

[Geppetto 31]

One-stop shopping for fire plan info

August 3, 2010

Stamford Advocate

Jeff Morganteen

Blog for running commentary and link to Stamford Board of Representatives site; You will find links to other other studies and plans regarding Stamford's fire protection.

http://blog.stamfordadvocate.com/stamford411/2010/08/03/one-stop-shopping-for-fire-plan-info/

PS28.011

[Geppetto 31]

Another Long Ridge Fire response scrutinized

Jeff Morganteen, Stamford Advocate

August 27, 2010

...Last month, the department was roundly criticized for calling off backup units before arriving at the scene of a chimney fire that threatened to consume a home on Deep Valley Trail. Chief Robert Bennett vowed to legislators then that his firefighters would not call off units without first being at the scene of an emergency call.

On Thursday, lawmakers' reactions were mixed toward another Long Ridge Fire Co. decision made before it arrived at a scene in its district, this one to cancel responding units and allow a nearby New York state firehouse to handle a false alarm call....

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/Another-Long-Ridge-Fire-response-scrutinized-635106.php

[TRex 9]

What is interesting about LRFCO's responce to the board is that they have and continue to rely on a department that also responds light to structure calls. It is my understanding from members at the NY Department that on chronic alarms just a chief officer responds to this area due to the road conditions present to get there. Their apparatus are to large to negotiate these roads in a timely fashion. WOW, that is something to rely on! Can someone verify this if it is true or not?

Thank You

Another Long Ridge Fire response scrutinized

Jeff Morganteen, Stamford Advocate

August 27, 2010

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/Another-Long-Ridge-Fire-response-scrutinized-635106.php

[spin_the_wheel 460]

This opens a whole new can of worms...about false automatic alarms and risk vs. reward so to speak. I think this is being made a big deal because of the Dept.s involved and the situation in Stamford. Depending on the info and who it came from, I see nothing wrong with canceling units from the initial response.

My Dept. covers Belmont Race Track, the response is a general alarm, 4 Engines, 2 ladders and a heavy rescue 24/7. If we receive addtional info from security on scene giving a good reason why the alarm is a false activation,(like a horse kicking and breaking a sprinkler head or pipe causing a waterflow, not uncommon when dealing with occupied barns and stables) we will modify the response, this includes a cancel of half of the units, cancel all but 1 Engine or even making it a Chiefs response only. Again depending on the info given as a Chief I would rather cut the response or just have a Chief respond then have up to 7 rigs responding to a flase alarm.

Edited August 29, 2010 by spin_the_wheel

[x152 179]

This opens a whole new can of worms...about false automatic alarms and risk vs. reward so to speak. I think this is being made a big deal because of the Dept.s involved and the situation in Stamford. Depending on the info and who it came from, I see nothing wrong with canceling units from the initial response.

My Dept. covers Belmont Race Track, the response is a general alarm, 4 Engines, 2 ladders and a heavy rescue 24/7. If we receive addtional info from security on scene giving a good reason why the alarm is a false activation,(like a horse kicking and breaking a sprinkler head or pipe causing a waterflow, not uncommon when dealing with occupied barns and stables) we will modify the response, this includes a cancel of half of the units, cancel all but 1 Engine or even making it a Chiefs response only. Again depending on the info given as a Chief I would rather cut the response or just have a Chief respond then have up to 7 rigs responding to a flase alarm.

Agreed Spin, the process of reducing the priority of the response or managing the total number of resources based upon additional information is a wise and prudent measure.

Fire Departments throughout this country practice such policies and for good reason.

However, that was not the case in Stamford and the decision to do such was made just weeks after the Chief of the particular Department in question promised in a public forum that nothing like this would ever occur again.

This discussion is not about a managed or controlled response; rather, it is about the quality of management decisions within a particular organization.

[FD828 77]

This opens a whole new can of worms...about false automatic alarms and risk vs. reward so to speak. I think this is being made a big deal because of the Dept.s involved and the situation in Stamford. Depending on the info and who it came from, I see nothing wrong with canceling units from the initial response.

My Dept. covers Belmont Race Track, the response is a general alarm, 4 Engines, 2 ladders and a heavy rescue 24/7. If we receive addtional info from security on scene giving a good reason why the alarm is a false activation,(like a horse kicking and breaking a sprinkler head or pipe causing a waterflow, not uncommon when dealing with occupied barns and stables) we will modify the response, this includes a cancel of half of the units, cancel all but 1 Engine or even making it a Chiefs response only. Again depending on the info given as a Chief I would rather cut the response or just have a Chief respond then have up to 7 rigs responding to a flase alarm.

You said it. Someone who is ON THE SCENE!! If an alarm company calls back and wishes to cancel an alarm, the first due apparatus can and should continue lights and sirens (regardless if non-fire department personnel are trying to cancel) and the rest may respond normal traffic. But ALL apparatus should never be cancelled until a fire official arrives on scene to confirm that it is a false alarm and decide if any other resources are needed or not. Because we all know that sometimes it isn't a false alarm.

Edited August 30, 2010 by FD828

[FFPCogs 863]

Here's another view of the "plan"

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/opinion/article/Former-Turn-of-River-chief-backs-fire-plan-631643.php

Edited August 30, 2010 by FFPCogs

[spin_the_wheel 460]

You said it. Someone who is ON THE SCENE!! If an alarm company calls back and wishes to cancel an alarm, the first due apparatus can and should continue lights and sirens (regardless if non-fire department personnel are trying to cancel) and the rest may respond normal traffic. But ALL apparatus should never be cancelled until a fire official arrives on scene to confirm that it is a false alarm and decide if any other resources are needed or not. Because we all know that sometimes it isn't a false alarm.

You are right but the article does not tell us the full story of what was told to the FD form the alarm co....if it went something like...."Chief 1, control, ADT called back security on scene is reporting they were loading hay into the barn and knocked a smoke head off" Thats good enogh for me to knock down the response, which thye did, they had 2 Engines still reposnd in. The article does not say what the alarm Co. said.

Edited August 30, 2010 by spin_the_wheel

[Alpinerunner 61]

You said it. Someone who is ON THE SCENE!! If an alarm company calls back and wishes to cancel an alarm, the first due apparatus can and should continue lights and sirens (regardless if non-fire department personnel are trying to cancel) and the rest may respond normal traffic. But ALL apparatus should never be cancelled until a fire official arrives on scene to confirm that it is a false alarm and decide if any other resources are needed or not. Because we all know that sometimes it isn't a false alarm.

Exactly, and as the article said, Banksville was first due (closest), and they continued in. End of story. This is being blown out of proportion due to politics. This happens all the time all over the country, including downtown Stamford. SFRD will send 2 engines and a truck to an alarm, and when the alarm company calls to cancel, Unit 4 (the DC) will often send closest engine only.

[spin_the_wheel 460]

Agreed Spin, the process of reducing the priority of the response or managing the total number of resources based upon additional information is a wise and prudent measure.

Fire Departments throughout this country practice such policies and for good reason.

However, that was not the case in Stamford and the decision to do such was made just weeks after the Chief of the particular Department in question promised in a public forum that nothing like this would ever occur again.

This discussion is not about a managed or controlled response; rather, it is about the quality of management decisions within a particular organization.

Keeping it on a "quality of management" issue, I dont see how he did anything wrong in letting the closest Engine continue in, if the info received justified doing that. BUT you may have more info on this then I do, and if the alarm company did not give a good reason to reduce response then the Chief made a wrong move. I'd love to know what was said anyone know thats willing to share?

He made a "promise" not to cancel units in a public forum, but he also made a promise to his members, and if keeping needless apparatus responding was justified he did nothing wrong.

[CTFF 65]

I had the pleasure of attending the Public safety meeting that discussed this Long Ridge cancellation of mutual aide. The dispatch audio was played on this call including the initial call from the alarm co and the call attempting to cancel the response. I don't recall any information being relayed over the air to Long Ridge stating why the alarm company was requesting to cancel the response. Neither the Firefighter or officer from Long Ridge who were responding asked dispatch for the reason the alarm company was requesting a cancellation.

We can debate when to cancel mutual aide all we want but this isn't at the heart of this matter. Chief Bennett of Long Ridge said LRFCO would not cancel mutual aide prior to the arrival of units again and less then two months later they did.

[mstrang1 213]

Dispatch informed LR Fire that "the alarm company is trying to cancel." That is when they canceled all units except for Banksville FD. When Unit 4 (SFRD Deputy Chief Smith) asked for clarification, dispatch asked Engine 71(LRFCo)and they again reiterated that they were canceling all units. After U4 responded "Received, what could happen?", Engine 71 responded to the call. Turns out the call was a false alarm, and was handled by Banksville's Chief. There was a delay in confirming through 60 control if Banksville was responding. In my experience, citizens should not be relied on for canceling at any time. One time I pulled up to a house with smoke puffing out of the eaves with the homeowner standing at the door yelling its a false alarm! We calmly asked her to step outside and look up! It is Long Ridge Fire Cos. responsibility to ensure that the call is handled appropriately. They did not know what resources were responding from Banksville FD. No Banksville engine ever made it to the scene as far as I could tell. How would it look if it was an actual fire in their own district that they did not respond to?! Now I am a firefighter in an urban area, but I imagine a hay filled stable in the extreme heat of the summer is something that can burn easily and quickly and should not be taken lightly. Upon questioning, maybe in the always reliable Stamford Advocate, Bennett said it was probably due to the result of extreme heat.

Edited August 30, 2010 by mstrang1

[FireMedic049 597]

Exactly, and as the article said, Banksville was first due (closest), and they continued in. End of story. This is being blown out of proportion due to politics. This happens all the time all over the country, including downtown Stamford. SFRD will send 2 engines and a truck to an alarm, and when the alarm company calls to cancel, Unit 4 (the DC) will often send closest engine only.

I don't know if it's necessarily being blown out of proportion, but would agree that the "fuss" over it is predominately based in the "politics" of the situation in Stamford. In general, what happened for this specific call was reasonable and consistent with what takes place daily elsewhere. However, the problem with this specific situation vs what happens elsewhere is that this particular VFD's Fire Chief explicitly stated (in response to the poor handling of a prior incident) that his Fire Department would NEVER AGAIN cancel responding units without a unit/officer on scene of the incident.

Granted this may have just been a simple mistake, but given the scrutiny of the prior incident and it only being a few months past, you'd think that they'd be more diligent on the matter. However, there's also the need to consider that if the Department's members can't follow something as simple as "don't cancel units with no one on scene", will the members be able to follow the "bigger" orders in the future?

"Small picture" - not that big of a deal. "Big picture" - definitely a big deal.

[Alpinerunner 61]

I don't know if it's necessarily being blown out of proportion, but would agree that the "fuss" over it is predominately based in the "politics" of the situation in Stamford. In general, what happened for this specific call was reasonable and consistent with what takes place daily elsewhere. However, the problem with this specific situation vs what happens elsewhere is that this particular VFD's Fire Chief explicitly stated (in response to the poor handling of a prior incident) that his Fire Department would NEVER AGAIN cancel responding units without a unit/officer on scene of the incident.

Granted this may have just been a simple mistake, but given the scrutiny of the prior incident and it only being a few months past, you'd think that they'd be more diligent on the matter. However, there's also the need to consider that if the Department's members can't follow something as simple as "don't cancel units with no one on scene", will the members be able to follow the "bigger" orders in the future?

"Small picture" - not that big of a deal. "Big picture" - definitely a big deal.

I agree with the above points.

[spin_the_wheel 460]

I had the pleasure of attending the Public safety meeting that discussed this Long Ridge cancellation of mutual aide. The dispatch audio was played on this call including the initial call from the alarm co and the call attempting to cancel the response. I don't recall any information being relayed over the air to Long Ridge stating why the alarm company was requesting to cancel the response. Neither the Firefighter or officer from Long Ridge who were responding asked dispatch for the reason the alarm company was requesting a cancellation.

We can debate when to cancel mutual aide all we want but this isn't at the heart of this matter. Chief Bennett of Long Ridge said LRFCO would not cancel mutual aide prior to the arrival of units again and less then two months later they did.

Thank you for that info, I would not cancel units if this were the situation.

[spin_the_wheel 460]

I don't know if it's necessarily being blown out of proportion, but would agree that the "fuss" over it is predominately based in the "politics" of the situation in Stamford. In general, what happened for this specific call was reasonable and consistent with what takes place daily elsewhere. However, the problem with this specific situation vs what happens elsewhere is that this particular VFD's Fire Chief explicitly stated (in response to the poor handling of a prior incident) that his Fire Department would NEVER AGAIN cancel responding units without a unit/officer on scene of the incident.

Granted this may have just been a simple mistake, but given the scrutiny of the prior incident and it only being a few months past, you'd think that they'd be more diligent on the matter. However, there's also the need to consider that if the Department's members can't follow something as simple as "don't cancel units with no one on scene", will the members be able to follow the "bigger" orders in the future?

"Small picture" - not that big of a deal. "Big picture" - definitely a big deal.

Great point...with all the scrutiny going down, it would be wise to let the response stay as originally dispatched. Every move and every alarm they get will be looked at.

[x152 179]

Here's another view of the "plan"

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/opinion/article/Former-Turn-of-River-chief-backs-fire-plan-631643.php

Yes, what stoke of brilliance. Let's run firetrucks with just one person on board. As long as something that is big and red and makes lots of noise shows up, that should be sufficient.

Also known as the "S and S" operational policy.

SCOUT it out and SCREAM for help if you find something.....service at its best.

It's 2010.........do you know where your responsibilities are?

Edited August 30, 2010 by x152

[Bnechis 3,961]

Here's another view of the "plan"

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/opinion/article/Former-Turn-of-River-chief-backs-fire-plan-631643.php

"The plan selected by the mayor, in my opinion, will give the North Stamford area more than adequate fire protection and flexibility at little or no increase in taxes."

"More than adequate" - what standard does that meet? NFPA 1710, NFPA 1720, ISO, Fire Accredidation, etc.?

"Flexability" - to do what? What if it does not work, is that flexability to hire more without oversight?

"I do not see any difference between a responding apparatus staffed with a Local 786 crew or a Stamford Volunteer Fire Department crew."

so he cant see the difference between a 3-4 man crew vs. a 1-2 man crew.

Vinny Gambini: "Maybe you're ready for a thicker set. You sure? Let's check it out."

"The Stamford VFD plan, as I see it, will provide more flexibility in the types of apparatus that can respond to an incident..... The SFRD firefighters do not switch from one apparatus to another."

Can anyone list any major dept. that routinly jumps from rig to rig? Can it be that the team work that develops when assigned to a specific rig is better?

In baseball do the pros switch from catcher to outfield? Wouldn't this make the team more flexable?

"If they are assigned to an engine they stay on that engine. A serious road accident requires an engine and a rescue, and you're likely to get a better mix of firefighters and apparatus responding simultaneously under the SVFD concept."

So 1 ff on an engine and 1 on the rescue is better than 6-8 on an engine and rescue. Or does this flexability mean we take the rescue and leave the engine back? Hope we do not need it.

"Cost is another item that appears to be in question. Under the SVFD plan, the staffing levels will not be much different than the previous volunteer department staffing levels other than the paid chief's position."

The big question: Was the previous staffing enough? Can you show that the response of career & volunteers has met any accepted minimums?

"Thus, the historically low cost the taxpayers have enjoyed, by virtue of having their fire protection supplemented by volunteers, should not change."

True, as long as enough trained volunteers show up in a timely manor. This has not been happening, maybe it was when the author was chief.

"Volunteers are always eager to be trained to drive and operate fire apparatus, and they reach the highest levels of proficiency. For decades, this has greatly multiplied the numbers of apparatus rolling out to calls with zero cost to the taxpayer. The best example would be any one of the damaging storms that hit North Stamford. I can remember times when every piece of Turn of River Fire Department apparatus was deployed at separate locations, all manned by volunteer drivers and crews, with everyone working together as professionals to get the job done, regardless of who was getting paid and who wasn't."

Back in the good old days, this was the case. Now it appears that many of the active members are no longer showing up, maybe because they moved away. But they still know those that are left behind can do it.

This is not about getting paid or not, its about getting enough trained firefighters to an incident, the current depts are not getting the job done.

[Geppetto 31]

Safety Committee examines another fire response

09/01/2010

By TOM EVANS

Stamford Times

STAMFORD -- A response to a fire alarm on Middle Patent Road on July 24 has again raised the issue of fire department protocol, and a public hearing before the Board of Representatives' Public Health and Safety Committee last week began to address those concerns....

http://www.thestamfordtimes.com/story/490984

[TRex 9]

I know this guy. He is a frustrated wanna be careeer fire fighter. Smart, good guy, good with numbers, but no expert on fire department organization. If the plan gives north stamford residents more adequate protection, than it suggests that for all these years prior they were getting none. Why not give all the citizens equal protection. Why should it be different between north and south? This is backwards. In 1950 when the Town of Stamford and the City of Stamford combined into one municipality, the archaic thinking of the volunteers then held back progress. The police combined, the public works combined etc. The fire service did not. Not even did the volunteers combine amongst themselves. Each held on to their fiefdoms. That thinking is still present today in the 4th largest city in the state. Where is Pender County NC anyway? Are we comparing apples to apples? I think not. They may have an adequate volunteer base. Fact is the volunteer base up here does not exist. It hasn't for the past 20 plus years. the socioeconomic population has been changing . No one is suggesting elimnation fo the volunteers. Just a unification under one Central organization. Unity of Command, Chain of Command, one SOP. But no, self serving proponents dont' want to be told how and when to do anything. Jumping fire trucks kills the accountability system. Ther is no room for flexibility on the fire scene when it comes to accountantability. His arguements are weak. Thanks anyway Bob. Stay focused on your southern area, let those of us who are still here figure it out.

Yes, what stoke of brilliance. Let's run firetrucks with just one person on board. As long as something that is big and red and makes lots of noise shows up, that should be sufficient.

Also known as the "S and S" operational policy.

SCOUT it out and SCREAM for help if you find something.....service at its best.

It's 2010.........do you know where your responsibilities are?

[TRex 9]

I know this guy. He is a frustrated wanna be careeer fire fighter. Smart, good guy, good with numbers, but no expert on fire department organization. If the plan gives north stamford residents more adequate protection, than it suggests that for all these years prior they were getting none. Why not give all the citizens equal protection. Why should it be different between north and south? This is backwards. In 1950 when the Town of Stamford and the City of Stamford combined into one municipality, the archaic thinking of the volunteers then held back progress. The police combined, the public works combined etc. The fire service did not. Not even did the volunteers combine amongst themselves. Each held on to their fiefdoms. That thinking is still present today in the 4th largest city in the state. Where is Pender County NC anyway? Are we comparing apples to apples? I think not. They may have an adequate volunteer base. Fact is the volunteer base up here does not exist. It hasn't for the past 20 plus years. the socioeconomic population has been changing . No one is suggesting elimnation fo the volunteers. Just a unification under one Central organization. Unity of Command, Chain of Command, one SOP. But no, self serving proponents dont' want to be told how and when to do anything. Jumping fire trucks kills the accountability system. Ther is no room for flexibility on the fire scene when it comes to accountantability. His arguements are weak. Thanks anyway Bob. Stay focused on your southern area, let those of us who are still here figure it out.

"The plan selected by the mayor, in my opinion, will give the North Stamford area more than adequate fire protection and flexibility at little or no increase in taxes."

"More than adequate" - what standard does that meet? NFPA 1710, NFPA 1720, ISO, Fire Accredidation, etc.?

"Flexability" - to do what? What if it does not work, is that flexability to hire more without oversight?

"I do not see any difference between a responding apparatus staffed with a Local 786 crew or a Stamford Volunteer Fire Department crew."

so he cant see the difference between a 3-4 man crew vs. a 1-2 man crew.

Vinny Gambini: "Maybe you're ready for a thicker set. You sure? Let's check it out."

"The Stamford VFD plan, as I see it, will provide more flexibility in the types of apparatus that can respond to an incident..... The SFRD firefighters do not switch from one apparatus to another."

Can anyone list any major dept. that routinly jumps from rig to rig? Can it be that the team work that develops when assigned to a specific rig is better?

In baseball do the pros switch from catcher to outfield? Wouldn't this make the team more flexable?

"If they are assigned to an engine they stay on that engine. A serious road accident requires an engine and a rescue, and you're likely to get a better mix of firefighters and apparatus responding simultaneously under the SVFD concept."

So 1 ff on an engine and 1 on the rescue is better than 6-8 on an engine and rescue. Or does this flexability mean we take the rescue and leave the engine back? Hope we do not need it.

"Cost is another item that appears to be in question. Under the SVFD plan, the staffing levels will not be much different than the previous volunteer department staffing levels other than the paid chief's position."

The big question: Was the previous staffing enough? Can you show that the response of career & volunteers has met any accepted minimums?

"Thus, the historically low cost the taxpayers have enjoyed, by virtue of having their fire protection supplemented by volunteers, should not change."

True, as long as enough trained volunteers show up in a timely manor. This has not been happening, maybe it was when the author was chief.

"Volunteers are always eager to be trained to drive and operate fire apparatus, and they reach the highest levels of proficiency. For decades, this has greatly multiplied the numbers of apparatus rolling out to calls with zero cost to the taxpayer. The best example would be any one of the damaging storms that hit North Stamford. I can remember times when every piece of Turn of River Fire Department apparatus was deployed at separate locations, all manned by volunteer drivers and crews, with everyone working together as professionals to get the job done, regardless of who was getting paid and who wasn't."

Back in the good old days, this was the case. Now it appears that many of the active members are no longer showing up, maybe because they moved away. But they still know those that are left behind can do it.

This is not about getting paid or not, its about getting enough trained firefighters to an incident, the current depts are not getting the job done.

[Geppetto 31]

Volunteer firefighters offer alternative fire service plan

09/23/2010

By TOM EVANS

Stamford Times

STAMFORD -- With Mayor Michael Pavia's proposed plan to realign the fire protection system for the city beginning its journey through the approval process, the union representing Stamford's professional firefighters presented an alternative to the Board of Representative's Public Safety & Health Committee on Thursday night....

..."The plan that has been proposed is a hybrid created in the mayor's office," said Bobby Valentine, fire task force chairman. "We kept trying to figure out the best plan. I want to be buried in the dirt here, but I don't want to be buried prematurely. If (fire protection) continued as it is, we're only asking for disaster."

http://www.thestamfordtimes.com/story/491898

[Bnechis 3,961]

Volunteer firefighters offer alternative fire service plan

09/23/2010

By TOM EVANS

Stamford Times

"the union representing Stamford's professional firefighters"

Volunteer....Union......

Looks like the Stamford Times needs a little more editing

[Geppetto 31]

Valentine condemns 'threats' from fire union members

Jeff Morganteen

Stamford Advocate

September 24, 2010

STAMFORD -- Bobby Valentine lashed out at the local professional firefighters' union for what he called threats made toward him before the former Major League Baseball manager met with city representatives Thursday night.

"When I entered the room tonight I had two union members treat me in a way that no one ever treats me," Valentine said during a outburst that capped off an otherwise uneventful meeting of the Board of Representatives' Public Safety and Health Committee.

"I'm saying this publicly because the next time somebody says something I might end up in front of a judge," Valentine said....

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/Valentine-condemns-threats-from-fire-union-672894.php