Update on Stamford Merger

[FFPCogs 863]

Interesting that this latest round started when a TOR Chief wrote a letter about hom much the career staff of SFRD make and tried to make it all about how they are taking advantage of the public. Now the plan supported by this chief is to hire paid personnel to work under the VFD control. Wouldn't these career people have a similar contract to SFRD? Would he have an issue with that? or is it ok if they had the same contract, but he gets to control the show.

Was this chief or any other VFD chief at the 4/15/11 fire in No. Stamford? You could complain all day about SFRD, but to be incharge of an incident, you must respond to it 1st. And it appears that he nor any of the other VFD chiefs responded during this fire.

I believe Volunteer Fire Chief Ben Franklin as Poor Richard, 1st wrote: "You get what you pay for"

Around and around and around we go. Let us step off the merry-go-round for just a minute shall we? Now we all know that this forum is is just a place to share our views, but maybe some good can come from all this bickering and back and forth after all. Why not try a different approach on what seems to be a major stumbling block to progress in an effort to determine if there is any common ground on which to build. If only for the sake of discussion in that vein I will put forth this question.

Would the following criteria be an acceptable compromise in regards to officer qualification/selection and thus the "control" issue?

Each candidiate for promotion would have to successfully complete:

1) A minimum amount of time served in the department or at a lower rank

2) Standardized State certification classes for each rank

3) A standardized promotional exam for each rank

4) An oral interview conducted by a board consisting of servng officers both career and volunteer from outside your department

and now the divergence

5) Eligible candidates appointed by Commission for SFRD / Eligible candidates elected bi-annually by membership for volunteers

Cogs

Edited April 22, 2011 by FFPCogs

[Alpinerunner 61]

The more some of you talk about what the downtown dept does and how downtown operates, the more ignorant you sound. For example, cogs stated that career firefighters DO NOT split crews. He stated this because Chief Jacobellis of Turn of River Vol made this argument awhile back in a poor attempt at convincing the BOR that the volunteers get more vehicles to the scene (and as we all know vehicles put out fires and extricate people, not actual firefighters). Last time I checked, E1 splits the crew for water rescue calls to take the engine (with 2 ff) and the pick-up with boat (the other two ff from E1). This same operation would be used for the hose wagon, unlike what cogs stated... Perhaps it is time for the volunteers to stick to their own operating guidelines rather than creating new ones for the career firefighters. As well all know, nobody likes an IKE (I Know Everything).

The following is from the dispatch center. The location is a few doors down from one of the TOR Volunteer Fire Station. It speaks for itself. The question I pose is, at what point does a volunteer chief admit to himself and the public which he serves that the outfit he is in charge of is no longer viable and can no longer do what they are funded to do? Does someone have to get hurt or even die before this happens? Lets hope not... Read the record from bottom up

04/20/2011 19:48:03 : pos11 : AVALBUENA]

FM RESPONDING ETA 20 MINS

[04/20/2011 19:30:34 : pos11 : AVALBUENA]

REQUESTING A FIRE MARSHAL

[04/20/2011 19:30:20 : pos11 : AVALBUENA]

FIRE IS OUT...RECALL E8 CAN HANDLE

[04/20/2011 19:27:50 : pos11 : AVALBUENA]

E8 ON THE SCENE...SMALL FIRE ON THE GRILL..WILL BE USING AN EXTINGUISHER

[04/20/2011 19:27:16 : pos4 : KSCHULZE]

SHE ALSO STATED THAT SHE COULD SEE SOMETHING ELSE ON FIRE....SOUNDED LIKE SHE SAID HER DECK, BUT SHE WAS MORE CONCERNED THAT NO ONE WAS THERE YET THAN TELLING ME WHAT ELSE WAS ON FIRE

[04/20/2011 19:26:44 : pos4 : KSCHULZE]

CALLER JUST CALLED BACK TO SAY THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS RIGHT DOWN THE STREET AND THEY SHOULD BE THERE BY NOW....SHE WAS ADVISED THAT THEY ARE VOLUNTEER IN THAT STATION AND THAT THE STATION IS NOT MANNED AT ALL TIMES....

[04/20/2011 19:22:42 : pos4 : KSCHULZE]

CALLER AND BABY WILL BE EVACUATING

[04/20/2011 19:22:34 : pos4 : KSCHULZE]

Cross streets: HIGH RIDGE RD//GERIAK RD

FIRE IN THE OVEN....OVEN IS OFF....

Imagine the fright and fustration this poor lady had to go through in the seemingly minor incident! The worst part about this is that with all the rhetoric, these same volunteers have the taxpayers convinced that they are always available and responding 24/365... when will reality hit? This is not a laughing matter people.

I look forward to hearing from other company leaders that have been in similar situations where the company could no longer adequately provide fire protection. What/who prompted those actions?

I try to stay out of this, but have to step in when important information is left out to serve one's adjenda. Believe it or not, there was a crew in house during the DAY at the time of the alarm (I thought that didn't happen?!). However, they needed a driver. I know because I got a text page saying, "crew in house, need driver for oven fire TOR Rd."

Now before everyone jumps up and down and says, "well you should train more drivers" let me point out that that isn't the agrument nor the issue. No one is trying to argue that things should stay the same. The issue is are the volunteers there, and will the mayor's plan work? With the Mayor's plan enacted, the initial engine would have been FULL (6 FFs!), with 3 career FFs and 3 volunteers. This is more than did respond that day.

And FWIW, TOR did get a driver as the recall was put in, thus backfilling for any additional calls, which is an often overlooked benefit of volunteers who can't be at the station for the inital dispatch.

So much effort goes into making it look like the volunteers aren't there, but it's simply not true. Making ~1300/2000 calls a year all-volunteer proves that they are an ASSET to the community. Please remember no one is advocating for an all volunteer department.

[JohnnyOV 2]

I try to stay out of this, but have to step in when important information is left out to serve one's adjenda. Believe it or not, there was a crew in house during the DAY at the time of the alarm (I thought that didn't happen?!). However, they needed a driver. I know because I got a text page saying, "crew in house, need driver for oven fire TOR Rd."

Now before everyone jumps up and down and says, "well you should train more drivers" let me point out that that isn't the agrument nor the issue. No one is trying to argue that things should stay the same. The issue is are the volunteers there, and will the mayor's plan work? With the Mayor's plan enacted, the initial engine would have been FULL (6 FFs!), with 3 career FFs and 3 volunteers. This is more than did respond that day.

And FWIW, TOR did get a driver as the recall was put in, thus backfilling for any additional calls, which is an often overlooked benefit of volunteers who can't be at the station for the inital dispatch.

So much effort goes into making it look like the volunteers aren't there, but it's simply not true. Making ~1300/2000 calls a year all-volunteer proves that they are an ASSET to the community. Please remember no one is advocating for an all volunteer department.

You could have 50 volunteers at the firehouse, but if no one is a driver, what good are they?

[CTFF 65]

I try to stay out of this, but have to step in when important information is left out to serve one's adjenda. Believe it or not, there was a crew in house during the DAY at the time of the alarm (I thought that didn't happen?!). However, they needed a driver. I know because I got a text page saying, "crew in house, need driver for oven fire TOR Rd."

Now before everyone jumps up and down and says, "well you should train more drivers" let me point out that that isn't the agrument nor the issue. No one is trying to argue that things should stay the same. The issue is are the volunteers there, and will the mayor's plan work? With the Mayor's plan enacted, the initial engine would have been FULL (6 FFs!), with 3 career FFs and 3 volunteers. This is more than did respond that day.

And FWIW, TOR did get a driver as the recall was put in, thus backfilling for any additional calls, which is an often overlooked benefit of volunteers who can't be at the station for the inital dispatch.

So much effort goes into making it look like the volunteers aren't there, but it's simply not true. Making ~1300/2000 calls a year all-volunteer proves that they are an ASSET to the community. Please remember no one is advocating for an all volunteer department.

This crew of three in house without driver all are FF1 and are also considered interior firefighters by TOR? One of the three was also a line officer for TOR?

[Alpinerunner 61]

This crew of three in house without driver all are FF1 and are also considered interior firefighters by TOR? One of the three was also a line officer for TOR?

Correct. 616 was in house.

[Alpinerunner 61]

You could have 50 volunteers at the firehouse, but if no one is a driver, what good are they?

They are good when you have a career drivers and FFs, as in a proper combination department.

[CTFF 65]

They are good when you have a career drivers and FFs, as in a proper combination department.

I guess I'm still a bit lost. We hear from the supporters of the mayor's plan that volunteers will/do respond from their homes/jobs while the career firefighter will drive the rigs to the call. Here a SFRD rig goes to the call, yet the volunteers don't respond from just down the road in the firehouse?

[Alpinerunner 61]

I guess I'm still a bit lost. We hear from the supporters of the mayor's plan that volunteers will/do respond from their homes/jobs while the career firefighter will drive the rigs to the call. Here a SFRD rig goes to the call, yet the volunteers don't respond from just down the road in the firehouse?

I already explained that they needed a driver, and that had there been career FFs in house, the first due rig would have had 6 FFs (3 paid, 3 Vol) instead of 3 or 4 total, as was the case at the incident in question. Having career FFs that are also drivers in the house 24/7 allows the volunteer FFs in the station to get out the door immediately. If there aren't FFs in the house, they can respond directly to the scene to meet the apparatus, as opposed to wasting time waiting for a driver to get to the station first, which is what happens now.

Let's be honest. The issue at hand is where these career FFs are coming from, and that's not what I'm arguing or what I want to get into. My point is that the volunteers ARE there and will be an asset in the Mayor's plan.

Edited April 22, 2011 by Alpinerunner

[mstrang1 213]

Why couldn't the volunteers respond in the suburban? If they had turnout gear and scba with them, they could have been an asset at the scene. Just because they do not have E62 or R66 does not make them useless. If it was a fire, Engine 8 has several pre-connected lines, extra irons, hooks, etc. that may have been available for use by TOR members. TOR members respond in the SUV on medical calls and the like, what makes a fire call any different?

[Alpinerunner 61]

Why couldn't the volunteers respond in the suburban? If they had turnout gear and scba with them, they could have been an asset at the scene. Just because they do not have E62 or R66 does not make them useless. If it was a fire, Engine 8 has several pre-connected lines, extra irons, hooks, etc. that may have been available for use by TOR members. TOR members respond in the SUV on medical calls and the like, what makes a fire call any different?

That is a valid point and something that could always be worked out by TOR and SFRD higher-ups. But as things stand the service units don't have room for airpacks, and we haven't gotten any indication that grabbing stuff off an SFRD rig would be OK.

The SOGs are to stay in house and wait for a driver so they can come with the right equipment, or take in a concurrent medical. The service units have all the equipment necessary for medicals only.

[FFPCogs 863]

Why couldn't the volunteers respond in the suburban? If they had turnout gear and scba with them, they could have been an asset at the scene. Just because they do not have E62 or R66 does not make them useless. If it was a fire, Engine 8 has several pre-connected lines, extra irons, hooks, etc. that may have been available for use by TOR members. TOR members respond in the SUV on medical calls and the like, what makes a fire call any different?

You seem to be saying you condone Stamford volunteers operating off city rigs if they arrive on a scene without a rig but with their turnouts and SCBA (under the assumption they are qualified to at least FF 1 and EMR [MRT] of course). Is this correct? Are you speaking in terms of your opinion or is this SFRD policy? Seems like this might be a good start at turning things around and this development would clearly show that SFRD does indeed want to work with Stamford's volunteers to best serve the public.

Cogs

Edited April 22, 2011 by FFPCogs

[16fire5 693]

Would the following criteria be an acceptable compromise in regards to officer qualification/selection and thus the "control" issue?

Each candidiate for promotion would have to successfully complete:

1) A minimum amount of time served in the department or at a lower rank

2) Standardized State certification classes for each rank

3) A standardized promotional exam for each rank

4) An oral interview conducted by a board consisting of servng officers both career and volunteer from outside your department

and now the divergence

5) Eligible candidates appointed by Commission for SFRD / Eligible candidates elected bi-annually by membership for volunteers

Cogs

I hope you not equating time served in the volunteer ranks with that in the career. Why in 2011 if you were designing a system from the ground up would you continue elections?

[FD828 77]

You seem to be saying you condone Stamford volunteers operating off city rigs if they arrive on a scene without a rig but with their turnouts and SCBA (under the assumption they are qualified to at least FF 1 and EMR [MRT] of course). Is this correct? Are you speaking in terms of your opinion or is this SFRD policy? Seems like this might be a good start at turning things around and this development would clearly show that SFRD does indeed want to work with Stamford's volunteers to best serve the public.

Cogs

Not sure about volunteer responding to the scene without a rig, but I do believe that it is current policy that the certified volunteers can ride out on SFRD rigs.

[FFPCogs 863]

I hope you not equating time served in the volunteer ranks with that in the career. Why in 2011 if you were designing a system from the ground up would you continue elections?

No I'm not. time served but it is one of the quantifying factors that can be used to help determine a candidates readiness for promotion in conjunction with testing, certification and interviews. The experience level of any firefighter is based on the number of incidents at which they work and we have no control over when or how many incdents there will be, nor do career depts for that matter. There are some depts or groups within a career dept that are simply not as busy as others,or even some VFDs, that is the nature of the business. Are these FFs to be prevented from seeking higher rank because of their assignment?

So long as standardized methodologies are used for training, testing and the interview the basic needs will be met to assume a higher rank. After that it is dependent on call volume.

As for election well that is just a personal choice based on my experiences. As I see it the turnover rate among volunteers is considerably higher than a career dept because this is not their livlihood...not that that makes them incapable of performing the duties associated with any rank. Therefore a regularly scheduled process needs to be in place to ensure the positions are filled. Along with that most VFDs operate under the direction of their memberships through their elected official much like our Nation. Elections are not a problem so long as a process exists to establish qualified candidates as this reduces the "buddy system" considerably. Also many appointments of career officers are done by commissions which in fact vote amongst themselves to decide which candidate best suit the needs of the department... hence the reason some officers with lower scores but other mitigating factors are promoted over those with higher test scores.

How about an answer to the question as to whether or not this is an acceptable compromise?

Cogs

[FFPCogs 863]

Not sure about volunteer responding to the scene without a rig, but I do believe that it is current policy that the certified volunteers can ride out on SFRD rigs.

That is my understanding as well for GFD and SFCo.

[CTFF 65]

Cogs,

I can't see any competent incident commander turning down manpower at a fire simply because they are paid or a volunteer. For instance If belltown guys are operating at a fire in truck45, T45 has the building and a ladder needs to be thrown for guys on the second floor what ladder is going to get grabbed? I'm going to grab the closest ladder not the closest SFRD ladder. I've said it before I don't want to see anyone from the public, SFRD or any of the VFD's hurt, to me that is unacceptable.

To me the biggest stumbling block will always being the sharing of information. Will all the FD's share info on training? I don't think so and this will always be the disconnect.

[FFPCogs 863]

Cogs,

I can't see any competent incident commander turning down manpower at a fire simply because they are paid or a volunteer. For instance If belltown guys are operating at a fire in truck45, T45 has the building and a ladder needs to be thrown for guys on the second floor what ladder is going to get grabbed? I'm going to grab the closest ladder not the closest SFRD ladder. I've said it before I don't want to see anyone from the public, SFRD or any of the VFD's hurt, to me that is unacceptable.

Agreed a hundred times over. Competent firefighters are just that competent. It matters not who they serve with or how. We are dedicated to the same mission and when the sh!t his the fan I could care less what color your coat is or whether or not you're paid or volunteer, we have a job to do and duty to perform. I can assure you of one thing though, if it ever happens that someone is injured or worse due to negligence stemming from this mess...God help those who cause it no matter where they're from.

To me the biggest stumbling block will always being the sharing of information. Will all the FD's share info on training? I don't think so and this will always be the disconnect.

Fair enough. To me though the biggest stumbling block to date has been the unwillingness of SFRD to enter into any meaningful negotiation with the VFDs on how best to begin to solve this. I say begin because just as it took years to get here it will take some time to get out of it....although with a little compromise that could be relatively soon.

Cogs

Edited April 22, 2011 by FFPCogs

[FireMedic049 597]

This crew of three in house without driver all are FF1 and are also considered interior firefighters by TOR? One of the three was also a line officer for TOR?

Why is that line officer not able to be the driver? Seems kind of odd that a person would have enough time in the department to be put into that role, but not have become a driver.

[FireMedic049 597]

My point is that the volunteers ARE there and will be an asset in the Mayor's plan.

I was of the impression that the volunteers would be an asset in all of the plans put forth.

[FFPCogs 863]

I was of the impression that the volunteers would be an asset in all of the plans put forth.

I suppose that depends on what one considers an asset. Or maybe more precisely what type of asset. We already have a clear indication of just what type of "asset" is envisioned by one of the plans and what that will mean for volunteer firefighting in Stamford. Having the districts or first due response areas reduced to the property lines of each VFD, which is part of what the "Brown" plan calls for, relegates each to a support status. Now while support functions are an asset, IMO this concept is not only a waste of our resourses, but ultimately counterproductive as it will result in all the VFDs becoming like the "model" currently in place. On a personal note I do not believe that I or my department is deserving of such a reduction in our function either, as we consistently do our job. In fact of all the plans submitted to the Fire Service Task Force only one had any real specific steps to integrate all the components of Stamford's fire service and recruit and retain volunteers. And this was in conjunction to staffing and had the costs factored into the plan. Of the two others, the front runners, neither seems to have specific plans for the recruitment and retention of volunteers or the costs associated with that process because both are predicated on career staffing with any volunteer activity being secondary. IMO and quite frankly what seems to have been overlooked by many involved in all this is that our current and any future volunteers are an investment, not an expense. To achieve a long lasting, vital and integral volunteer component, a true and fully functional asset, it is the fervent belief of some of us that they should be treated as such by all parties involved regardless of what plan or combination of plans emerges. In the end the future of the volunteer fire service in Stamford will be directly related to what the City is willing to invest in it.

Edited April 23, 2011 by FFPCogs

[FD828 77]

Fair enough. To me though the biggest stumbling block to date has been the unwillingness of SFRD to enter into any meaningful negotiation with the VFDs on how best to begin to solve this. I say begin because just as it took years to get here it will take some time to get out of it....although with a little compromise that could be relatively soon.

Cogs

How can you honestly believe this? Aside from the Belltown chief, look at what the other department heads have done publicly towards SFRD! It amazes me that your department wants to be associated with the other 2. (TOR, Springdale). You think that if anything is suggested by SFRD other then what they want, that there will be a compromise? They publicly attacked the firefighters and their livelihoods, and we are supposed to work side by side with them? Give me a break. It has to be a two way street.

[FFPCogs 863]

How can you honestly believe this? Aside from the Belltown chief, look at what the other department heads have done publicly towards SFRD! It amazes me that your department wants to be associated with the other 2. (TOR, Springdale). You think that if anything is suggested by SFRD other then what they want, that there will be a compromise? They publicly attacked the firefighters and their livelihoods, and we are supposed to work side by side with them? Give me a break. It has to be a two way street.

Putting myself in your shoes I can appreciate your view and see how you have come to the conclusions you have based on some events that have taken place. I can even go so far as to say that I respect them as well since we are all entitled to our opinions based on the facts as we understand them. But my view, my understanding stems from what IMO has been an intransigence on the part of SFRD to negotiate since this mess began in 2008 under our previous Mayor. I think all can now agree that the tactics employed by the former adminstration were at best ill conceived and in large part have led to the current impasse. Since then though there have been ample opportunites to sit down and willingly compromise to achieve a real and lasting solution that takes into account the interests of all of the parties involved. To date and to the best of my knowledge, in my opinion SFRD has refused to budge on any of the demands they have made since 2008 while seeking compliance of those demands from the VFDs which is not theirs to demand, even if they are "right". Unfortunately this has led to those opportunities being squandered in the pursuit of what some, including me, see as a failed agenda.

Now of course I do not speak for the BFD, the volunteers as a whole or anyone other than myself, just as you do not speak for your dept or union, but tell me what is it in your opinion that will make this a two way street? For me it involves serious dialouge on how incident command will work and include competent volunteer officers determined as I have previously outlined in this thread. Along with that goes in house staffing and who it is that employees/staff will answer to when off the fireground. For me each dept Chief must be the nominal supervisor of the employees/staff in their houses as they are the man on the ground for each and all of them must answer to yet a higher authority in the form of a mutually acceptable Chief or the DPS. These two take prominence to me based on them being what most see as the major obstacle...control. Control must flow down from a central authority that is objective and will work for the betterment of both "sides" of our fire service, not one over the other, hence that controlling entity must be mutually acceptable. As we move on I am fully in support of standardized training and certification, SOP(G)s where applicable, combination staffing, perfomance standards and in fact true and equal integration of all firefighters in Stamford. All of these points have been brought forth on numerous occasions (some by me personally) and each time they have been dismissed by SFRD out of hand and without even an attempt at discussion. Nor has any other alternative come forth from SFRD that takes into account the reality of how things work here in the legal sense. As best as I can tell it was and continues to be do as SFRD demands or nothing. From my perspective this attitude is not conducive to compromise and makes the idea of entering into negotiation with SFRD on some valid issues of concern impossible to entertain.

Now I'm sure you see thing from a far different perspective and that is to be expected. But what, if any, of the points listed above would you consider negotiable or better yet common ground on which to build?

Cogs

[FD828 77]

First, where/what are these demands of SFRD that you speak so much of? Do they apply to Glenbrook FD as well and if so how were they effected by them? Who is making these take it or leave it demands? I believe in standardized training from the newest ff to the highest officers. But how can anything even get started with that if the departments will not hand over or show what training their members have or better yet don't have?

On an incident all personnel must follow ICS or the chain of command. Career ff's take orders from their officer, that officer takes orders from the IC and so on and so on. So if a volunteer lets say engine, responds to the same incident, with career crews operating, the officer on the volunteer engine will be in charge of his/her crew and will take orders from the same IC. So on a scene I do not see where issues will arise.(Provided we are dealing with individuals whose training is known and adequate for the position) Volunteer officers will not be giving orders to career crews and vice versa. Except of course the IC. But training has to be the key. I don't really care that someone is voted in a chief, Captain or Lt, I know how that system works coming from it myself. The problem lies with the unknown. Who is trained and to what level.

Problems arise in the stations. It has happened in the past (to me personally) were a volunteer officer gets a bug up their butt and starts to pull rank with the career staff. Now what should be done is have that officer speak with the career officer and handle things like gentlemen, however those that have been around have seen what happens. Bays being blocked, police being called, grievances being filed and so on and so on. Nobody trusts the other. Like it or not the career staff is unionized and as such is afforded certain protections/rights that must be followed.

But I also believe that there should be a fully staffed crew in each VFD to respond immediately for all calls 24/7. I feel it is up to the individual volunteer ff to decide what is best for his/her community and whether or not they can/will work with that system. I don't think the VFD's will or should be a secondary role. If they have a fully trained crew to staff a machine great, just a couple guys that want to ride on the career rig, great. Like I said above if we all train together.......

IMO, if we were all trained the same and trained together, I think there would be more trust and a better environment for all involved. Letters to the BOR does make it hard to extend the old olive branch though.

Edited April 23, 2011 by FD828

[FFPCogs 863]

First, where/what are these demands of SFRD that you speak so much of? Do they apply to Glenbrook FD as well and if so how were they effected by them? Who is making these take it or leave it demands? I believe in standardized training from the newest ff to the highest officers. But how can anything even get started with that if the departments will not hand over or show what training their members have or better yet don't have?

The demands all center on the reduction of the VFDs and their personnel to support functions. Call it control if you wish but the fact is the previous administration (and one could argue SFRD) have disregarded the legal and duly authorized Charter unilaterally, as the courts have determined. This in and of itself has caused much mistrust of the motivations of SFRD and the ultimate future of our organizations should we come under that umbrella. Some see it as an end to volunteer firefighting in Stamford. A view that IMO has merit based on discussions with SFRD personnel past and present. And yes these demands do apply to GFD. As far as how that has affected them ...well a 6% response rate speaks for itself. I hope you realize that they have been touted as a model for the future of the volunteer fire service in Stamford. Frankly that is not a future many of us see as viable or productive in the least for this City or our service.

On an incident all personnel must follow ICS or the chain of command. Career crews take orders from their officer, that officer takes orders from the IC and so on and so on. So if a volunteer lets say engine, responds to the same incident, with career crews operating, the officer on the volunteer engine will be in charge of his/her crew and will take orders from the same IC. So on a scene I do not see where issues will arise.(Provided we are dealing with individuals whose training is known and adequate for the position) Volunteer officers will not be giving orders to career crews and vice versa. Except of course the IC. But training has to be the key. I don't really care that someone is voted in a chief, Captain or Lt, I know how that system works coming from it myself. The problem lies with the unknown. Who is trained and to what level.

No one is disputing ICS or it's place on the fireground, only the place of volunteer officers within it. I have already stated that to me a standardized criteria for officer selection is long overdue and that point I know for a fact is one many within volunteer community readily accept as a necessity for the future. Same for training and certifcation standards. When either have been proposed though they has been dismissed as unworkable by many on the career "side". Some believe that this is because this would still allow volunteer authority over career personnel.

Problems arise in the stations. It has happened in the past (to me personally) were a volunteer officer gets a bug up their butt and starts to pull rank with the career staff. Now what should be done is have that officer speak with the career officer and handle things like gentlemen, however those that have been around have seen what happens. Bays being blocked, police being called, grievances being filed and so on and so on. Nobody trusts the other. The sad thing is that the public will be the one to suffer in the end.

I'm sorry to hear that you've had such problems with some of you assignments, this is truly unfortunate. Be that as it may an officer must be an officer across the board. If in fact all were trained and certified to the same levels than a volunteer house Captain should have authority over a career Leiutenant in his house or visa versa with a career Captain and a vollie LT in that same house. Coupled with that would be the need to have a process in which grievences can be objectively and completely resolved in the best interest of the FD not either "side" of it.

To me it seems that to think that there would be two seperate commands on or off the fireground one career and one volunteer is to be diametrically opposed to what ICS and a chain of command is. All officers must have the authority to act within the responsibilities of their rank. IMO this is what we should collectively be willing to accept and work towards

IMO, if we were all trained the same and trained together, I think there would be more trust and a better environment for everyone. Everyone has to commit to it if it is going to work. Letters to the BOR does make it hard to extend the old olive branch though.

Agreed the sooner we work together in building bridges the sooner we can work together to build the best possible fire service for our City. One that increases our similarities, utilzes the strengths of both sectors and reduces our differences.

The olive branch has taken a beating on many fronts in the past few years but thankfully it is durable and always ready to grow.

Edited April 23, 2011 by FFPCogs

[FD828 77]

I can only blame the Glenbrook volunteers themselves for their lack of response to calls in their district. Speaking with some of those members, not one of them has expressed the belief that they don't respond because of the big bad SFRD. The SFRD has not done anything to discourage the GFD members from responding or riding out with E-6. It is up to the individual member to decide whether or not to respond. Just because GFD doesn't respond, why does that automatically mean the rest of the departments will follow suit? You know the personnel you have. Would they stop coming out for calls, stop training, just because SFRD had an engine in Belltown?

Another thing that must happen is that the fire station wherever it is, must not be "our house" and you are just guests here. I know I know, the building belongs to the volunteers. For it to truly work, it has to be everyones house that everyone can take pride in.

Just as a side note, SFRD personnel go where they are ordered to go. I am pretty sure that the white shirts get their marching orders from 888. So it is not like the white shirts unilaterally decided to place engines in the volunteer districts. And in 2 of them they were welcomed (well E-7 was welcome until the present 511 came to be - which is ironic because that department needs the help the most)

[Bnechis 3,961]

Another thing that must happen is that the fire station wherever it is, must not be "our house" and you are just guests here. I know I know, the building belongs to the volunteers. For it to truly work, it has to be everyones house that everyone can take pride in.

I would think that the fire house "belongs" to the community. While legally the volunteer company might "own" it, the community paid for it (thru donations and/or taxes). Until everyone agees that the fire station "belongs" to the community, its just a private clubhouse and has never been, nor ever will be a firehouse.

[FFPCogs 863]

I can only blame the Glenbrook volunteers themselves for their lack of response to calls in their district. Speaking with some of those members, not one of them has expressed the belief that they don't respond because of the big bad SFRD. The SFRD has not done anything to discourage the GFD members from responding or riding out with E-6. It is up to the individual member to decide whether or not to respond. Just because GFD doesn't respond, why does that automatically mean the rest of the departments will follow suit? You know the personnel you have. Would they stop coming out for calls, stop training, just because SFRD had an engine in Belltown?

I didn't blame SFRD for Glenbrooks ills in the sense that there is a policy to discourage volunteer particpation, nor do I in any way think SFRD is big and bad, but the fact remains that since the introduction of Engine 6 there has been a dramatically negative effect on their participation. I do not know the reasons for that either, but as you speak to them maybe you could find out.

In terms of Belltown, I cannot and will not speak for other members but I can assure you that I will remain regardless of what happens. In case you haven't noticed like a rash I'm not that easy to get rid of....

Another thing that must happen is that the fire station wherever it is, must not be "our house" and you are just guests here. I know I know, the building belongs to the volunteers. For it to truly work, it has to be everyones house that everyone can take pride in.

You are right, but I have been told that one of the deal breakers in 2008 was the SFRD demand that the BFD hall be turned over to create living quarters for the SFRD paid staff. Upon a little research this claim was backed up by a number of different sources in and out of Belltown. How is that making it a house we can all take pride in? I personally would be fine with SFRD in house so long as they understand that due to the schedules of volunteers there are people in and out at all hours...which of course for members is their right, they don't seek to dictate the policies or operations of that house or it's members, and they are wiling to abide by a unified chain of command which includes volunteer officers of all ranks.

Just as a side note, SFRD personnel go where they are ordered to go. I am pretty sure that the white shirts get their marching orders from 888. So it is not like the white shirts unilaterally decided to place engines in the volunteer districts. And in 2 of them they were welcomed (well E-7 was welcome until the present 511 came to be - which is ironic because that department needs the help the most)

Well as was already mentioned for BFD and TOR at least, the previous administration at 888 made a unilateral decision in violation of the Charter. Specific to TOR is the same tactic in regards to the 1999 management agreement.

Let me just clarify something at this juncture. I have absolutley no personal issues with SFRD or it's members and as best as I can tell neither does anyone else for the most part. We work well together on a regualr basis and at least on my end will continue to do so come what may. The problems for me arise from the constant unrelenting bashing of volunteers, and what IMO is the official unwillingness to negotiate in good faith from a clean slate to integrate the services under the conditions and legal framework that exist.

Now we've gone back and forth with the point - counter-point for quite some time and come full circle. As I've said repeatedly I am fully aware of your concerns and those of other SFRD members, and even if I don't fully agree with them I respect them. I have respectfulIy addressed your and their concerns as best I can and directly answered every question put to me as to how best to proceed. Unfortunately IMO I do not seem to have been afforded the same respect in return which is part and parcel of what I''ve been saying is one of the stumbling blocks. So I will ask once again :

From your point of view what points are open for negotiation or are common ground?

Cogs

Edited April 23, 2011 by FFPCogs

[Guest nyff123]

I can only blame the Glenbrook volunteers themselves for their lack of response to calls in their district. Speaking with some of those members, not one of them has expressed the belief that they don't respond because of the big bad SFRD. The SFRD has not done anything to discourage the GFD members from responding or riding out with E-6. It is up to the individual member to decide whether or not to respond. Just because GFD doesn't respond, why does that automatically mean the rest of the departments will follow suit? You know the personnel you have. Would they stop coming out for calls, stop training, just because SFRD had an engine in Belltown?

Everyone needs to remember that before Glenbrook merged with the SFRD they had paid drivers, so they made 100% of the calls. What we don't know is what percentage of those calls were made by volunteers. Unless someone from Glenbrook can chime in here and give us the numbers, we don't really know if the presence of Engine 6 has changed anything. Has the volunteer response decreased? Has it increased?

[FD828 77]

From your point of view what points are open for negotiation or are common ground?

From my point of view,(and my opinion means absolutely nothing) everything has to start with standardized training which we both have stated. Across the board city wide standards for the ranks of all officer positions. I feel that if a VFD has a full crew (Officer, Driver and 2 ff's with the standardized training) then they should call into dispatch and be put "in service" and added to the run cards to come up recommended for whatever or wherever the call is. When they no longer have this full crew, they call in and are taken out of service. If there are volunteers that want to ride out on the career machine then so be it. The IC is the IC. If the VFD chief responds then he/she will be the IC. It could be a responding captain (they go in POV's, yes?) until a higher ranking officer arrives. But this again is all dependent on training. I am not sure what else you are looking for me to say. I believe that have laid out some of my ideas of how this could work.

As far as the volunteers coming and going, maybe the only thing that would help is if there were sleeping quarters somewhere that the coming and going would not be disruptive (unless 612 outlaws all sleeping)

Perhaps if the VFD's actually wanted SFRD it could happen. But I think it is a fact that they don't for all the reasons and fears mentioned in the hundreds and hundreds of posts. I think we all have some good ideas and even want the same end goal. Problem is that we have no control or say for that matter. The powers that be have an agenda and I don't think there is anything that we can do about it. So the union will do what it feels is best for its' members, the VFD's will do what they feel is best for them. Hopefully the public will not suffer, because it sure seems like that's where it is headed.

[FFPCogs 863]

Everyone needs to remember that before Glenbrook merged with the SFRD they had paid drivers, so they made 100% of the calls. What we don't know is what percentage of those calls were made by volunteers. Unless someone from Glenbrook can chime in here and give us the numbers, we don't really know if the presence of Engine 6 has changed anything. Has the volunteer response decreased? Has it increased?

My understanding is that the participation level is down since the arrival of E-6 and that is what i base my opinions on. FYI that comes from some older members of that FD.