Update on Stamford Merger

[mstrang1 213]

Cogs-

In your previous post, you "magically predicted" 35% of the people will vote against this Prop. Are you trying to get your numbers up so you win the pool? Seems you are talking about rhetoric, with rhetoric.

[SECTMB 612]

I was just wondering about the grant. I assume that when the grant money runs out the City would have to spend its own money to keep the firefighters on at whatever the pay/benefits are commencing at the end of the grant period.

Optimistically they could find the money to keep the firefighters, or perhaps these new hires whose initial training and years of experience costs have been paid by the grant are able to remain, taking the place of retiring firefighters.

Be a shame to miss an opportunity for grant money to benefit the Dept. and community because of politics.

[FFPCogs 863]

Not rhetoric or not moving forward. As proposed there are far too many loopholes and grey areas in the "new" Charter. Since all attempts at compromise have failed by the "professionals" in both ranks, maybe it's time to get the ones who will suffer...or benefit...the most involved directly to get things moving. In the end take it any way you want, but I think most will see who is followng the party lines and not "moving forward", and who is trying to bridge them to do so.

Stay Safe

[FFPCogs 863]

Letter: Vote No To Stamford Fire Service Changes

So much for moving forward huh Cogs? The thing that you seemingly didn't mention is that the only thing that will come of a "no" vote on item #2 is that the mayor will go full steam ahead with the new paid "volunteer" fire dept. Spending countless tax payers dollars hiring 50+ new firefighters. Stamford will not become MD. The only thing that is going to happen is the same old mayor will try to push his ridiculous plan. If you think otherwise you are crazy. Maybe I we will all see a resolution to this mess before we are too old to benefit from it, I'm not holding my breath.

And what you fail to mention is that the "Mayors plan" has already been shot dead by the Finance Board for this year. It will face that same battle again and more likely than not the same outcome, should it be revived.

[FFPCogs 863]

Cogs-

In your previous post, you "magically predicted" 35% of the people will vote against this Prop. Are you trying to get your numbers up so you win the pool? Seems you are talking about rhetoric, with rhetoric.

35% is a good estimate. As far as my numbers in the pool, well I got stuck with 1% so I don't have a chance...

Rhetoric?? Saying the taxpayers should have a direct voice in how their fire service, the one THEY have to pay for, works is rhetoric? One that unlike virtually every city agency is made up of people who get paid and people who volunteer to provide the same service. So what....are you saying they should not have that voice?

[Bnechis 3,961]

Rhetoric?? Saying the taxpayers should have a direct voice in how their fire service, the one THEY have to pay for, works is rhetoric? One that unlike virtually every city agency is made up of people who get paid and people who volunteer to provide the same service. So what....are you saying they should not have that voice?

In NYS we have 3 different systems of public fire representation (there are a few hybreds, but thats not the norm):

Fire Protection Districts

Fire Districts

Municipal Fire Depts

All can be made up of 100% volunteer, combination or 100% career.

Fire Protection districts are often private not for profit corp. that are contracted and generally there is almost no public input (take the contract or leave it is about all). They also often do not give the public much info on how they are run.

Fire Distrcits have a publicly ellected board of commissioners and they are only responsible for the FD

Municipal Depts are overseen by local mayor/manager and city/village council.

Cogs your debate appears to be that you want something closer to our fire district model and the proposal is more of the municipal model.

From what I have seen in NY there is no real difference in the level of public input between the two and little difference in the performance between the two. There are good ones and bad ones. The public rarely participates with the districts (thus most commissioners end up being insiders or anti tax members) and the public rarely comments on the municipal dept ops (to the mayor/manager/council).

If this proposal goes thru, the public will still be represented by the Mayor and the financial and other boards. Is this so bad? If it does not go thru, and as you put it the financial board has already said no to the money for a 2nd paid "vol" dept., then your left with the same situation you have now (which no one appears to be happy with) until the financial board changes its mind or the next charter revision.

Based on this, is it really the public who would benefit from having a bigger say (if they really care to get a bigger say) or is this really about protecting the Stamford VFD view of the world?

Most importantly, how can the public decide what is in there best interest when there are so many facts being misheld.

[FFPCogs 863]

In NYS we have 3 different systems of public fire representation (there are a few hybreds, but thats not the norm):

Fire Protection Districts

Fire Districts

Municipal Fire Depts

All can be made up of 100% volunteer, combination or 100% career.

Fire Protection districts are often private not for profit corp. that are contracted and generally there is almost no public input (take the contract or leave it is about all). They also often do not give the public much info on how they are run.

Fire Distrcits have a publicly ellected board of commissioners and they are only responsible for the FD

Municipal Depts are overseen by local mayor/manager and city/village council.

Cogs your debate appears to be that you want something closer to our fire district model and the proposal is more of the municipal model.

From what I have seen in NY there is no real difference in the level of public input between the two and little difference in the performance between the two. There are good ones and bad ones. The public rarely participates with the districts (thus most commissioners end up being insiders or anti tax members) and the public rarely comments on the municipal dept ops (to the mayor/manager/council).

If this proposal goes thru, the public will still be represented by the Mayor and the financial and other boards. Is this so bad? If it does not go thru, and as you put it the financial board has already said no to the money for a 2nd paid "vol" dept., then your left with the same situation you have now (which no one appears to be happy with) until the financial board changes its mind or the next charter revision.

Based on this, is it really the public who would benefit from having a bigger say (if they really care to get a bigger say) or is this really about protecting the Stamford VFD view of the world?

Most importantly, how can the public decide what is in there best interest when there are so many facts being misheld.

Thanks B,

As always you inform and ask pertinent questions.

First off yes a NO vote will mean more of the same for now. As was stated in the letter a review will be conducted of the City's bonding issues after the election and as I understand it a special election held for any changes proposed. This due to the complexity of the issue. To me the fire service is equally complex and the proposed solution falls short.

In regards to the Mayor. As proposed he will appoint all the authority for this "new" fire department. The Fire Chief, the Director of Public Safety and the entire Fire Commission. Now the people in place now excel in those positions, but the probability that we will have a triumvirate of such quality always available is remote. A look back clearly shows this..remember Callion or for some Bobby V?? On top of that, as he will appoint the leadership any Mayor could conceivably 'stack the deck' against one or both elements to achieve an agenda, especially if his party holds a majority in the BoR. Ultimately we are all putting our futures into the hands of a politician, a scenario I have seen derided over and over again by career and volunteer alike.

And of course there is another aspect as well. Unlike virtually every other city service, Police, Public Work, Education, our fire protection is provided (admittedly to varying degrees) by both those for whom it is their livlihood and those who volunteer to provide the same service. Each brings it's own advantage to the table based in two inescapable truths about the fire service:

1) the career service almost universally guarantees a level of staffing 24/7 365.

2) volunteers generally offer protection at substantaiily lower cost.

These two advantages needn't be mutally exclusive, but to ensure the taxpayer gets the best of both worlds both must be represented so that those advantages are not lost This to bring their experience in managing their respective services together as part of a commission on which elected citizens hold the majority and can directly decide what they want to pay for and live with. After all it's their money

I'm sure some...or many..will see it differently but this concept offers the surest solution, a measure of protection for all and most importantly a real chance at a true partnership.

Stay Safe

Thanks again for your insight

Edited for spelling: fat fingers without my reading glasses doesn't do well on a keyboard...

Edited September 6, 2012 by FFPCogs

[Geppetto 31]

Angela Carella: Fire feud falls in the laps of citizens

Stamford Advocate Editorial

September 4, 2012

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/local/article/Angela-Carella-Fire-feud-falls-in-the-laps-of-3839915.php

[FD828 77]

From the advocate. This is what will happen with a "no" vote. More of the same. There will be no special anything. The boards will be pressured to accept this flawed plan.

Pavia said the upcoming ballot referendum "has both sides circling."

If Stamford voters strike down the charter change, Pavia said he will consider it a mandate to move forward with his proposal.

Read more: http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/Stamford-voters-to-settle-fire-dept-flap-3833802.php#ixzz25clbaybH

[mstrang1 213]

Cogs-

I am confused. You state that by voting YES that we are putting it in the hands of politicians. That may be true, but further along in your post you mention the "fairness" of elected civilians (quotes my own, because I did not copy the post on my phone). Isn't an elected civilian a politician? Would they not run on a party ticket and vote on party lines, just like any other "elected civilian"(again, paraphrasing...)?

In addition, being this is a Presidential election, there will be a large turnout of voters. If there is some special election as you say, it will essentially be a"whoever can muster enough friends to vote" election. Probably getting a 65-35 NUMBER OF VOTERS, as opposed to a large pool of voters on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

Edited September 5, 2012 by mstrang1

[FFPCogs 863]

Cogs-

I am confused. You state that by voting YES that we are putting it in the hands of politicians.

Not politicianS, a politician... there is a huge difference. As I said to a friend, had Malloy had this proposed hierarchy in place you and I would not be having this conversation...there would be no volunteers left to discuss any of this with.. and yeah I know, some would be very happy with that arrangement.

That may be true, but further along in your post you mention the "fairness" of elected civilians (quotes my own, because I did not copy the post on my phone). Isn't an elected civilian a politician? Would they not run on a party ticket and vote on party lines, just like any other "elected civilian"(again, paraphrasing...)?

Again there is a very big difference between a Mayor and BoR charged with running the City of which the FD is but one relatively small part and three citizens elected to oversee the FD and ONLY the fire department. I think Mr. Pantelis put out there quite clearly why representation is important for both firefighters and the public.

I

n addition, being this is a Presidential election, there will be a large turnout of voters. If there is some special election as you say, it will essentially be a"whoever can muster enough friends to vote" election. Probably getting a 65-35 NUMBER OF VOTERS, as opposed to a large pool of voters on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

The importance of these issues and their solution is up to the public to decide. If a special vote were to be called it would be there decision to make then as well as it is now. Seems to me you're saying that the public might not care if this were to be put off until a REAL solution is found for them to decide on, so we better just cram this half measure in now. I think that lack of faith in the electorate does all a great disservice by not giving other options their chance and the public their chance to review them.

Stay Safe

Edited for spelling

Edited September 6, 2012 by FFPCogs

[16fire5 693]

Letter: Vote No To Stamford Fire Service Changes

So much for moving forward huh Cogs? The thing that you seemingly didn't mention is that the only thing that will come of a "no" vote on item #2 is that the mayor will go full steam ahead with the new paid "volunteer" fire dept. Spending countless tax payers dollars hiring 50+ new firefighters. Stamford will not become MD. The only thing that is going to happen is the same old mayor will try to push his ridiculous plan. If you think otherwise you are crazy. Maybe I we will all see a resolution to this mess before we are too old to benefit from it, I'm not holding my breath.

From the Stamford Daily Voice

http://stamford.dail...service-changes

After all this you urge the citizens to vote no to a resolution. Let me get this straight you really won't endorse anything unless the volunteer fire service has veto power over what goes on? Also I don't see how anyone starting from scratch would model anything off PG County. There are much better models out there.

[FFPCogs 863]

After all this you urge the citizens to vote no to a resolution. Let me get this straight you really won't endorse anything unless the volunteer fire service has veto power over what goes on? Also I don't see how anyone starting from scratch would model anything off PG County. There are much better models out there.

Volunteer veto power, not at all. That would be the right of the elected citizens on such a Commission if such an action were required. And you're absolutely correct there are models far better than PG out there. I thought Mr. Pantelis' argument for career representation there outlined in my letter made that clear. He holds the same view as I except he's a career FF and I a volunteer back home, yet we both want the same thing...representation for all, firefighters and citizens, working in concert to oversee it all. Unfortunately the only way for this concept, and the partneship it entails, to now have a chance is for the current proposals to be set aside.

I have to add that the notion that this is all about a "volunteer veto" or some way to give volunteers an upper hand in a combined department is absolute nonsense. It is about building a combined fire department of which the foundation is partnership and cooperation, with the public as the arbiter to ensure that happens. The concept does not give any "advantage" to the volunteers since career firefighters would enjoy the same level of representation and thus "protection". Only the public would see a majority in that there would be three citizens elected to serve and two from each fire service element. As such the public will have direct oversight and ultimately the power to decide issues. And quite frankly, as I have said repeatedly, it is the public who should hold that power since it is they that have to pay for and live with the result, especially in light of the "history" our fire service shares over the last 15 years or so.

Maybe if the blinders came off and you read the proposal without any bias you would see the merit in it and the opportunities it offers...for ALL!! If you could you too would see how the current proposals fall short and why we need to vote NO to them and provide ourselves a better option.

Believe what you will, this is about providing the best possible service a combined fire department can offer...nothing more, nothing less.

Edited September 6, 2012 by FFPCogs

[CTFF 65]

http://stamford.dailyvoice.com/police-fire/stamford-hire-22-new-firefighters

STAMFORD, Conn. - Stamford will beef up its fire department with 22 new firefighters, Chief Antonio Conte said Tuesday.

Stamford Fire & Rescue hopes to add the additional members by the end of the year, he said.

That's the entire article.

[SFRD E-9 18]

Nothing new here in almost 3 weeks! Whats going on? Since the city hired 23 new SFRD Fire Fighters things have been real quiet!

[FFPCogs 863]

Here's a letter in support of Stamford's charter changes for our fire service from the Stamford Daily Voice:

http://stamford.dailyvoice.com/opinion/letter-stamford-officials-support-fire-change

Stay Safe

[Geppetto 31]

Union stumps for reorganization of fire ranks

Martin B. Cassidy

Stamford Advocate

October 14, 2012

www.stamfordadvocate.com/local/article/Union-stumps-for-reorganization-of-fire-ranks-3948015.php

[FFPCogs 863]

Union stumps for reorganization of fire ranks

Martin B. Cassidy

Stamford Advocate

October 14, 2012

www.stamfordadvocate.com/local/article/Union-stumps-for-reorganization-of-fire-ranks-3948015.php

Link wasn't working G...at least not on my computer...so I re-posted it.

http://www.stamforda...nks-3948015.php

[Geppetto 31]

Union Pushing For Merger of Stamford's Career, Volunteer Firefighters

Patrick Barnard

Stamford Patch

10/15/12

"The proposal to merge the volunteer and career departments is one of nine suggested charter changes that will appear on Stamford ballots on Election Day...."

http://stamford.patch.com/articles/union-pushing-for-merger-of-stamford-s-career-volunteer-firefighters

[FFPCogs 863]

Letter to the Editor in today's Advocate by Art Layton, member of the Board of Representatives.

http://www.stamforda...ion-3971947.php

[CTFF 65]

Letter to the Editor in today's Advocate by Art Layton, member of the Board of Representatives.

http://www.stamforda...ion-3971947.php

BOR member Annie S Taylor also signed the letter.

http://stamford.dailyvoice.com/opinion/letters-former-stamford-chiefs-back-fire-changes

And letters by two former Chiefs of SFRD.

[FD828 77]

Just more.....

http://stamford.patch.com/articles/letter-board-of-rep-member-responds-to-weekend-letter

[CTFF 65]

Just more.....

http://stamford.patc...-weekend-letter

The response from Assistant chief Maounis is classic. I guess that guy never learned to proof read or use spell check.

[Bnechis 3,961]

The response from Assistant chief Maounis is classic. I guess that guy never learned to proof read or use spell check.

I think content and history are bigger issues.

>> "Volunteer depts hurting for manpower is not the issue at hand." <<

Then why did they need paid personnel? and why in the 2 dept proposal do they need paid personnel?

>> "Stamford was very fortunate to have a system of paid working together with volunteers for years. So much so that many depts reached out to us to see how and why it worked so well." <<

I recall there was litigation for a host of issues and dept of labor violations over how poorly the career staff was treated by their employer.

>> "If the volunteers were to be replaced by the paid firefighters (assume 100 volunteers just for an example) . The city would have to replace them with 100 new paid fire fighters in order for the citizens to get the same level of service." <<

By standards, if they are replacing 100 volunteers they only need 33 career and thats assuming that the volunteers are responding to 100% of the calls. Also, which volunteer firefighters are the 50 (in the 2 dept. proposal) replacing? volunteers that no longer exist and the plan is to take them from the existing volunteers (so if they need 50 and they get them from 50 volunteers, they will need an additional 50 career, and the cycle repeats).

>> "Glennbrook is not example to follow, look at their records what percentage of call the do their volunteers make" <<

That was the point of the letter he was trying to attack. That the volunteers are no longer available in the numbers they once were.

[FFPCogs 863]

Here's one you guys forgot from the Stamford Patch:

http://stamford.patch.com/articles/letter-to-the-editor-straight-talk-from-one-tax-payer-to-another#comments_list

[CTFF 65]

Here's one you guys forgot from the Stamford Patch:

http://stamford.patc...r#comments_list

Forgot? Nope waiting for you to post it so I can post this one.

[FFPCogs 863]

Forgot? Nope waiting for you to post it so I can post this one.

Whew that's good...I thought maybe you were slipping. But I have to ask...which one?

Edited October 24, 2012 by FFPCogs

[SmokeyJoe 161]

I cant believe that this topic is still here after 4 years! Then again, i still cant belive that Stamford has such a screwed up and inefficient system. The fact is that it is one city, so why not one department with one chiet and one fire marshal?? I have no beef with volunteers being a part of a single department as long as they are properly trained to recognized standards. But anyone who says this is nothing more than a battle over turf, budgets, and petty little pockets of power is drinking some supercharged Koolaid! I know guys on the job in Stamford and worked witha few who started out as vollies there, so while no expert, i have some idea of what is going on. The sooner the politicians do the right thing and consolidate the better for all, especially the brothers on the line (paid or vollie) who will operate in a safer and more functional situation.

[FFPCogs 863]

I think content and history are bigger issues.

Indeed history is a far bigger issue especially in light the tactics employed by the previous administration that brought us to this point, which we should all be seeking to avoid. As written the propsed charter changes will significantly increase the potential for the politcalization of the city's fire service and allows agendas to be pursued with no checks and balances...and that knife has the potential to cut both ways.

>> "Volunteer depts hurting for manpower is not the issue at hand." <<

Then why did they need paid personnel? and why in the 2 dept proposal do they need paid personnel?

The argument that the "Mayor's plan" somehow now "proves" that the volunteers are incapable of covering their areas is nonsense. No VFD in Stamford ever stated they could guarantee coverage 24/365 without career personnel...hence the hiring of paid driver's starting in the late 1940's and continuing through the 60's and 70's, the heyday in terms of numbers, for the volunteer fire service.

>> "Stamford was very fortunate to have a system of paid working together with volunteers for years. So much so that many depts reached out to us to see how and why it worked so well." <<

I recall there was litigation for a host of issues and dept of labor violations over how poorly the career staff was treated by their employer.

I honestly don't know how much of a "model" Stamford's VFDs were in the past, but I do know, having come up in this system, that the working relationship between career and volunteer personnel in the VFDs was, far more often than not, exemplary until the management agreement of 1999. After that the slide towards disunity, disagreement and dysfunction increased unabated and unrelentingly to 2008 when those career members left.

>> "If the volunteers were to be replaced by the paid firefighters (assume 100 volunteers just for an example) . The city would have to replace them with 100 new paid fire fighters in order for the citizens to get the same level of service." <<

By standards, if they are replacing 100 volunteers they only need 33 career and thats assuming that the volunteers are responding to 100% of the calls. Also, which volunteer firefighters are the 50 (in the 2 dept. proposal) replacing? volunteers that no longer exist and the plan is to take them from the existing volunteers (so if they need 50 and they get them from 50 volunteers, they will need an additional 50 career, and the cycle repeats).

I'm not one who blindly accepts the notion that 100 new career firefighters will be needed...at least not initially. What I do think is that Stamford will find itself in the position of many other communities that have underatken such consolidations...left with an understaffed career fire department, justified by the aknowledgement that volunteers are a "recognized and important component" of a combined fire department. More often than not these words and the intent behind them are rarely supported by actions unless the guarantee of equal representation is afforded all the stakeholders and the benefits each component offers (and that's career and volunteer alike) are firmly ensconced from the outset by Charter. As proposed in question 2 this is not the case.

>> "Glennbrook is not example to follow, look at their records what percentage of call the do their volunteers make" <<

That was the point of the letter he was trying to attack. That the volunteers are no longer available in the numbers they once were.

With all due respect to my colleagues in Glenbrook I must agree with Asst. Chief Maounis on this one. Glenbrook is not a model to be followed. While it is true that their membership has increased, by one account 330%, unfortunatetely their reponse record has not done so to match that impressive membership increase, in fact responses have dropped considerably since Engine 6 took up station there. Edited October 24, 2012 by FFPCogs

[FFPCogs 863]

Just another voice to be heard:

http://stamford.patch.com/articles/letter-to-the-editor-straight-talk-from-one-tax-payer-to-another