Fire officials support bill to indemnify volunteers

[Geppetto 31]

Maggie Caldwell, Editor

February 17, 2011

Greenwich Post Online

...There is a municipal indemnification statute that requires each municipality to hold its employees — including police and paid firefighters — harmless from financial loss and expense, including legal fees and costs, arising out of any legal claim, lawsuit or judgment because of alleged negligence while acting out their duties. No such protection is guaranteed for volunteers working in the same capacity.

While there is a statute that allows the municipality and the volunteer to be represented by the same attorney, it is at the discretion of the town to file a written notice with the court indicating that it will pay any verdict rendered against the firefighter. The potential for a conflict of interest arises if both the municipality and the volunteer organization or a member are sued....

http://www.acorn-online.com/joomla15/greenwich-post/news/local/85941-fire-officials-support-bill-to-indemnify-volunteers.html

[FFPCogs 863]

Maggie Caldwell, Editor

February 17, 2011

Greenwich Post Online

http://www.acorn-onl...volunteers.html

Good stuff. I will be sure to call my State Reps and encourage them to support for the Bill.

Cogs

Edited February 18, 2011 by FFPCogs

[Alpinerunner 61]

Makes sence since volunteers are technically employees of the city while en route to, during, and returning from, a call.

[COMMANDCHIEF 4]

They are employees of the District.

[JFLYNN 681]

I don't understand...I am an active volunteer...no, not for a Fire Department, but for a number of other organizations....anyway, for our various volunteer activities, my fellow volunteers and I do not ask for, not do we receive indemnification from lawsuits...in fact, my fellow volunteers and I do not ask for or receive pensions, tax breaks, medical insurance, free pool or gym memberships, clubhouses to hang out in, or anything else in return because we are..."volunteers" (imagine that!)

I am incredibly uncomfortable as a taxpayer taking on the liability for anyone who decides to join the local fire or EMS organization...essentially that is what this legislation is asking taxpayers to do...to be on the hook for the actions or inactions of an organization of individuals who essentially are not under the control of local government and thus, not accountable to the taxpayer who is being asked to take on the liability.

I look forward to hearing the opinions of my fellow EMT Bravo members on this topic.

qtip

[gamewell45 258]

I don't understand...I am an active volunteer...no, not for a Fire Department, but for a number of other organizations....anyway, for our various volunteer activities, my fellow volunteers and I do not ask for, not do we receive indemnification from lawsuits...in fact, my fellow volunteers and I do not ask for or receive pensions, tax breaks, medical insurance, free pool or gym memberships, clubhouses to hang out in, or anything else in return because we are..."volunteers" (imagine that!)

I am incredibly uncomfortable as a taxpayer taking on the liability for anyone who decides to join the local fire of EMS organization...essentially that is what this legislation is asking taxpayers to do...to be on the hook for the actions or inactions of an organization of individuals who essentially are not under the control of local government and thus, not accountable to the taxpayer who is being asked to take on the liability.

I look forward to hearing the opinions of my fellow EMT Bravo members on this topic.

As a taxpayer, I take no issue with volunteers receiving what you've mentioned above. However if I felt--as you apparently feel--I'd approach my town council or other body that provides the above and make them aware of my feelings on the matter. Afterall--as I'm sure you'll agree--taxpayers most certainly have a right to express their opinions on how monies, benefits, perks and other volunteer inducing incentives are provided, particularly in this era of budget shortfalls and states attacking civil service unions .

[JFLYNN 681]

As a taxpayer, I take no issue with volunteers receiving what you've mentioned above. However if I felt--as you apparently feel--I'd approach my town council or other body that provides the above and make them aware of my feelings on the matter. Afterall--as I'm sure you'll agree--taxpayers most certainly have a right to express their opinions on how monies, benefits, perks and other volunteer inducing incentives are provided, particularly in this era of budget shortfalls and states attacking civil service unions .

Thanks for the advice. However, at this time, this is a Connecticut issue. So, in my opinion a forum such as this one is the appropriate place for me to express my opinion and perhaps debate the issue in order to hopefully prevent it from even being considered in NYS. If, at some point in the future this becomes an issue in the State of NY I will certainly heed your advice brother.

[gamewell45 258]

Thanks for the advice. However, at this time, this is a Connecticut issue. So, in my opinion a forum such as this one is the appropriate place for me to express my opinion and perhaps debate the issue in order to hopefully prevent it from even being considered in NYS. If, at some point in the future this becomes an issue in the State of NY I will certainly heed your advice brother.

Sorry if you took it the wrong way, I wasn't trying to suggest that you not discuss it in this forum, rather trying to be helpful but nonetheless thanks for you response.

[NWFDMedic 58]

I don't understand...I am an active volunteer...no, not for a Fire Department, but for a number of other organizations....anyway, for our various volunteer activities, my fellow volunteers and I do not ask for, not do we receive indemnification from lawsuits...in fact, my fellow volunteers and I do not ask for or receive pensions, tax breaks, medical insurance, free pool or gym memberships, clubhouses to hang out in, or anything else in return because we are..."volunteers" (imagine that!)

I am incredibly uncomfortable as a taxpayer taking on the liability for anyone who decides to join the local fire or EMS organization...essentially that is what this legislation is asking taxpayers to do...to be on the hook for the actions or inactions of an organization of individuals who essentially are not under the control of local government and thus, not accountable to the taxpayer who is being asked to take on the liability.

I look forward to hearing the opinions of my fellow EMT Bravo members on this topic.

qtip

Volunteer firefighters are under the control of the local government (in my case, the Board of Fire Commissioners). If a firefighter meets the requirements set forth by the Board of Fire Commissioners, he should be protected just as a career firefighter would be. If your municipality's volunteers are not "under the control" of the Board or governing agency, it is the fault of the municipality.

[191SH 4]

So a volunteer firefighter can lay their life on the line to protect the taxpayer and their property but it is said that the taxpayer might have a problem with protecting the firefighter ??

Lets face the facts the volunteers are going to support this measure and the career guys (unions) wont here in NY or CT.

There are many circumstances that a individual might be sued and if the firefighter in question followed all SOP's and stil ends up being sued for whatever reason the Town , City or Village that accepts the volunteers services and insures said volunteer should represent that volunteer (legally) when needed.

Edited February 19, 2011 by 191SH

[JFLYNN 681]

Volunteer firefighters are under the control of the local government (in my case, the Board of Fire Commissioners). If a firefighter meets the requirements set forth by the Board of Fire Commissioners, he should be protected just as a career firefighter would be. If your municipality's volunteers are not "under the control" of the Board or governing agency, it is the fault of the municipality.

I stated that the volunteers are "essentially" (for practical purposes) not under the control of local government. Fire Commissioner elections in NYS are generally scheduled on some odd day when there are no other elections and for the most part the only ones voting are friends and family of volunteer Firefighters. If the Fire Commissioner elections were held on a regular election day and if volunteer company's donated their properties to the municipality they serve and disbanded any corporations which they have formed, and if the local municipality were able to actually have some control over who may serve as a volunteer firefighter, and who the leader's of the department are, I would feel differently regarding putting the tax base at risk in regard to taking on this liability.

[Remember585 815]

The village I live in is currently exploring changing local elections to be in November instead of March. Some are arguing that this will take away the importance of their local election, as it would be overshadowed by the more publicized national and state elections. Personally I don't care either way because whether it's for local, presidential or firehouse elections, you can always find a flaw with each candidate. If you were to have Fire Commissioner elections at the same time as bigger elections, I don't think it would matter - most people around here just look at the fire department as "existing" and "there when they need them." The only ones that really ever make the effort to show up for votes pertaining to an FD are it's members, their families, the few supporters and the few haters. Most people don't pay any attention to us (paid or volunteer) until we inconvenience them with a road closure or have to help them.

So to say that you think most taxpayers wouldn't want to assume liability, you're giving them too much credit and assuming they're paying attention to us in the first place. More often than not in our village, citizens think we are paid because that's what they had in the city before coming here, and the way we conduct ourselves at every incident is with a level of professionalism that they should expect. Our rapid, capable and well-manned responses done by unpaid volunteers is commonly referred to as "the best deal in town" by our Village Board. We're there when we are needed and our community knows this, expects this and occassionally appreciates this.

Our operating and capital budgets are always at the mercy of our village, so "essentially," yes, we are under their control.

As for the way fire districts are run, I am not part of one nor do I have any interest in talking about them.

Edited February 20, 2011 by Remember585

[abaduck 123]

I don't understand...I am an active volunteer...no, not for a Fire Department, but for a number of other organizations....anyway, for our various volunteer activities, my fellow volunteers and I do not ask for, not do we receive indemnification from lawsuits...in fact, my fellow volunteers and I do not ask for or receive pensions, tax breaks, medical insurance, free pool or gym memberships, clubhouses to hang out in, or anything else in return because we are..."volunteers" (imagine that!)

I am incredibly uncomfortable as a taxpayer taking on the liability for anyone who decides to join the local fire or EMS organization...essentially that is what this legislation is asking taxpayers to do...to be on the hook for the actions or inactions of an organization of individuals who essentially are not under the control of local government and thus, not accountable to the taxpayer who is being asked to take on the liability.

I look forward to hearing the opinions of my fellow EMT Bravo members on this topic.

Chief,

I don't know how the details differ, CT vs. NY. I work in a combo department. Are you saying that, if I'm working alongside one of my career colleagues, and we screw up (or even if we don't!) and some smart lawyer decides to come after us, the career firefighter should be indemnified, but I should not? What's the basis for your distinction? We're performing exactly the same duties under the same command.

Mike

[spin_the_wheel 460]

Chief,

I don't know how the details differ, CT vs. NY. I work in a combo department. Are you saying that, if I'm working alongside one of my career colleagues, and we screw up (or even if we don't!) and some smart lawyer decides to come after us, the career firefighter should be indemnified, but I should not? What's the basis for your distinction? We're performing exactly the same duties under the same command.

Mike

Well said.

[spin_the_wheel 460]

I don't understand...I am an active volunteer...no, not for a Fire Department, but for a number of other organizations....anyway, for our various volunteer activities, my fellow volunteers and I do not ask for, not do we receive indemnification from lawsuits...in fact, my fellow volunteers and I do not ask for or receive pensions, tax breaks, medical insurance, free pool or gym memberships, clubhouses to hang out in, or anything else in return because we are..."volunteers" (imagine that!)

I am incredibly uncomfortable as a taxpayer taking on the liability for anyone who decides to join the local fire or EMS organization...essentially that is what this legislation is asking taxpayers to do...to be on the hook for the actions or inactions of an organization of individuals who essentially are not under the control of local government and thus, not accountable to the taxpayer who is being asked to take on the liability.

I look forward to hearing the opinions of my fellow EMT Bravo members on this topic.

Really brother I get the whole qtip thing...BUT, like it or not when the bell rings the members who ride the rigs face the EXACT same challenges weather Volunteer or Career. Don't you think these folks deserve this?

As for trying to compare a Volunteer firefighter or EMT to other Volunteer work, I think it's Apples and Oranges. I don't know what you do in your Volunteer work, but I can't think of to many Volunteer organizations where, it's a given, that somewhere in this country members will die in the line of duty every year. Maybe I am taking this "qtip" but it's rather insulting to do this.

Be safe all.

Edited February 20, 2011 by spin_the_wheel

[firemn23 8]

I have to say I disagree with both career, police and volunteers being indemnified for negligence. You are all employees and expected to do your job properly. Does a nurse or doctor get exempt for negligence at their job. No they buy malpractice insurance incase they are sued

Edited February 20, 2011 by firemn23

[FFPCogs 863]

I don't understand...I am an active volunteer...no, not for a Fire Department, but for a number of other organizations....anyway, for our various volunteer activities, my fellow volunteers and I do not ask for, not do we receive indemnification from lawsuits...in fact, my fellow volunteers and I do not ask for or receive pensions, tax breaks, medical insurance, free pool or gym memberships, clubhouses to hang out in, or anything else in return because we are..."volunteers" (imagine that!)

The legal definition of what constitutes a volunteer is vastly different as it allows all of the above and more. While some may find that legal definition to be a misnomer, that is irrelevant...it is the law. That being the case VFDs have every right and quite frankly the responsibility to pursue every available option that could help them in fulfilling their mission and providing for their members, just as a union does. Anything less on the part of a VFDs leadership would be irresponsible. Furthermore in a time when volunteerism is down in general, as a taxpayer I support programs that have the potential to increase the ranks of a VFD and thereby save me, the taxpayer, some of my hard earned dollars.

I am incredibly uncomfortable as a taxpayer taking on the liability for anyone who decides to join the local fire or EMS organization...essentially that is what this legislation is asking taxpayers to do...to be on the hook for the actions or inactions of an organization of individuals who essentially are not under the control of local government and thus, not accountable to the taxpayer who is being asked to take on the liability.

I look forward to hearing the opinions of my fellow EMT Bravo members on this topic.

qtip

I am incredibly uncomfortable as a firefighter with the notion that there are members of the fire service who believe volunteer firefighters serving their community should not be afforded the same legal protections as those that are paid to serve.

Cogs

Edited February 20, 2011 by FFPCogs

[Bnechis 3,961]

That being the case VFDs have every right and quite frankly the responsibility to pursue every available option that could help them in fulfilling their mission and providing for their members, just as a union does. Anything less on the part of a VFDs leadership would be irresponsible.

There is a big difference between a union and a VFD "protecting" their members. The Fire Department and its leadership have a financial responsability (among other responsabilities). The Fire Chief's first responsability is to the community that he swore to protect. At times that may include defending the member, but at other times the defense of the FD is in direct conflict with the defense of the member and if the Chief is true to his oath, then he must defend the dept. This is were the unions responsability to protect the member comes in.

The Mission of the FD and the mission of the union are different. Every FD mission statement that I've seen talks about protecting and serving the community. The unions mission statement is protecting and serving the members. Often that includes fighting to improve the service provided to the community, but it is not the primary mission.

If the VFD leadership supports a member over the community they serve, that would be irresponsable and it happens all the time. The Fire Dept. is bigger than its members and needs to be if it is to survive.

Furthermore in a time when volunteerism is down in general, as a taxpayer I support programs that have the potential to increase the ranks of a VFD and thereby save me, the taxpayer, some of my hard earned dollars.

And if the money does not increase the ranks is it still ok to keep spending it year after year? At what point is it a bad investment?

[FFPCogs 863]

Ahhh good to hear from you B. And so begins another episode in our ongoing series. With that let us begin with the spirited defense of our views

There is a big difference between a union and a VFD "protecting" their members. The Fire Department and its leadership have a financial responsability (among other responsabilities). The Fire Chief's first responsability is to the community that he swore to protect. At times that may include defending the member, but at other times the defense of the FD is in direct conflict with the defense of the member and if the Chief is true to his oath, then he must defend the dept. This is were the unions responsability to protect the member comes in.

The Mission of the FD and the mission of the union are different. Every FD mission statement that I've seen talks about protecting and serving the community. The unions mission statement is protecting and serving the members. Often that includes fighting to improve the service provided to the community, but it is not the primary mission.

There is indeed a difference between a union and a VFD, but since in many places volunteers do not have a collective voice or union to represent them and their interests, it falls on the leadership of many VFDs to act in that role. I will agree that a Fire Chief's primary responsibility is to ensure the safety of the community, but it is also the responsibility of a Fire Chief to ensure the safety and welfare of their personnel, especially in the volunteer sector where it is the Chief that is voice of the members. For volunteers many times the leadership must wear both hats to balance the needs of the community with that of the members.

As far as incentives go, to equate the pursuit if all legal incentives for the members with a disregard of the community is, IMO misguided, for it is this pursuit that acts to fortify the department and allow it to better serve that community.

If the VFD leadership supports a member over the community they serve, that would be irresponsable and it happens all the time. The Fire Dept. is bigger than its members and needs to be if it is to survive.

In my experience I don't think I've ever seen a case where support for the one outweighed the good of the dept. as a whole or community. That is not to say it hasn't or doesn't happen, just that I am honestly not aware of it personally. And I agree 100% that the mission of the dept , any fire department, must always be "bigger" than the support of the members, but when in sync, which in my experience it usually is, it is everyone that benefits.

And if the money does not increase the ranks is it still ok to keep spending it year after year? At what point is it a bad investment?

Money or incentives have a twofold effect. 1st is recruitment, which as we all know has shown mixed results when viewed broadly. When viewed on a case by case basis though there are some very successful programs. Much of that success depends on the level of committment a community is willing make in it's fire dept. The other effect is retention which has seen a far better return on the investment overall, and is therefore not a bad investment. But like any investment there comes a point where continued support for it can no longer be justified. In our case when or if a department can no longer meet it's responsibilities, either alone or collectively with other area VFDs, then that investment may be better utilized supporting another program, such as hiring part time or full time career FFs.

Cogs

[helicopper 1,050]

I have to say I disagree with both career, police and volunteers being indemnified for negligence. You are all employees and expected to do your job properly. Does a nurse or doctor get exempt for negligence at their job. No they buy malpractice insurance incase they are sued

This is the exact reason I've stayed out of this discussion but upon re-re-re-reading the article, it would protect the volunteers where negligence is alleged. The question that I still have is what happens if they're found to be negligent? Is the municipality going to pay the award or does their indemnification stop with such a finding?

[Dinosaur 844]

BUT, like it or not when the bell rings the members who ride the rigs face the EXACT same challenges weather Volunteer or Career. Don't you think these folks deserve this?

As for trying to compare a Volunteer firefighter or EMT to other Volunteer work, I think it's Apples and Oranges. I don't know what you do in your Volunteer work, but I can't think of to many Volunteer organizations where, it's a given, that somewhere in this country members will die in the line of duty every year. Maybe I am taking this "qtip" but it's rather insulting to do this.

If they have the exact same challenges why aren't they required to have the exact same training? So much of this volunteer/career crap would go away if the volunteer's didn't lobby for no minimum standards while there are minimum standards for initial and ongoing training on the career side.

How many of those line of duty deaths are due to the fact that the volunteers are treated differently? I know this is a tough question and will start a wild debate but don't you think that if we held them more accountable we could reduce those deaths?

If the police didn't turn a blind eye to the blue lighter speeding to a call "because it's a volunteer" maybe a future accident would be prevented.

If fitness requirements exists maybe a future heart attack would be prevented but we ignore that "because they're volunteers".

The legal definition of what constitutes a volunteer is vastly different as it allows all of the above and more. While some may find that legal definition to be a misnomer, that is irrelevant...it is the law. That being the case VFDs have every right and quite frankly the responsibility to pursue every available option that could help them in fulfilling their mission and providing for their members, just as a union does. Anything less on the part of a VFDs leadership would be irresponsible. Furthermore in a time when volunteerism is down in general, as a taxpayer I support programs that have the potential to increase the ranks of a VFD and thereby save me, the taxpayer, some of my hard earned dollars.

I am incredibly uncomfortable as a firefighter with the notion that there are members of the fire service who believe volunteer firefighters serving their community should not be afforded the same legal protections as those that are paid to serve.

Then, quite simply, they should be held to the same standards as their career counterparts.

All this brotherhood BS is just that, BS. We segregate our selves by qualifying our service with "volunteer" or "career".

I hate seeing "100% volunteer" painted on the sides of trucks or buildings. Who cares? Only the people INSIDE that truck or building because all the public wants is a quick response to their emergency.

You want to be an EMT or police officer or paramedic or nurse or doctor it is ONE training program. Why is it different in the fire service?

Until you answer that question and fight from within your glass house to change it this is all just hot air!

[Bnechis 3,961]

I will agree that a Fire Chief's primary responsibility is to ensure the safety of the community, but it is also the responsibility of a Fire Chief to ensure the safety and welfare of their personnel, especially in the volunteer sector where it is the Chief that is voice of the members.

For volunteers many times the leadership must wear both hats to balance the needs of the community with that of the members.

You are correct its a balance, now the best way to protect the members is to ensure they have proper training, but we all know many VFD's that do not and part of the reason is the chief wants to get re-elected and the members may not support him if he mandates too much. So how is he protecting his community or his personnel? The scales are set to tip in favor of the chief and against the community and ultimatly the members.

In my experience I don't think I've ever seen a case where support for the one outweighed the good of the dept. as a whole or community.

See the above example. Also backing efforts to reduce minimum standards, both legislative and NFPA are very well documented.

Money or incentives have a twofold effect. 1st is recruitment, which as we all know has shown mixed results when viewed broadly. When viewed on a case by case basis though there are some very successful programs.

"Mixed results" is a major understatement. I have seen many reports showing anywhere from a 20%-45% drop in the number of volunteers (locally, regionally, statewide and nationally) and since that has happened many millions have been spent to stop this slide, but the numbers continue to drop. Its clearly not working in most places. Are there a few exceptions....YES. But 25,000 depts are having trouble and 25 or even 250 its working for is not a real example of success.

Much of that success depends on the level of committment a community is willing make in it's fire dept.

If this were true, then why are incentives needed? Clearly they are being offered because of a lack of committment.

The other effect is retention which has seen a far better return on the investment overall, and is therefore not a bad investment.

How can that be proven? If you stop providing the investment, will these "dedicated" members quit? I have asked a number of companies that provide LOSAP services to show any study that provides it helps retain members. None are able to produce such documentation (BTW I was officially asking as part of a study team for a community that was interested in purchasing their services). I am not saying that members should not be rewarded for service (if the community wants to). But how many of these programs were approved because of the line: "If we dont do this we will have to pay career ff's and that will cost more"?

But like any investment there comes a point where continued support for it can no longer be justified. In our case when or if a department can no longer meet it's responsibilities, either alone or collectively with other area VFDs, then that investment may be better utilized supporting another program....

1) with LOSAP, if the dept is no longer meeting its community responsability, it still gets to pay its LOSAP bill for past retention (that did not work) as its paying for other alternatives.

2) What are the depts responsabilities? Minimum training, Minimum staffing, Response time.......etc. I would also include reducing insurance premiums, by proving you can do the job you claim to be doing (39,000 of the 44,000 depts in America scored below a 60% on an open book test).

[191SH 4]

are we not held to the same standards ?? we have to take our yearly physicals and you fail anything you are removed from the rolls. In my volley dept we train 4 hours a week on drill night and sometimes more on top of our county or house training. Most members in my dept have over 250 hours of training at the Westchester Training center. We take our yearly OSHA very seriously and safety is priority. The standars are there and we follow them because we dont want to leave ourselves open to lawsuits so my question is what standards does career have over the volleys ? If I am missing something let me know I am always looking to improve my skills and that of my fellow members and I mean that im not trying to be wise . This job is inherently dangerous and it does not discriminate , it will kill you just the same volley or not , a fire in Yonkers is no different from a fire in Tarrytown and if you think differently than you have a bad case of tunnel vision. I have been trained (393 hours) by the same guys that teach the carrer academy and I trust those instructors with my life and I know they feel the same because they trained me and they do fail people or remove them if necessary . Volley or carrer we all have men or women who we feel are dangerous and we want to see retire or transfer but to say the standards are different , I need examples. I Have 5 FDNY guys that volunteer in my dept 1 is a former chief and battalion chief for westchester and all I can say about them is we train together and we share our knowledge with each other without prejudice and because of that we all work great together and KEEP EACH OTHER SAFE _ EVERYONE GOES HOME.

Edited February 20, 2011 by 191SH

[Bnechis 3,961]

are we not held to the same standards ??

No not in NYS.

Standards_426_New1.pdf

Note: thats the minimum for career for the last 30 years, but for the last 25 we have generally done 2-3x the minimum

Edited February 20, 2011 by Bnechis

[abaduck 123]

This is the exact reason I've stayed out of this discussion but upon re-re-re-reading the article, it would protect the volunteers where negligence is alleged. The question that I still have is what happens if they're found to be negligent? Is the municipality going to pay the award or does their indemnification stop with such a finding?

And the question I still have is, if I and one of my career colleagues are both found negligent in the same incident, doing the same job, what should happen then? Do you pay the award for one, and let the other hang out to dry? Which, and why?

I know there are 'good Samaritan' shield laws in some jurisdictions, which mean someone who offers assistance in a medical emergency can't be sued if they try in good faith but get it wrong. Maybe that's a model for your answer: don't indemnify firefighters, shield them so they can't be sued easily. Could be arguments on both sides for that one, but it's a start.

And if any lawyer ever asks me about something that happened at a fire, I'll do the same as I'd do if it was a journalist, or anyone else: "We have a chain of command here. I'm just a firefighter, I don't speak for my department. Anything like that, you have to go speak to the Chief."

Mike

[helicopper 1,050]

And the question I still have is, if I and one of my career colleagues are both found negligent in the same incident, doing the same job, what should happen then? Do you pay the award for one, and let the other hang out to dry? Which, and why?

I know there are 'good Samaritan' shield laws in some jurisdictions, which mean someone who offers assistance in a medical emergency can't be sued if they try in good faith but get it wrong. Maybe that's a model for your answer: don't indemnify firefighters, shield them so they can't be sued easily. Could be arguments on both sides for that one, but it's a start.

And if any lawyer ever asks me about something that happened at a fire, I'll do the same as I'd do if it was a journalist, or anyone else: "We have a chain of command here. I'm just a firefighter, I don't speak for my department. Anything like that, you have to go speak to the Chief."

Mike

If you're negligent the municipal indemnification generally won't apply which is why I asked the question. Negligence is one of the things that trumps indemnification and puts the individual on the hook themself. As someone already noted this is why doctors and nurses carry their own malpractice (read negligence) insurance.

I don't believe that Good Samaritan laws apply to emergency responders, just civilians but someone will have to confirm that for us.

If a lawyer asks you at a deposition what you did or what your orders were at a fire, you'll be compelled to answer. We know how well the defense "I was only following orders" works out.

[JFLYNN 681]

Chief,

I don't know how the details differ, CT vs. NY. I work in a combo department. Are you saying that, if I'm working alongside one of my career colleagues, and we screw up (or even if we don't!) and some smart lawyer decides to come after us, the career firefighter should be indemnified, but I should not? What's the basis for your distinction? We're performing exactly the same duties under the same command.

Mike

Mike,

Thank you for again allowing me to have an opportunity to debunk this common misconception that career and volunteer firefighters "perform exactly the same duties" ...

...I will reiterate what has been discussed on this forum on numerous occasions in the past...Career firefighters are generally hired as the result of a competitive testing process...prior to hiring, medical tests are performed...background investigations are conducted....testing is done for illegal substance use, etc...the overwhelming majority of candidates who apply for a job as a career firefighter are not ever hired...once hired, career firefighters are trained in an academy lasting for at least 3 months, and generally longer....testing is done, and not everyone gets through....career firefighters are required to be in the firehouse during their assigned shifts...promotional testing in the career fire service is based on extremely competitive written examinations....minimum annual training standards are more stringent for career vs. volunteer fire service...I could go on and on....

If a career firefighter screws up, he is putting his livelihood at risk...if a volunteer firefighter screws up, he is putting his hobby at risk...it is acknowledged by almost all fire service organizations that the incidence of arson by firefighter is far higher amongst the volunteer fire service than on the career side...

I could go on and on here, but hopefully this will give you the jist of it.

I would have no problem with this proposed legislation if the volunteers in my community were to live up to all of the same standards which are required of career firefighters in other communities in New York State...

...and please, we have been down this road before, so I will ask you not to state how YOU have all of these same qualifications, blah, blah...I have stated what are the MINIMUM standards for ALL career firefighters in NYS, so let's compare apples to apples...save the "I do the same exact job as the career guys I just don't get paid" malarkey for your wives or girlfriends unless you can come with some facts...

[JFLYNN 681]

are we not held to the same standards ?? we have to take our yearly physicals and you fail anything you are removed from the rolls. In my volley dept we train 4 hours a week on drill night and sometimes more on top of our county or house training. Most members in my dept have over 250 hours of training at the Westchester Training center. We take our yearly OSHA very seriously and safety is priority. The standars are there and we follow them because we dont want to leave ourselves open to lawsuits so my question is what standards does career have over the volleys ? If I am missing something let me know I am always looking to improve my skills and that of my fellow members and I mean that im not trying to be wise . This job is inherently dangerous and it does not discriminate , it will kill you just the same volley or not , a fire in Yonkers is no different from a fire in Tarrytown and if you think differently than you have a bad case of tunnel vision. I have been trained (393 hours) by the same guys that teach the carrer academy and I trust those instructors with my life and I know they feel the same because they trained me and they do fail people or remove them if necessary . Volley or carrer we all have men or women who we feel are dangerous and we want to see retire or transfer but to say the standards are different , I need examples. I Have 5 FDNY guys that volunteer in my dept 1 is a former chief and battalion chief for westchester and all I can say about them is we train together and we share our knowledge with each other without prejudice and because of that we all work great together and KEEP EACH OTHER SAFE _ EVERYONE GOES HOME.

I actually believe that you believe all of this...

[JFLYNN 681]

are we not held to the same standards ?? we have to take our yearly physicals and you fail anything you are removed from the rolls. In my volley dept we train 4 hours a week on drill night and sometimes more on top of our county or house training. Most members in my dept have over 250 hours of training at the Westchester Training center. We take our yearly OSHA very seriously and safety is priority. The standars are there and we follow them because we dont want to leave ourselves open to lawsuits so my question is what standards does career have over the volleys ? If I am missing something let me know I am always looking to improve my skills and that of my fellow members and I mean that im not trying to be wise . This job is inherently dangerous and it does not discriminate , it will kill you just the same volley or not , a fire in Yonkers is no different from a fire in Tarrytown and if you think differently than you have a bad case of tunnel vision. I have been trained (393 hours) by the same guys that teach the carrer academy and I trust those instructors with my life and I know they feel the same because they trained me and they do fail people or remove them if necessary . Volley or carrer we all have men or women who we feel are dangerous and we want to see retire or transfer but to say the standards are different , I need examples. I Have 5 FDNY guys that volunteer in my dept 1 is a former chief and battalion chief for westchester and all I can say about them is we train together and we share our knowledge with each other without prejudice and because of that we all work great together and KEEP EACH OTHER SAFE _ EVERYONE GOES HOME.

Really I have to ask...what in the world is a "Battalion Chief for Westchester"? I've been hearing that from time to time and it's really confusing me. You see, I've spent almost my entire adult life as a career firefighter in the City of Yonkers which is actually located in Westchester, and through many years of hard work and thousands of hours of studying, I have been fortunate enough to become a Chief Officer. I pay attention to what goes on in the fire service, particularly here in Westchester, and as far as I can tell, there are no "Battalion Chiefs for Westchester". Please correct me if I am wrong.

[antiquefirelt 994]

I cannot understand why anyone would want to accept the liability of having anyone in any employ if they could not have direct input into the hiring, training and disciplinary process of the employee? That being said, I don't see any issue with any municipal firefighters (paid, paid per call, or "volunteers") that are "working" with a tax based system as this requires meeting a hiring standard and following municipal work rules. But allowing a private entity to provide a service with no or little input in who it hires and how they conduct themselves and then indemnifying them? How is this a good idea?