Fire officials support bill to indemnify volunteers

[abaduck 123]

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...

Chief,

You misunderstand, hopefully not intentionally. When I said 'We're performing exactly the same duties under the same command' I was referring to operating at a specific incident, perhaps one leading to litigation... By 'same duties' I mean myself and one of my career colleagues 'performing the same fireground assignment, working as a team'. By 'under the same command', I mean 'following the same orders from a superior officer on the fireground'. I trust that clarifies my point, and my question, which remains unanswered: if the actions of the team on the fireground lead, for whatever reason, to litigation, why should the career FF be treated differently to the volunteer when it comes to issues such as indemnification?

It wasn't in any sense a general comment about hiring, training, or promotion, and I regret you mistakenly took it at such; your 'debunking' was unnecessary and doesn't contribute to this debate and I apologise if my meaning was unclear.

Mike

[spin_the_wheel 460]

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...

While you may have some points on hiring process, training .....we PERFORM the same duties when the bell goes off. Please teach me your magic career ways to stretch lines, force entry, VES and all the other fireground duties that are performed the SAME way and taught the SAME way at fire schools. It's not marlarkey when someone comes to the door of the "wives and girlfriends" when their is a LOD.

You are so anti Volunteer it's sickening. Some of us do not look at it as a "hobby", by grouping us as a whole its BS.

[JFLYNN 681]

Chief,

You misunderstand, hopefully not intentionally. When I said 'We're performing exactly the same duties under the same command' I was referring to operating at a specific incident, perhaps one leading to litigation... By 'same duties' I mean myself and one of my career colleagues 'performing the same fireground assignment, working as a team'. By 'under the same command', I mean 'following the same orders from a superior officer on the fireground'. I trust that clarifies my point, and my question, which remains unanswered: if the actions of the team on the fireground lead, for whatever reason, to litigation, why should the career FF be treated differently to the volunteer when it comes to issues such as indemnification?

It wasn't in any sense a general comment about hiring, training, or promotion, and I regret you mistakenly took it at such; your 'debunking' was unnecessary and doesn't contribute to this debate and I apologise if my meaning was unclear.

Mike

I actually don't think it is possible to intentionally misunderstand someone.

Now, to the rest of your point, how can individuals who are not selected by, trained to, and held to the same standards be expected to perform the same duties all of the time? If this is the case, why the need for career firefighters at all in your department? If, as we have already established, the qualifications of the volunteers in your department are far inferior to the career members, why should the taxpayers take on this risk? Basically anyone can sign up to be a volunteer firefighter. If this is not the case, give me some hard data on how many applicants your or any other volunteer department has turned away in the past. Why are there "interior firefighters"? Are there "exterior firefighters"? What are "junior firefighters"? What are "fire police"? What are "auxiliary firefighters"? What is an "ex-chief"? None of these terms has any relevance in the career fire service. If in the example you mentioned one of the volunteer firefighters who is not interior qualified is ordered by his superior to enter a burning building doesn't that fly in the face of your argument?

Taxpayers should not be asked to shoulder the enormous potential liability of those who ask for many perks and priviliges of being a firefighter, yet refuse to be held accountable to any real standard.

I hope my many friends in the volunteer fire service will not take this personally because there are lots of good people out there serving their communities to the best of their ability and asking for nothing in return. Unfortunately, though, there are many others who ask for much and give very little in return.

Edited February 21, 2011 by JFLYNN

[JFLYNN 681]

While you may have some points on hiring process, training .....we PERFORM the same duties when the bell goes off. Please teach me your magic career ways to stretch lines, force entry, VES and all the other fireground duties that are performed the SAME way and taught the SAME way at fire schools. It's not marlarkey when someone comes to the door of the "wives and girlfriends" when their is a LOD.

You are so anti Volunteer it's sickening. Some of us do not look at it as a "hobby", by grouping us as a whole its BS.

If you are able to perform the same duties when the bell goes off, that would seem to obviate the need for the higher standards career members are held to wouldn't it? Are you saying that the standards career departments hold ourselves to are unnecessary? How are you and every other volunteer firefighter able to perform the same duties without the same hiring standards and training? What magic is that? Maybe you should apply for FDNY Commissioner or some such...imagine the money NYC will save on recruiting, hiring and training processes....

[spin_the_wheel 460]

If you are able to perform the same duties when the bell goes off, that would seem to obviate the need for the higher standards career members are held to wouldn't it? Are you saying that the standards career departments hold ourselves to are unnecessary? How are you and every other volunteer firefighter able to perform the same duties without the same hiring standards and training? What magic is that? Maybe you should apply for FDNY Commissioner or some such...imagine the money NYC will save on recruiting, hiring and training processes....

I'm not saying career standards are unnecessary...but fact is there are many great all volunteer Fire Depts out there who are DOING it with the Volunteer standards the fires go out, rescues are made, alarms are answered...are they not? Like it or not it DOES get done. Are there Volunteer Depts that have problems, sure, but not every career Dept is on the same level. It aint rocket science. There are many Volunteer Depts that see much more REAL TIME work then career depts. I think real time experience means alot.

FDNY Commissioner....stop with the nonsense.

Edited February 22, 2011 by spin_the_wheel

[efdcapt115 1,511]

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.

In answer to the chief's question regarding "Battalion Chief" in Westchester; I believe the correct title is "Battalion Coordinator"(?), referring to the 60-Control mutual-aid coordinators.

[Guest ff101]

Qtip just because volunteers are not held to the same training standards, does that mean we stop at the minimum? We have lots and lots of dedicated volunteers in westchester that are committed to doing the best job they can when they are called upon. You have us misunderstood if you believe we consider this a hobby.

I also have to agree with the anti- volunteer rambling some guys do on here. I have worked side by side with YFD, HFD, FFD, WPFD, amongst other career departments here in westchester and probably have more career friends than some of you that laugh about topics like this.

What my fellow volunteers are saying ( correct if wrong) is that when we are on the rig responding to an mva or afl or fire or whatever we have the same goal ahead of us no matter who we are.

[abaduck 123]

I actually don't think it is possible to intentionally misunderstand someone.

Now, to the rest of your point, how can individuals who are not selected by, trained to, and held to the same standards be expected to perform the same duties all of the time? If this is the case, why the need for career firefighters at all in your department? If, as we have already established, the qualifications of the volunteers in your department are far inferior to the career members, why should the taxpayers take on this risk? Basically anyone can sign up to be a volunteer firefighter. If this is not the case, give me some hard data on how many applicants your or any other volunteer department has turned away in the past. Why are there "interior firefighters"? Are there "exterior firefighters"? What are "junior firefighters"? What are "fire police"? What are "auxiliary firefighters"? What is an "ex-chief"? None of these terms has any relevance in the career fire service. If in the example you mentioned one of the volunteer firefighters who is not interior qualified is ordered by his superior to enter a burning building doesn't that fly in the face of your argument?

Taxpayers should not be asked to shoulder the enormous potential liability of those who ask for many perks and priviliges of being a firefighter, yet refuse to be held accountable to any real standard.

I hope my many friends in the volunteer fire service will not take this personally because there are lots of good people out there serving their communities to the best of their ability and asking for nothing in return. Unfortunately, though, there are many others who ask for much and give very little in return.

Chief,

We appear to be still at cross-purposes; you're talking generalities, I'm talking specifics.

'What is an "ex-chief"?' - I can't see how that, for instance, is relevant to my question. As for the rest, I'm just a firefighter, I don't speak for my department on a public forum. Suffice it to say I have full confidence in my Chiefs & Officers, and none of them would ever order an unqualified member into an IDLH environment.

Let's make the question even more specific, shall we? I, and one of my career colleagues, both interior qualified and well-trained (career academy in his case, 250 hours+ at FTC in mine) are ordered to perform a primary search. We fail to locate a civilian. The civilian is subsequently found, deceased, on secondary. A relative finds a smartass lawyer and proceeds to sue my career colleague & I for negligence in failing to find their relative. Chief, should the department, and the municipality, handle our cases differently, and indemnify us to different degrees? Why? If you look back to the first post, that's the issue. That's the question.

Mike

[JFLYNN 681]

Chief,

We appear to be still at cross-purposes; you're talking generalities, I'm talking specifics.

'What is an "ex-chief"?' - I can't see how that, for instance, is relevant to my question. As for the rest, I'm just a firefighter, I don't speak for my department on a public forum. Suffice it to say I have full confidence in my Chiefs & Officers, and none of them would ever order an unqualified member into an IDLH environment.

Let's make the question even more specific, shall we? I, and one of my career colleagues, both interior qualified and well-trained (career academy in his case, 250 hours+ at FTC in mine) are ordered to perform a primary search. We fail to locate a civilian. The civilian is subsequently found, deceased, on secondary. A relative finds a smartass lawyer and proceeds to sue my career colleague & I for negligence in failing to find their relative. Chief, should the department, and the municipality, handle our cases differently, and indemnify us to different degrees? Why? If you look back to the first post, that's the issue. That's the question.

Mike

You make this too easy for me Mike. First of all, you make a statement like "well trained"... "250 hours+ at FTC". Really? Hey, well, yeah, I guess "well trained" is a subjective thing, right? So, if you wish to believe that you are well trained, fine. Just don't expect me to agree with you.

How often do you think a career and volunteer firefighter are ordered to perform a primary search together? Has this happened to you much? Actually if the scenario you describe really did take place I would have no problem with the municipality indemnifying the volunteer, and I highly doubt any government official would make the decision to indemnify the career and not the volunteer in such an instance. Very bad politics if nothing else.

What happens far more often is some 17 or 18 year old volunteer firefighter in his personal vehicle smashes into and kills injures or kills someone. That is a specific example of the liability which I feel strongly no municipality should be compelled to assume.

OK, here's another one. This one also far more likely to occur than the one you describe...An 18 year old Chief Officer of a volunteer department completely mismanages a bread and butter fire and a savable victim dies. Why should any municipality be forced to take on that liability?

Or, how about this...most of the departments apparatus and members are far away at a parade when a serious or fatal fire occurs? Should the leadership of the department be indemnified for this negligence?

What about those times when a volunteer apparatus is loaded with unbelted civilians including children for a holiday or whatever else event and injuries or death result. Should the municipality be forced to indemnify in this case?

And you know what? I am quite certaint that I will not convince you or many of the others who have attacked my posts. Your heads will remain firmly stuck in the sand. However, the many reasonable people, career, volunteer and other who read this forum and choose not to post, will mostly see this for what it is when the facts are laid out for them as I and a few others have done here. Thanks again for the opportunity to educate through debate. Forgive me if I choose not to respond further on this topic as it is losing it's luster for me at this point.

thatthat,

Edited February 22, 2011 by JFLYNN

[antiquefirelt 994]

While some of you seek to vilify Chief Flynn, please ask yourselves how you can expect anyone to indemnify persons of which they have no control over? With no way to ensure that the people they're covering have had adequate background checks, psyche profiles, medical screening, etc how can you ask to be wholly held harmless?

The issue could have little to do with your actual fireground capabilities. Will the people not hold a career staffed FD to a higher standard than a small town VFD? Honestly, of course they will. The expectation for the dollars paid is that the level of service be better which includes expedient and capable. Are there VFD's capable of this? Sure, but when they aren't they have the fall back position of being "only volunteers". Too often volunteer outfits throw up the "only volunteers" argument to fend off training mandates, response time questions, failure to provide needed services such as EMS, first responder, medical assists, haz-mat response, haz-mat support, tech rescue, and the list goes on.

While it may be unfair to paint all FD's with the same brush be they career or volunteer, you cannot ask for the same brush to be used to hold you harmless.

Edited February 22, 2011 by antiquefirelt

[JFLYNN 681]

I'm not saying career standards are unnecessary...but fact is there are many great all volunteer Fire Depts out there who are DOING it with the Volunteer standards the fires go out, rescues are made, alarms are answered...are they not? Like it or not it DOES get done. Are there Volunteer Depts that have problems, sure, but not every career Dept is on the same level. It aint rocket science. There are many Volunteer Depts that see much more REAL TIME work then career depts. I think real time experience means alot.

FDNY Commissioner....stop with the nonsense.

If we are doing the same job and performing the same tasks in the same way, why are there different minimum standards? Based on your logic, career minimum standards must be too srtingent, no?

[abaduck 123]

You make this too easy for me Mike. First of all, you make a statement like "well trained"... "250 hours+ at FTC". Really? Hey, well, yeah, I guess "well trained" is a subjective thing, right? So, if you wish to believe that you are well trained, fine. Just don't expect me to agree with you.

I'd say that's reasonably well-trained. I'm still fairly new to the fire service, and the day I stop learning they can put me in a box!

How often do you think a career and volunteer firefighter are ordered to perform a primary search together? Has this happened to you much? Actually if the scenario you describe really did take place I would have no problem with the municipality indemnifying the volunteer, and I highly doubt any government official would make the decision to indemnify the career and not the volunteer in such an instance. Very bad politics if nothing else.

Thanks Chief, that's all I really wanted; some opinions on if it was reasonable to treat two firefighters performing the same task differently, just because one was career and one was volunteer.

What happens far more often is some 17 or 18 year old volunteer firefighter in his personal vehicle smashes into and kills injures or kills someone. That is a specific example of the liability which I feel strongly no municipality should be compelled to assume.

OK, here's another one. This one also far more likely to occur than the one you describe...An 18 year old Chief Officer of a volunteer department completely mismanages a bread and butter fire and a savable victim dies. Why should any municipality be forced to take on that liability?

It's certainly not going to happen at my department, and I respectfully suggest it's extremely unlikely to happen at any department; if an 18 year old is the only Chief they can scrape up, then they must be pretty much a one-man department, and they've got FAR bigger issues to confront than debating indemnification!

Or, how about this...most of the departments apparatus and members are far away at a parade when a serious or fatal fire occurs? Should the leadership of the department be indemnified for this negligence?

Again I can't relate to that; we don't do parades, except in our own district. If departments do do that, I suppose they must arrange for cover with their neighbours.

What about those times when a volunteer apparatus is loaded with unbelted civilians including children for a holiday or whatever else event and injuries or death result. Should the municipality be forced to indemnify in this case?

And you know what? I am quite certaint that I will not convince you or many of the others who have attacked my posts. Your heads will remain firmly stuck in the sand. However, the many reasonable people, career, volunteer and other who read this forum and choose not to post, will mostly see this for what it is when the facts are laid out for them as I and a few others have done here. Thanks again for the opportunity to educate through debate. Forgive me if I choose not to respond further on this topic as it is losing it's luster for me at this point.

Chief, I've not attacked anything you've said, and I resent the accusation. I simply declined politely to take the debate in the direction you seemed to wish, and confined my interest to a particular question which, as it happens, related to my own department - it being a combo department. And it brings out the essence of the debate: should you treat career and volunteer firefighters in a combo department the same with respect to the issue at hand? If you argue that you should, that provides a basis for arguing the case in departments which are exclusively career, or exclusively volunteer. If you consider that 'unreasonable' or 'attacking' then I suggest... qtip :-)

Mike

[191SH 4]

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.

I believe your area is covered by battalion 18. I see your agenda chief it is written all over your post you are clearly anti-volunteer and no matter how you feel or your commissioner of Yonkers feels remember 1 thing while you career guys are at work we volunteers are in the burbs protecting the property and families of said firefighters.

maybe if Yonkers didnt have tunnel vision they would recognize that Westchester county is 75% volunteer and we do an outstanding job with minimum resources.

i respect your hard work I do and you becoming chief is something to be proud of but we have plenty of men/women in the volley departments that work 40 hours a week and still put in a full day with their department whether training , paperwork so dont belittle their dedication.

Never heard of a westchester battalion chief ??? you heard of it you just dont recognize it.

Edited February 22, 2011 by 191SH

[M' Ave 1,466]

This topic has strayed VERY far, however the debate has been interesting, if not all-together original.

As for indemnification; I certainly support the notion that volunteers should be protected. I also agree that serving your community as a volunteer fireman is not the same as doing work with the local soup kitchen. That said, to what extent are we looking to grant indemnity? If we examine driving and all the responsibility it entails, you'll find one of the most stressful positions a fireman can be assigned. I'll tell you this right now, the regulations regarding an engine or ladder co. chauffeur are extremely vague. The regs. are filled with terms like, "due regard" and such. This leaves the city JUST enough rope to hang you with. If a guy is in a major accident, HE is most certainly on the hook and can be found at fault. What happens to a chauffeur if he gets in an accident? That goes on HIS personal driving record. What does he get in return? Well, he gets chauffeur pay.....which isn't much more than $1,000 dollars a year. That isn't even enough to pay your car insurance. A company is assigned 4 "Seated chauffeurs". They are scheduled in such a way that they do most of the driving. In a single year, they'll probably combine to drive that rig 8,000-10,000. That's probably 10 years worth of miles on most volunteer rigs.

This can all be dwarfed by the officers responsibility. One single person is responsible for 4 or 5 in his charge. If a company officer departs from standard operating procedures or fails to account for the actions of his men, do you think that he's not responsible? He is! A chief officer standing in the street has a great deal of information coming his way. He has a great deal of people working under his charge and they're all in harms way. If something happens with tragic results, you can bet that chief officer is going to be run through the wringer to determine if there was negligence on his part.

We need to provide people with adequate protection for the work they do, however we do not need to protect people from negligence. Career and volunteer, we all strive to be "professional" and part of that stature is to be held to a high standard. If you fail to meet that standard you can be held liable.

Just to stray momentarily off the topic again:

I was a member of 3 volunteer organizations over the course of about 10 years. I'm grateful to have "honorary membership" status with one of those fine institutions, which I had to move away from. I believe that there is a need for volunteer firemen in many communities in some form or another, combo or otherwise. I know that some of these organizations are run very well and others are not. Some guys are very reliable, into the work and well trained and others are not. An unfortunate, but very clear fact is that training standards are not the same. I had taken upwards of 200 hours of county and state fire courses prior to going through the fire academy at The Rock. It. Is. Not. The. Same. Not one bit. This is not due to a lack of effort on the parts of those attending training classes, nor those teaching the classes, however, the resources they have come up short. There simply isn't enough manpower to run drills and exercises with the students at the same pace and intensity. Instructors simply cannot demand the same from volunteers that they can from subordinate employees. That, however, is not the be all and end all.

[M' Ave 1,466]

Never heard of a westchester battalion chief ??? you heard of it you just dont recognize it.

This is a mis-used term. There are no Battalion Chief positions. There are Battalion Coordinators. They do not have a role in incident command, they serve to coordinate mutual aid as it responds and arrives. It's an important positions with so many departments working together who might not be familiar with each other, but it's a coordinator, not a chief.

Edited February 22, 2011 by M' Ave

[191SH 4]

This is a mis-used term. There are no Battalion Chief positions. There are Battalion Coordinators. They do not have a role in incident command, they serve to coordinate mutual aid as it responds and arrives. It's an important positions with so many departments working together who might not be familiar with each other, but it's a coordinator, not a chief.

thank you ,you are correct.

[abaduck 123]

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.

Perhaps negligence was the wrong term, I didn't use it in a strict legal sense. Read 'incompetent' or 'liable'.

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

I believe you're correct in most jurisdictions at least. My suggestion was it might be worth considering extending some version of this concept to firefighters who use their best efforts; rather than indemnifying them in the event of a lawsuit, make the lawsuit harder or impossible to bring in the first place. I'm not saying it's the right approach, but it might be worthy of debate.

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.

My answer to a lawyer would be the same as to anyone else; I'm a member of a paramilitary organisation, I have a chain of command which I'm obliged to respect. I'm happy to talk to you about personal matters. If you want to ask about FD matters, you have to talk to the Chief. If he authorises me to talk to you, I'll talk to you. If he doesn't, I won't.

If I talked to a lawyer or a journalist or a loss adjuster or anyone else about internal department matters, or details about what happened during a fire, without orders from the Chief, I'd be up on charges - and quite right too!

Mike

[FFPCogs 863]

While it may be unfair to paint all FD's with the same brush be they career or volunteer, you cannot ask for the same brush to be used to hold you harmless.

I'm sorry but when a firefighter or firefighters act in good faith in perfoming their duty (or calling or "hobby" or whatever the hell else you want to call it) on behalf of and in service to a community that community should bear the burden of protecting those firefighters should the need arise be they paid or volunteer.

Cogs

[gamewell45 258]

I'm sorry but when a firefighter or firefighters act in good faith in perfoming their duty (or calling or "hobby" or whatever the hell else you want to call it) on behalf of and in service to a community that community should bear the burden of protecting those firefighters should the need arise be they paid or volunteer.

Cogs

Cogs, I agree with you; unfortunately some in here are wearing blinders. Sometimes I think its useless to attempt to rationalize with them as they are fixed in their positions for whatever reason and in their minds they are totally justified. So be it.

Reading this thread is like reading the funnies; you need a cup of coffee and the tv on. This is one of these cyclical things; I think the best thing to do is let them get it out of their systems and that will make them happy for the next couple of months or so and then let them start the whole cycle over again.

[Remember585 815]

Never heard of a westchester battalion chief ??? you heard of it you just dont recognize it.

There's no such thing as a "Westchester Battalion Chief." There are the "Mutual Aid Coordinators" who are responsible for their "Battalions," that go by the radio designations Battalion 10 thru 19 based on geographic assignments.

The only "Battalion Chiefs" in Westchester are in Yonkers and Mount Vernon. Other career FDs use a county ID # (usually ending with a "2" as their Chief/Commissioner uses their ID ending with a "1") for their shift commanders. Examples are White Plains (2512), Eastchester (2102), New Rochelle (2302) and Hartsdale (2172).

[FFPCogs 863]

Cogs, I agree with you; unfortunately some in here are wearing blinders. Sometimes I think its useless to attempt to rationalize with them as they are fixed in their positions for whatever reason and in their minds they are totally justified. So be it.

Reading this thread is like reading the funnies; you need a cup of coffee and the tv on. This is one of these cyclical things; I think the best thing to do is let them get it out of their systems and that will make them happy for the next couple of months or so and then let them start the whole cycle over again.

Thanks.

I guess the most unfortunate thing to me is that yet again it comes down to a career vs volunteer debate. I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would think that ALL firefighters should not be afforded the same protections, regardless of their "qualifications". Yes, disparities do exist but in the end we ALL willingly put our lives at risk to help those in need do we not. And that above all else is what matters.

Cogs

Edited February 22, 2011 by FFPCogs

[antiquefirelt 994]

I'm sorry but when a firefighter or firefighters act in good faith in perfoming their duty (or calling or "hobby" or whatever the hell else you want to call it) on behalf of and in service to a community that community should bear the burden of protecting those firefighters should the need arise be they paid or volunteer.

Cogs

Cogs, again you've missed my point. I don't disagree with the premise or need to extend indemnification to volunteers, my hang up is how this occurs where the people who provide such protection have no input into the hiring, training and disciplinary process of those they indemnify. Set some strict rules as to whom qualifies and this would be a moot point on my part.

[NWFDMedic 58]

I actually don't think it is possible to intentionally misunderstand someone.

Now, to the rest of your point, how can individuals who are not selected by, trained to, and held to the same standards be expected to perform the same duties all of the time? If this is the case, why the need for career firefighters at all in your department? If, as we have already established, the qualifications of the volunteers in your department are far inferior to the career members, why should the taxpayers take on this risk? Basically anyone can sign up to be a volunteer firefighter. If this is not the case, give me some hard data on how many applicants your or any other volunteer department has turned away in the past. Why are there "interior firefighters"? Are there "exterior firefighters"? What are "junior firefighters"? What are "fire police"? What are "auxiliary firefighters"? What is an "ex-chief"? None of these terms has any relevance in the career fire service. If in the example you mentioned one of the volunteer firefighters who is not interior qualified is ordered by his superior to enter a burning building doesn't that fly in the face of your argument?

Taxpayers should not be asked to shoulder the enormous potential liability of those who ask for many perks and priviliges of being a firefighter, yet refuse to be held accountable to any real standard.

I hope my many friends in the volunteer fire service will not take this personally because there are lots of good people out there serving their communities to the best of their ability and asking for nothing in return. Unfortunately, though, there are many others who ask for much and give very little in return.

I find it very hard to believe that you have any concept of what goes on in the real world. The only thing you've done on this forum is sound off for career firefighters and ridicule volunteers. What you don't seem to understand is a single thing about how the law really works. When people have told you within this thread, all you have done is continue with your anti-volunteer rhetoric.

The Board of Fire Commissioners holds the responsibility for setting the standard within their district. If they wanted background checks, psych evals (which are not required of any career FD that I know of), and a full length fire academy, they COULD set that as their standard. Most volunteer or combo departments have commissioners that understand the sense of fiscal responsibility and realize that they can provide a certain level of fire protection at the least burdensome cost to the taxpayer.

The Board of Fire Commissioners has the final say on all membership applications and all officers of the department. They have the final say on all training and continuing education requirements. The taxpayers sign on to the standards required by the Board of Fire Commissioners by electing them. As such, the taxpayers should bear the burden of indemnification of the firefighters and officers that are acting within the standards that are completely in control of the municipality. The commissioners are responsible for providing a level of fire protection that a reasonable district of the same size would offer and they hold the sole responsibility to make changes if that standard is not being met.

In the event of gross negligence, indemnification does not apply. All of the cases you mention are gross negligence and the firefighter(s) would be on their own.

[FFPCogs 863]

Cogs, again you've missed my point. I don't disagree with the premise or need to extend indemnification to volunteers, my hang up is how this occurs where the people who provide such protection have no input into the hiring, training and disciplinary process of those they indemnify. Set some strict rules as to whom qualifies and this would be a moot point on my part.

I get the point. I don't disagree that standards should apply equally and that has been my tune in every post in every thread that deals with the issue. My hang up is that regardless of that inequity FFs still step up and perform their duty and freely put their lives on the line to protect their communities. In turn those communities should not turn their backs on them as a matter of course when issues arise. Negligence or incompetence is negligence or incompetence regardless of a paycheck and when this occurs those responsible should bear the consequences of their actions or lack of them. This Bill will not erase or eliminate anyone's ability to pursue their right to seek compensation or justice and get it when justified. But it will protect volunteers in cases where despite their best efforts tradgedies occur, just as indemnification does for our career counterparts.

Cogs

Edited February 22, 2011 by FFPCogs

[Bnechis 3,961]

remember 1 thing while you career guys are at work we volunteers are in the burbs protecting the property and families of said firefighters.

1) While many career personnel live outside the cities, many still relly on career depts to protect their homes. Lets try not to lump us all together.

2) So you never go to work, volunteers never leave the community unprotected or under protected? If this protection was so good, why do we see so many IA's with 5-10 depts needed and here so many tone outs for a simple room and content fire?

3)If the protection is so good, how come the insurance industry says the more than 50% scored less than 20% on an open book test? And a very high percentage of the remainder scored below 60%?

maybe if Yonkers didnt have tunnel vision they would recognize that Westchester county is 75% volunteer and we do an outstanding job with minimum resources.

Maybe if you didnt have tunnel vission you would recognize that 55% of the residence in Westchester are protected by career or primary career depts. And if you add in the combo depts that respond with fewer than 6 career (making them primary volunteer under NFPA 1720) and there records show that the volunteer response is less than 3 interior ff's brings the % to 60.

Minimal resources, Which are those:

The primary career depts in Westchester own 50 engines, 29 ladders and 8 rescues to protect 55% of the population and the remaining depts own another 150 engines. 45 ladders and 29 rescues.

87 rigs protect 55% and 224 rigs protect 45%

Or lack of personnel, but above you said you were protecting the burbs, so its not that, which is it?

I am not anti-volunteer, as I know of a few fine VFD's and many dedicated volunteers but I believe that if you want to prove a point you need to use FACTS and not just your beliefs.

[ajsbear 11]

This thread has become a sound off for Career vs Volunteer. Many communities just cannot afford a career department and the amount of runs just cannot justify the cost. A department with under 200 runs a year just cannot justify 50 career members plus officers. The further north you go into the rural areas the poorer some of hte departments are and some barely keep up with keeping equipment running, and have no where near the latest and greatest. A lot is a mater of economics. Yes if it was a perfect world, everyone would have the same training, same equipment etc. We all have to make due and the faster some people accept that the better. I for one do not want to pay any more taxes and have thought many times to pack it in and leave NY. Look at what the average home owner pays in taxes. Not just property but sales tax but every other little tax. Home heating oil. 3% more that Putnam just in a tax, the list goes on. So where does it end...Economics.

[Bnechis 3,961]

The Board of Fire Commissioners holds the responsibility for setting the standard within their district........The taxpayers sign on to the standards required by the Board of Fire Commissioners by electing them. As such, the taxpayers should bear the burden of indemnification of the firefighters and officers that are acting within the standards that are completely in control of the municipality.

Since the majority of the "taxpayers" who vote in Fire District elections, the ones who approve the standard are the ones who would be required to meet them. Very difficult to force standards on someone that you want their vote.

The commissioners are responsible for providing a level of fire protection that a reasonable district of the same size would offer and they hold the sole responsibility to make changes if that standard is not being met.

So if a similar size district, has no training, cant get on the road, etc. thats the standard they need to meet. After speaking last month with both fire service lawyers and a NYS Judge, they made it clear that in court the standard they look at is NFPA and thats what you will be judged against.

Most volunteer or combo departments have commissioners that understand the sense of fiscal responsibility and realize that they can provide a certain level of fire protection at the least burdensome cost to the taxpayer.

If that were true, why did the State Comptroller develop new laws to protect the taxpayer, by training the commissioners. This was after audits determined that most districts were in violation of state financial regs.

[antiquefirelt 994]

My hang up is that regardless of that inequity FFs still step up and perform their duty and freely put their lives on the line to protect their communities.

Cogs

I have not seen one thing here that would indicate anyone has called that into question. No one expects the volunteer fire service will not continue to provide excellent service in many areas, just as there will be some career FD's that continue to exist despite significant changes in the last century.

Again, in todays litigious society how can we expect to grant blanket immunity to a group of persons without setting and enforcing some standards on them? If a full election elects a Board of Commissioners that serve the community, not the organization, I could see a direct line with their being hiring agents from the town. But in many cases, the VFD is a completely private entity that provides the service to a community via an indirect donation, fee, payment, allowing them to remain autonomous.

[Guest ff101]

Bnechis did you write let's try not to lump us all together? That's funny because that's what certain chiefs in here do every time he types. Minimum standards does not mean that's where the majority stops. There is not a rule that once you have completed the minimum you can no longer train.

Im pretty much done with this topic and site for anything other than IA's. There have been many posts in this topic alone that not only had nothing to do with the original topic but also bad mouth the non career side. Funny they weren't deleted but im sure this will be.

[M' Ave 1,466]

If they wanted background checks, psych evals (which are not required of any career FD that I know of), and a full length fire academy, they COULD set that as their standard.

You are completely incorrect. I don't know of any career jobs that DO NOT do a full background and psych exam. The rest of your statement highlights the trouble that has come into the discussion here. You said, "their standards". We need standards, not individual department bench marks. Standards, period. OSHA standard physicals should be an annual requierment. I went through them as a volunteer and I wasn't in the only department that did them. It's doable and it should be implemented across the board. Background checks as well, although I think a lot of agencies already do this.

Minimum standards does not mean that's where the majority stops.

There is some very real truth to this. Many of the volunteers that I served with raced to sign up for every class that popped up. They couldn't get enough! However, to say "most" is really not the case. I would say that most stop at the minimum. The minimum standard needs to be raised. It needs to be raised or everyone safety. Your own and that of those we work around daily. That bar needs to be set higher and the quality and quantity of training classes needs to be improved. I realize this is all very complicated, with budgets coming under fire, but training needs to be a municipal priority.