FD828

Investors
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    234

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by FD828

  4. Posted

    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

  5. Posted

    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.dailyvoice.com/opinion/letter-vote-no-stamford-fire-service-changes

    mstrang1 likes this

  7. Posted

    And herein lies the heart of my concerns:

    "The new system contemplates a partnership between career and volunteer fire services," Sandak said. "If you have a true partnership, as issues come up -- and there will be issues, I'm not denying that -- they'll look for solutions."

    The Charter Commission had the chance to build a fire service "inclusive of the volunteer service that exists" by granting all involved parties representation, including the public who has to pay for and live with it. Instead they chose to base all of our futures, career, volunteer and that same public alike, on an IF...and it's a very big if at that. Now it will fall to the public to decide if that IF is one they are willing to accept for Stamford.

    I think it's ludicrous and the height of hubris to believe that 30 years of trouble will be swept away with the sunrise come November 7th and that a "true partnership" will be the result. History has clearly shown there's very little in the way of a foundation for that to happen readily. So then what? Who will "look for solutions"? Who will be a part of that process? Who will decide those solutions? The hard truth is both "sides" have firmly entrenched and powerful factions which brought us here, either one of which could be the real "winners". They won't disappear come that first Wednesday in November and it may very well be them who decides our collective future... and that prospect is one that should send a shudder down any reasonable persons spine. Better to have mandated that partnership, inclusive of the public we serve, through the Charter, thus guaranteeing it will exist and a true combining..a "true partnership" of the services could take place.

    We shall see

    I imagine a good person to start dealing with any issues that come up would be the newly appointed assistant chief in charge of volunteer services in conjunction with the career chiefs. You keep forgetting that the paid staff don't have a say in where they work or who they work with. Some of the career staff may not like where they are assigned or who they are assigned with, but unless they want to find another line of work, they will have to make the best of it. If the volunteers don't like it, well either they can grin and bear it, give it the old college try, or go some place else. And not for nothing, for the most part, the ff's on both sides that are responding on calls (except for a few isolated incidents) are working just fine together. Perhaps instead of being so afraid of the negative "what if's" and spreading fear about the way this is being forced on you, we can all look at all the positive "what if's"? Like what if this really works and lives and property are saved? What if we become one big happy progressive combo dept? Kinda hard to look at all the positive when you drown us with the possible negatives all the time. Lets be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

    Bnechis, SageVigiles, JM15 and 1 other like this

  8. Posted

    Pavia, however, said on Friday he is considering holding off on handing the grant to elected officials for approval until the city's Charter Review Commission issues a referendum this November........" Pavia said. "Each of them are intricately entwined with each other. To go forward at this time without consideration would be irresponsible."

    I hope its been made clear to the Mayor and the public that he has 30 days to accept the grant and 120 days (unless its been changed) to hire. If he knows this then he is willing to let the clock run out and not take the money.

    Typical of this failed mayor and his administration

  9. Posted

    I invision a fully paid crew in every fire station 24/7, I also invision that if volunteers are trained (and that training documentation is provided) they can ride on the paid machines, I also invision that if deptartment "X" has a fully staffed crew for a ladder/engine/rescue(and that training documentation is provided) from the hours of ___ to ____ that they call dispatch and be put in service and added to the CAD which will recommend the closest appropriate machine for the call being dispatched. I invision that the career officers will be in charge of their crews and volunteer officers will be in charge of their crews. The SFRD deputy will respond to all calls and be there in case the VFD chief is not, or to provide an extra set of eyes/safety. There will be standards of training across the board for all ranks and positions. But alas, the SFRD ff's have absolutely no say in how any of this will work. The department says you will work here and that's where you work. And as long as the city doesn't violate the union's contact, I believe they have no say in how the forces will be deployed. Unlike the volunteers, career staff have no vote on the issues.

    I also invision a lot of feet stamping and law suites........

    ny10570 likes this

  13. Posted

    As someone said cart before the horse. The city in all its' wisdome still has to accept the grant. Not holding my breath about charter revision either, how many law suites will be filed after it is all voted on in November? How many years will it get tied up? I am starting to believe that all of us here will be long gone before anything is ever settled once and for all.

  14. Posted

    Under Malloy, couldn't all the volunteer departments have made the same agreement as Glenbrook did? Make sure I get this right... They would still have the volunteer department (building, apparatus and equipment), still have their funding, still be able to respond on all calls, still train, still be in command of all calls in their district (if the chief responds of course), still recruit and retain members AND have a fully staffed crew to respond immediately for ALL emergencies in those districts that they are sworn to protect?????? After all that I can see how Malloy was trying to abolish the volunteers!

    pjreilly likes this

  16. Posted

    Even though Romney is anti union, anti labor, anti firefighters, anti cops, anti teachers you still want him??? Not a chance in hell. He is trashing "Obama care" and it is quite similar to his own healthcare plan he instituted in MA. I don't love the choices, but I am not for anyone who is against the way I make a living. Wisconsin? Hello???? Get rid of collective barganing??? All politicians suck, they all lie, but the Republicans are no friend of middle class, civil service union employees. He wants to take everything away that so many have fought for. Who helped institute a tier 6? Democrats?

    nycemt728, INIT915, ny10570 and 1 other like this

  17. Posted

    A volunteer division Asst Chief is a major step in the right direction and if all parties can sit down and develop a mutually acceptable plan to move forward it should suffice. The cynic in me though believes it won't. Therefore IMO a Fire Commission comprised of career, volunteer and publically elected represenatatives offers the best hope of building and managing a truly integrated combination department. The Charter Revision Commission disagreed, maybe others won't.

    By the last sentence in this statement are you saying that you are against the charter revision? At least how it is now? Forgive me because I don't know the answer, but it is a "yes" or "no" vote for the charter revision is it not? This goes right back to my original question. You speak your mind, you don't hold back, and you state that your fellow members feel as you do. So, are you and your members going to fight the charter revision? Do you hope that it doesn't pass? I know that you cannot speak of the other departments, I know you think that according to you and I quote, "I and others within my FD are seeking to move forward under the assumption that the Charter will change." This doesn't really answer the question. So are we all embracing the coming change together or is it going to be "us/them" until we are all forced to do something? IMO, until we agree that the change is coming and embrace it, things will continue the way they are.

  18. Posted

    I agree there is common ground, that we all could probably agree to with concessions from all sides. So why do we have to wait for the charter revision? Why can't the volunteer chiefs sit down with the SFRD chiefs now? Who is stopping that? Or are the volunteers still hoping that the charter revision doesn't happen? Are the volunteers going to lobby their residents to vote against the charter revisions? Is the mayor hoping that the charter revision doesn't happen? How many law suits will be filled? Seems like to me that none of this was necessary.

  19. Posted

    Cogs, just out of curiosity, if you say that you and the majority of your members want these things, when are you going to vote to separate and move away from the mayors "plan"? If not, then why not? You want everyone to work together and see what the career guys think should/could happen with the future of our fire service, but the fact remains, your department as well as the other volunteer departments (except Glenbrook) are in bed with the mayor and his so called plan. Publically denounce the mayors plan, otherwise there is really nothing to discuss. You can say all you want that you and your members want to work with SFRD (which I honestly believe you do), but the fact that your department is still trying to form a second paid/volunteer department speaks volumes more then your postings about cooperation.

  20. Posted

    Bottom line here is that this was something that they were asked to do. It is obviously a rual volunteer department. As we all know, there are manpower issues that we all have to deal with. They did not take the hose out of anyones hands and I am sure they were directed as to where and how the IC wanted that hose stream directed. We are all here for the same reasons, to serve the public we were sworn to protect. Take help were you can when you need it. I am sure that as soon as there was adequate manpower the police officer's were relieved. I think it was even changed to a monitor unless I am looking at the wrong picture. Would we all rather have firefighters manning the line? Sure, but if you don't have anyone, I will take the help from the PD.

    BFD1054, sueg, 48 and 1 other like this