FireMedic049

OKAY OKAY OKAY - TIME OUT!!!

I've been reluctant to chime in here but now I have too.

First off, no matter who is belly aching, whether it be the Local or the VFDs here is the reality of it, the Consolidated City & Town of Stamford states what it states. Black and White, it is law!

Second, its not up to Local, the VFDs, the city council to dictate what is right for Stamford. They can suggest what is a good proposal, but it is up to the voters in the effected area of Stamford for any changes. For example, under the proposed and I'll call it the "North Stamford Fire District" (never saw so many people get their panties in a bunch over a proposed name with the word vollie in it and asking to have career people like before all of them got laid off in the Big Five, give it a break, it's a proposal not set in stone!!!! Sorry for my venting on that)............

Where was I? Oh yes, under the new proposal with the "North Stamford Fire District", a combination department, it would include four of the five volunteer FDs. Okay, fine enough. First step, for those who don't understand CT law, we have a home rule act and under that a Special District such as a Fire District is considered a municipality. It has a governing board who are elected by those in the district and collects taxes. So with that said, those residents who are in the effected are of the new "fire district" would have to vote whether or not they want this to be formed. A petition has to be signed and presented to the State General Assembly. If it is approved by the State Legislature after going through the proper investigation, then its enacted and the "North Stamford Fire District" would be created under a Special Act. The city/town charter has no authority over the district, is a completely separate entity (kinda like NY's villages & districts within a town). Now having that said, the City / Town of Stamford Charter regardless if it stays the same or is changed, the fire district will exist as it is incorporated and chartered by the state. The residents voted for what they want.

Now to the other side, say those residents vote down the proposed "North Stamford Fire District", now what happens? Well its charter revision time!!!! Stamford's charter has to be changed to incorporate all areas of the town/city combined to fall under its fire protective services, ect. This again has to be voted upon by the residents at a referendum before it changes. Figure that will take roughly a year or more to figure out all the correct law-talk. The it has to go to the state Assembly for investigation and approval of the change (usually a couple months). If it is passed then the re-organization can begin. Also a charter change will have to be enacted under the current proposal with Glenbrook falling under the SFRD's protection area. Again the charter has to be changed for this to reflect SFRDs protection area, of course if that is spelled out in the charter what they protect (I'm not an authoritarian on that nor have the time to read Stamford charter and incorporation papers).

Regardless what everyone wants to debate, it is up to the resident of Stamford and those who live in the areas where the major changes are going to occur. They are the voice and know what they want, regardless what anyone else says.

As for who would represent any career members in "North Stamford", well that is also up to them. By right they can organize on their own and have to wait a specific (don't know how long) amount of time before they can petition with a union after the fire district is created and they are hired. I know it not that long of an amount of time but there is some sort of legal mumbo-jumbo out there for that. And yes if they chose and downtown's local wants to represent them, they can join that local as a separate bargaining unit (West Haven's three district's career FFs are all in the same local, three separate bargaining units. Also you cannot compare West Haven's district situation to Stamford because its a totally different situation they are in.)

Hopefully no member of SFRD will lose their jobs, that would be a travesty and I would hope if this separation proposal goes through, all those members will be reassigned to Glenbrook and the other SFRD houses.

Everyone has to work together down there and protect your citizens, visitors and business owners when it comes down to it. And don't forget, the residents are the ones who will dictate what they want.

Nice rant, but I don't believe anyone is advocating for an end run around the law in order to create a single department structure.

I think some of us are just confused as to why the excuse for not pursuing this course seems to be a pretty consistent "it's against the Charter", when making a change to the Charter is an option, but there doesn't seem to be much of an issue with pursuing the required "legal changes" in order to create the new fire district and fire department that seems to not do much for actual unification of the Stamford fire service.

As has been said before, from an outside perspective this proposed course of action seems to have more to do with preserving the "status quo" while providing the "illusion of change" rather than attempting to actually solve the "problems" and provide the desired "uniform delivery of services" to all of Stamford.

.........., but I have to tell you it seems many of you have come to believe your own rhetorical propaganda a little to much.

While that may be true for some, I think it's at minimum, equally true that some may be too close to the situation to realize just how absurd this plan is.

So, do you have an answer to my question yet? Was a single department structure ever actually on the table for discussion?

Anyone who can read a newspaper knows the history of this affair, and anyone who can read the Charter can see that the Union has no authority to dictate what happens in the VFD districts.

Ok, I get that the Charter grants the VFDs some sort of "independence" with their operation, but if the Charter prevents the Union from dictating what happens in the VFD districts and the Charter prevents the City from dictating that a single department structure be formed, then why did the City have a seat at the table (but not the Union) if neither could apparently dictate any course of action? That doesn't make much sense to me.

Regardless, it's really not the Charter that causes the Union to have "no authority" in the "VFD districts". It's actually the fact that they have no members employed by the VFDs.

On a related note, to me at least, it's pretty clear that we all aren't talking about the same things here. You keep talking about how "the Union has no authority to dictate what happens in the VFD districts". While this may be true in the respect that no Union members are employed by the VFDs, you seem to be evading an important question in the matter. Was the creation of a single combination department even a possibility? I get that the Charter currently prevents this, but clearly from the plan picked, revision of the Charter was an acceptable course in general.

So, if there was never any possibility for a single department to be created and the Local to represent the paid employees of that single department, then I can see them not being given a seat at the table for this Task Force.

So, was this Task Force really created to find the best solution for Stamford or just the best way to preserve the current separation?

On that note in answer to the question "why isn't it time for one unified combination department"?...a review of the last few pages should give ample proof as to why this is not a viable option for Stamford right now.

Yes it does, but I'm sure we don't have the same conclusion of what that proof is showing the reason to be.

Every participant had the opportunity to address the Task Force with their plans, and while 786 does have the right and responsibility to represent the employees of SFRD, it is the administration of that Dept that has the authority to develop and propose any plans in which they will be the major "shareholder". Any negotiations on how those plans would effect the "rank and file" union members should have been dealt with in negotiation with the SFRD administration prior to those plans being proposed. Niether the City nor the VFDs owes 786 anything in regards to the development of this new entity until such time as there are career employees to represent from it.

So then I take from this response that the proposal of a single department structure coming out of this Task Force was NEVER a possibility from the start.

What would be the attitude if the volunteers Chiefs were to demand a say in the next round of contact negotiations between the City and 786? For that matter what was the attitude regarding the previous merger plans and the installation of SFRD employees into the VFDs?

I'm not sure who's attitude your referring to, but I'm sure the Union's attitude towards those Chiefs regarding contract negotiations could be simply GFY since they absolutely have no standing for those discussions. The City is their employer and the Local is the bargaining agent for the employees of SFRD.

As I said before, if the single department concept was on the table going into discussions, then Local 786 should absolutely have been involved since ALL paid firefighters in the combined department would be represented by them.

I have no idea what the attitudes were regarding the previous merger plans.

786 has NO employees working for the VFDs for whom they can negotiate regarding any future plans. If the "new" career personnel choose to become 786 members then and only then can 786 represent them. The current SFRD personnel, hence 786 members, in the volunteer houses are the sole responsibility of SFRD who assigned them at the request (which can be rescinded at any time) of the Springdale and Glenbrook VFDs.

You would be correct with this under the proposed plan. However, this really didn't clarify the statement I asked about.

How am I not supposed to think that this is anything other than turf protection, job stealing, and Union busting?

Have a giant glass of the Kool Aid?

Why should they be. They are the bargaining unit for the employees SFRD, nothing more. 786 has no rights or voice in what goes on outside of SFRD since they have no binding agreements with the legal AHJs of any of the other fire districts in Stamford at this point and therefore can only negotiate with SFRD. 786 gave up any rights to bargain outside of the SFRD district when they chose to absorb the paid personnel that formerly worked at the VFDs and that was a choice they freely made.

The fact is this plan was agreed upon by the administrations the FDs in Stamford...they all sat up there during that press conference and agreed....and that is as it should be since they are the AHJs not 786.

I'm amazed that you can't see why Local 786 should have been included in this process.

Unless I have a grossly incorrect understanding of the situation, the task at hand WAS to determine how to improve the provision of fire protection in Stamford and achieve a more uniform delivery of services to all of its citizens. If this process was truly "above board", then going into discussions everything between the status quo and full scale, 100% consolidation into a single department should have been on the table. Considering that there appears to have always been the intention to have paid personnel in the volunteer stations and if a single department plan was ever actually a consideration, the paid personnel in this single department would all be represented by Local 786. So why shouldn't they be included in discussions that could potentially impact their current and future bargaining unit members?

So, to me at least, if Local 786 didn't get a seat at the table for any discussions on "the future of fire protection services in Stamford", then it seems as though creating what would actually be the best way to achieve unity and uniformity of fire protection for all of Stamford (a single department) was NEVER a possibility even before the first meeting was held.

Could you explain the part I highlighted better? It didn't seem to make much sense to me.

No, what I'm saying is that given the circumstances he made the best possible choice and I support it. In time maybe we can put in place the proper parameters on all sides to unify "once and for all" but until then two is better than six especially if both adhere to common standards and put in place the conditions that allow all to meet them.

I'll somewhat defer to you on this matter since you are directly involved in it and I'm just an interested observer, but I'm still failing to see how using this plan now and hoping to do more later is the best possible choice for the citizens.

The plan may improve how the volunteer departments interact and work with each other, but to me it looks like it doesn't really do anything to address any real sort of unity between the North and South and sets the stage for new problems.

To be quite honest given the right parameters I would wholeheartedly support a Charter revision to create one unified department. But having one FD where volunteer Chiefs are subordinate to career Captains and volunteer officers oversee only volunteer personnel and are subordinate to career firefighters is not a viable option and that is what was proposed. As has so often been said by many people here "you cannot have two chains of command on the fireground" and that is what we would've got...two commands. I can say with complete candor that unity of command is a concept I fully agree with and as offensive as it may be to some, to me if that means creating two departments and two seperate fire districts to achieve it, then so be it.

The simple truth is the only way that a truly integrated combination department can work is when all personnel meet the same standards regardless of affiliation for their positions...then there can be no discrepancy over who commands or controls what since all have met the same requirements for their positions. This among other things is what I proposed to the task force and it appears that this point at least, the standardization of requirements for all positions, will be a goal of this new entity and one I fully support.

Stay Safe

Cogs

_____________

Peter Cogliano

FF/ T.O.

Belltown Fire Dept

currently working with Dyncorp/LOGCAP IV

Camp Leatherneck

Afghanistan

So then what you are saying is that the Mayor took the easy way out instead of actually "fixing" the system once and for all?

Yes it does, but the time to chart the course of that change has come and gone it would appear. All "sides" had the opportunity to put forth their "plans" and from them the Mayor made his decision. It may not be a solution that some want, it may not even be the best one, but it is the vision for the future that has been laid out.

Your response comes across to me as saying that revising the charter to allow for a single FD wasn't a part of the proposals, that a decision has been made and we're sticking with it. It really doesn't answer our question as to why changing the charter to allow for the creation of a single FD didn't seem to be a viable option.

I have also noticed that in the defense of Mr. Keatley's comments and in the repeated derision of the Mayor's plan most here have conveniently left out that there is a not only a valid but a legal reason that things have taken the direction they have...it's called the City Charter, and as much as some want to ignore it, that document (as outdated as it is) has dictated much of what course the solution had to take.

And the City Charter can't be modified?

So I'm scheduled to take a written psychological exam within the next coming weeks and I was wondering what it involves. Any Advice?

Yeah, leave the tin foil hat at home.

How did TransCare get mixed up in the organ transplant business?

$$$$$

Already signed and check the blog regularly.

Don't you think it might be a good idea to hold off on judgment until you have all the facts? Perhaps placing him on administrative leave from his fire duties until the issue is resolved; but you literally have him convicted and sentenced based on what the newspapers have printed and we all know how accurate they are when it comes to the fire service.

Are you forgetting that there is audio out there showing that he did in fact do "what the newspapers have printed"?

I agree that administrative leave until the investigation has been completed would be the most appropriate first step.

FireMedic, I'm not looking to argue; just state the obvious. Each department is going to do what works best for it whether you or I are willing to acknowledge it or not. That's just the way it is unless the community in question demands changes and when it comes down to paying increased fire taxes, they are going to have their doubts, especially given today's economic climate.

As I mentioned to another poster in here, when it comes down to changing how you do things, you have to be as realistic as possible. Its common sense.

I'm not looking to argue either, but the more accurate statement would be that each department is going to do what it feels like doing and what it thinks is the best for it. Regardless, what works best for the department may not exactly be what works best for the citizens and the community. Just look at the Stamford threads because I think you'd have a pretty hard time arguing that whatever is going on there is truly best for the citizens and the community.

Like it or not you'll still see houses with roofs burned off no matter how much staffing you have;

Like it or not you'll still see people perish in fires no matter how much staffing you have;

Like it or not you'll still have lawsuits filed no matter how much staffing you have;

Like it or not you'll still have fires no matter how much staffing you have;

Like it or not you will pay more for insurance and it'll only go up each year no matter what your ISO rating is or how much staffing you have;

Like it or not you'll pay more for fire protection with contract salary raises each year as they get an increase almost every year;

Like it or not you'll pay more for fire fighter benefits as the cost of medical insurance goes up each year;

Like it or not layoffs and reductions of services are going to continue until the recession is over;

Like it or not the public is going to have a great deal of input and/or choose what gets funded and what doesn't get funded whether we like it or not;

Like it or not you'll get the job done as best as you can given the resources you have;

Like it or not you'll do the possible; the impossible will just have to wait.

While all of this may be true, it's still not much of an argument to maintain the status quo in many places.

Rescue Me lacks a lot of real FDNY ANYTHING

I don't doubt that in the least.

For seasons 1 and 2 they were using an E-One, they got the Pierce for season 3. I think in the pilot episode they had a different truck as well. the ladder in the photo here looks kinda like the one in the pilot.

The original Pierce ladder was sold to a VFD in I think PA after that season. It was replaced with another Pierce ladder and if I remember correctly, this one lacked a lot of the normal FDNY markings.

In the early 1980's San Bernadino CA (I think) experimented with 3 tractor drawn engines. It obviously never caught on.

No, not as a pumper, but there are some tractor drawn quints out in CA currently. I forget whose I've seen, but I think LA County might be one of them.

They may have significant savings. Obviously it isn't sustainable, but maybe they are expecting things to change before these savings run out.

No actual job cuts are in the proposal and it includes creating new jobs. Where are the savings?

Ha! Not a chance

Why's that?

I have no problem with that being your choice, just curious as to why it is your choice.

If you are in a union, you do NOT have the right to speak against this bill as your UNION leaders have added input towards this bill.

WRONG! As a citizen of this Country, our union membership DOES NOT preclude our right to speak for or against this or any bill.

Every union in America has had consideration put into this bill and the majority of UNIONS financially "support" Obama and his Liberal friends.

So what's your beef here? Is it that you feel underrepresented? If that's the case, then you have some options: 1) Talk to your elected legislators. If they aren't representing your interests, then vote them out of office. 2) Maybe you should consider unionizing.

You want change in this Country, get your UNIONS out of the pockets of the Liberals. Most people on this website are NOT Liberal, yet their UNION fees support Liberals!!! WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!

So what does the percentage of non-liberals on this web site have to do with the discussion? Additionally, "UNION fees" have not been used to "support Liberals". Prior to the Supreme Courts recent decision regarding campaign finance, it was illegal to utilize Union Fees (aka Dues) for political purposes. In order to support political candidates monetarily, a Union (or any other organization) needed to form a Political Action Committee (PAC), which is legally a separate entity from the organization itself. Contributions to the PAC from the union members are entirely voluntary.

As I mentioned, the recent Supreme Court decision has changed the rules some and Unions will be allowed to utilize "General Fund" money (not all of which comes from Dues) for political purposes in some fashion. However, it should be noted that this change will have far less effect on the political process than major corporations now being able to directly give money to candidates as a result of this ruling. Who do we get to thank for this?

Well, of the current 9 Justices, 6 were appointed by Republican Presidents and 3 by Democratic Presidents. So, if one subscribes to what appears to be the current concept that "Liberal" means Democrat and "Conservative" means Republican, then.................

Just a note, Unions do support more than just "Liberals", at least mine does.

Fire Company has plan to save $1.4 million

TOM EVANS

STAMFORD TIMES 03/18/2010

http://www.thestamfordtimes.com/story/483704

If I understand the article correctly........

Springdale has a budget of $2.5 million currently, which includes the cost of 16 SFR FFs.

Removing these 16 FFs would reduce their budget to $1.1 million.

The City would then save $1.4 million by removing these FFs from Springdale and using them elsewhere in the City.

Springdale would then hire 10 "replacement" FFs and pay for them out of this $1.1 million budget.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but this just doesn't make much sense.

Removing the 16 FFs and reassigning them elsewhere in the department does not result in a $1.4 million savings for the City because these 16 FFs are still being employed and paid for by the City. It may save money down the line if the City chooses not to replace the next 16 FF that leave the department.

If Springdale can have their budget cut by 56% and still afford to hire 10 FFs, then it would seem that they have been grossly over-budgeted for in the past or they are no longer paying for something in their operation - like equipment, apparatus repair/replacement, building costs, etc. Is this the case or will they be using "other" funding to pay for these FFs?

If they use "other" funding, then wouldn't that actually significantly increase the cost of fire protection since that money (for the most part) would likely also come from the tax payers if using common VFD fundraising sources?

Maybe someone closer to this can clarify?

Outstanding!

What I have trouble grasping is, commercial test-preparers create most of these exams with a great deal of input from the end users, and they go out of their way to be non-discriminatory.

How come results are questioned or get thrown out and certain groups cry foul because after all is said and done, a number of certain individuals from different backgrounds cannot get the same grades as others who took the same test?

A test is a test.

You prepare, you study, then you take the test.

If you do poorly, don't blame the test.

Maybe it's me....I don't get it.

Ok, I'll explain it for you. It's actually quite simple. If a person does poorly on a test, then it has to be the fault of the test and can't possibly be because they were unprepared to take the test, aren't qualified to be hired or whatever. After all, this is America where everyone is entitled to be anything that they want to be, right?