antiquefirelt

Some of you really need to go back and review what's actually been posted. I've yet to see anyone say that there shouldn't be volunteer firefighters, that volunteer firefighter can't be professional, or that they shouldn't be considered equals of career firefighters when the training requirements are the same. The fact is that some of you are extremely touchy about the perception that all career firefighters look down their nose at volunteers. I have to say, while that is true in some cases, in most cases, career firefighters, like volunteers, judge based on actions and what they see. S
Trust me, most career firefighters understand the financial issue facing their community and/or the one where they work. We know that there are many places where hiring career personnel is silly, still other places need to augment volunteers with paid positions, others still need volunteers to augment a career force and lastly we have all career jobs. The citizens decide what level of protection they can afford. Don't think for a minute that they don't want the most absolute best firefighters they can get, but they(we) decide via a risk/benefit analysis what they can afford to pay at the polls. Sometimes the career service does view a portion of the volunteer fire service as a degree of liability, in that when times are financially tough, some politician always points to the local VFD and says "hey they can do it for next to nothing" we need to cut jobs or stations. It's hard to argue against public perception, especially when they see what they want to see. The public doesn't see different training and hiring standards, responses times, calls unanswered until mutual aid, etc. And to top it off, there's no end to VFD guys ready to say "sure we can do it", "there's no difference", "we all fight what you fear". The problem is there is a difference, it doesn't have to be as drastic, but often it's larger than most will admit. It's not always training, or quality of work, it might be geographic mileage that harms response times, it might be the age of the membership, it might be a "good 'ole boys" network in the FD.
As I've said in other threads here, I started on a VFD and worked with some great volunteer firefighters, some I'd sooner work with than some of the career guys we've had. One of the biggest advantages I see day to day of a career FD, is the crew integrity. The whole shift knows who's doing what long before the bells ring. They know each other well enough to not need to speak a lot on routine jobs, as they've been there done that so many times before, as a team. They all know the expectations of them, from the bosses to those of each other. They spend a significant portion of their lives together making them a close knit team. If nothing else, compared to equally trained and even experienced firefighters, the crew that works, plays, eats and sleeps together will be a more cohesive effective unit.
The above being said, I'll leave you with this little ironic debate I had with our Union's VP. Our FD is a combination FD, we have about 65% career and 35% call firefighters. There is always some animosity, mostly petty, but without a doubt, many of the career guys feel the call guys don't help out with anything but the "fun" and see that they train much more than their counterparts. Some of the call folks feel like the career group doesn't have any respect for them. In fact it's mostly judgement from both sides on an individual basis until a group of either gets together and laments their problems. Anyway, the Union VP is on my crew and was really downing the call force one day. He thought the time of the volunteer was coming to an end and that maybe we should just stop bringing on new call members as they were not up to the same standard as the career force. After listening to him on his soap box I asked him and the rest of the crew how many career firefighter they thought we'd need per shift to cover up to just a second alarm before calling in outside aid? And as a second part, did they think this was an achievable goal in the next 10 years. The answer was unanimously "no way we could realistically do it". So my final question was, which volunteers do you trust more: the ones we train with and equip or the ones in the surrounding towns? I have not heard another word of dropping our call division since (about 4 years ago). The reality of our situation is that our taxpayers are already paying more than most in the area, and the call volume calls for more personnel but hardly enough to adequately staff three engines, a truck and run an ALS ambulance service. So volunteers will be fighting some fire, working some wrecks and helping here, be they ours or a mutual aid FD's. While I know some of the volunteers around us are good even great, still others are not, so I prefer our own.
/rant

I have something that is worth posting here and is something I want all of you to read and really think about. This was forwarded to me by a friend. This was written by Meriden, CT, Battalion Chief Burdick.
These are words that I whole heartily beleive in and held true in my profession being a firefighter, from the time I started volunteering my service to my present career in the fire services. Next time when you use the term "Brotherhood" stop and think about it for a second and ask yourself how you use the term, live up to your actions, consider your self part of the Brotherhood. I see the term used often here, but are you truly in the brotherhood?
Just think.

Please let me reiterate what I've actually said here: I cannot see why the municipal or other governmental body would provide indemnification when they have no control over hiring, training, and discipline.
So to spell that out, it really only applies to truly private departments whom are not part of the taxing entity. As I see it, the community that "hires" you as paid call or otherwise compensated firefighters should provide you with the same protections as career guys. Now, if the state is going to grant this, I'd think they'd want to set a standard of minimum requirements, for both the entity(FD) and for the individuals(firefighters). Should the state indemnify candy stripers at the hospital? How about members of the Rotary and Kiwanis? They do good things for the community, no? Hell if they'd indemnify volunteer cops, I might join up to carry a gun. To me the issue is not whether volunteers have earned indemnification, but the responsibility to the citizens at large for such a responsibility. Clearly, requiring equal minimum requirements would go along way.

If I, as a volunteer, cannot meet the same training requirements as a career guy, what business do I have being a volunteer? We all preach that we do the same job, the dangers are the same, and that we want to be treated the same and not looked down upon by career guys, well then lets start training like them, and hold ourselves to the same standards.
I know guys from all over the fire service who are volunteers, who have the "I've been in it for 15-20 years now, why do I have to train on hose stretching or ground ladder ops since it is an easy task," mentality. Well too bad, there is the door, thank you for your 15 years of service to the town. The amount of liability on a Chief and his department now is so immense, why would you not want to demand that your firemen exceed the volunteer requirements?
Fire doesn't change when you cross the district line of Yonkers to Hastings guys (just using that as an example), lets start training and demanding accountability like it doesn't.

Many factors depend on whether your Dept. is set up for a "reverse lay", "forward lay" or both. Personally I would like to establish a water supply as fast as possible no matter what especially if the other units are 3 minutes away. Too me operating off the booster and waiting for the 2nd due engine to get u water is playing russian roulette. I'd have the mpo drop his tank prior to hookin up and charge a 2 1/2" line giving me the 500 gallons or more to hit the main body of fire. I would have also had one member stretch an 1 3/4" to the front door and told the mpo to charge it when hooked up to his hydrant. This line could then be used later on by other arriving members or by the same members if conditions warranted it. As far as the primary is concerned it all depends on interior conditions. It may only be possible to search just inside the doorway if flashover is imminent and that's usually only 5' max like the Chief above said. This is no place for an 1 3/4" line off the bat. You have alot of fire here which is most likely in the cockloft requiring more then 150-180 gpm if u ask me. This is where a smooth bore comes into play. Having a smooth bore on the line gives you better reach, penetrating power(blasting the overhead ceiling away extinguishing concealed fire in cockloft) and more importantly maneuverability to hit the fire in the garage whether done from the exterior or inside. A 2 1/2" line is alot more easy to operate at 50 psi nozzle pressure then with a fog nozzle requiring 100 psi. Preferably I'd stay outside why waist time looking for the interior garage door and what are u goin to do if it's locked? Did one member bring the irons in with him? What if the door is 25' in and then down to the left another 10-15 feet. Even if you do find it and get it open how much fire are u goin to extinguish from that point. Too many things that could go wrong by stretching inside if you ask me. Hit it from the exterior and hit the interior wall separating the garage from the living quarters from the side. I seriously doubt u will push it into the rest of the house. I'd also have the nozzleman sweep the soffits on the exterior and try and drive the stream into the cockloft area that way extinguishing some of the fire. When reinforcements arrive I'd have them take the 1 3/4" thru the front door if not done already by the original crew. Basically I'd probably handle this almost as if it were a taxpayer job seeing it's a one story residence. With regards to pulling ceilings where would most of you start to pull them, once inside the front door or go aways in and pull them from deep inside the structure working your way towards the front entrance? Personnally, I'd start right at the front door and work my way in. JMO

Chief,
I hadn't watched the video before I responded to your question. Upon viewing it I realized the structure in Yakima, WA is very similar in construction to the houses around my sister's home in Kent, WA. I'm sure most that viewed it realized the house is built on a slab, so floor joist collapse isn't a major concern regarding this particular fire.
The knowledge of the construction types in our response areas as we have been trained is critical information and will influence our decision making on the fireground.
There have been many informative posts in this thread; less experienced firefighters reading this information would do well to study the various approaches to attacking this fire.

Ah yes, good point. I wasn't really considering the non-typical truss styles. It seems now you can order your trusses to meet just about any roof line or ceiling you'd like. When I worked in residential construction we used standard trusses over the "normal" attic areas but almost always used rafter and joists over cathedral ceilings. But then, that was 15+ years ago when trusses were far less customizable for the average consumer.
The case can certainly be made that going forward we much take a far more progressive approach to pre-fire intelligence. Thankfully in our small community we work hand in hand with the code office to review all new construction plans, and note hazards as they're being built. We also have a residential sprinkler ordinance that requires all new one and two family dwellings to be sprinklered. Our state building code, now a "mini-max" state, has adopted a provision that all floor trusses must have either a one hour fire barrier or sprinklers protecting them. Sadly they failed to keep the residential sprinkler portion of the IBC or NFPA 101, and by rule no municipality can enact the requirement as part of the building code. Thankfully ours was adopted in the land use regulations and is allowed to remain.
The case for more aggressive VES tactics would seem compelling, though it would seem a difficult task to undertake for many FD's who struggle with so many other basic operations. Without a doubt the job is getting far more dangerous, with new hazards, tighter buildings, hotter fires, but less overall jobs to gain experience at. In the past 10 years my own dept has trained and employed VES, but very few firefighters have actually employed the tactic under difficult conditions.

Terrible incidents such as this (as the post mentions) spurred the growth of unions. Nowadays, the well paid commentators on talk radio as well as certain cable news shows bash unions and blame them for many of our Nation's financial woes. It's true that some unions got out of control over the years and have some very costly clauses in their contracts, but there are many unions whose main function is to insure a safe work place along with fair wages and benefits. It's very apparent how these 'media experts' blame the unions but never mention why unions were formed nor do they bash greedy corporate types who stuff their own pockets while underpaying and laying off hard working people.
God bless all of the victims of both of these tragedies and remember all of the Firefighters who had to deal with the victim recovery. If you've never had to perform that function, I can assure you that it is very sad and it stays with you.

Auto narrative takes away one of the real perks of digital records. Substantially more space for a detailed and accurate narrative.

I couldn't agree more that today the building industry is using lightweight everything and I cannot disagree that we must know the construction of the building we're entering to be able to predict probable events. And knowing that trusses are present must be part of the risk/benefit analysis, it's how much weight do we place in the risk side when roof trusses are encountered in PD's?
My question regarding roof trusses specifically in residential is that we as a fire service seem to be further distancing ourselves from our first priority when we encounter trusses. Given that residential homes are fairly compartmentalized I'm interested in the theory that while dangerous, residential roof truss failures will tend to be localized and have far less catastrophic failures than larger commercial occupancies. Given the fist scenario posted here, the very real possibility that this house or many similar ones would have extension into the truss attic is real. But, what are we to do if we become so risk averse to trusses, that an attic fire precludes us from searching the same when we have persons unaccounted for? And in an ever growing likely scenario, vacant SFD's certainly could have squatters that no one (neighbors) anticipates.
I'm not thinking about tossing caution to the wind, but looking a the real possibility that we could be pulling bodies from a home some night after the roof has collapsed only to find that there is very little intrusion below the interior walls.
Maybe a better approach is what type of tactics should we be considering when we anticipate a truss roof with fire attacking the trusses? Do we write it off? Open it up from a TL? Support a search and then go defensive? Going forward this problem is only going to multiply as the percentage of housing stock built with lightweight material slowly moves upward. Clearly residential sprinklers are needed to combat fires in these newer homes, but we'll still have a large chunk of lightweight unprotected for years to come.

I'm not as concerned with the interior work, as I'd tend to try this with a 1.75" line while a 2.5" SB knocks down the fire in the garage. But I did want to comment about the 2 1/2" interior line. Maneuvering a 2 1/2" in a residential occupancy is nearly impractical, other than in the great rooms of some McMansions. The compartmentized nature of residential occupancies often make for far too many corners and quick turns for the big line.

This is a good idea. Video can be a great training tool. A video such as this of a structure prior to FD arrival presents an excellent opportunity to discuss strategy and tactics without second guessing another department.
In response to scenario #1, I will offer the following: (I will detail what my actions would be as the first engine officer given the resources available as per the scenario- if this fire occured in my own department we would have more manpower available and thus certain things would be done differently).
1. Give a quick size-up via radio and call for more help.
2. If a hydrant is within 50 feet, order the driver to hook up to it. A competent driver should be able to get water from a hydrant within 50 feet of the rig and charge a handline. This is not ideal of course but we need to work with what we have.
If a hydrant is further away than that, radio the second engine that they will need to secure a hydrant and feed us.
3. Leave room for the truck in front as usual but this fire will not require the use of master streams. Neither will we need aerial or tower ladder to reach the roof.
4. Order the other firefighter to stretch a 1 3/4" handline to the front door and wait for me there.
5. Go around back for a quick look. As I am doing that I would question any people in the area as to whether anyone was inside. Don't waste a lot of time doing this but do ask the question. Oftentimes people will remain mute until asked and once asked will say, something like, "yes, there are two children in a back bedroom, etc." If someone says yes, there are people inside, take a quick moment to ask how they know this, how many people,and where they are located. Sometimes bystanders have this information also but do not volunteer it until asked. Of course, use your judgement in deciding how credible any info. you receive might be.
During this walk, check for a basement and make sure the fire did not start there. It is very important to not be above the fire unless you know you are. This particular home seems to be built on a slab with no basement but always discipline yourself to check for this.
Is this building truss construction? Maybe, but doubtful. Look at the windows. I believe they are an older, aluminum frame type.
6. On the way back to the front give another quick report by radio to the incoming companies as to what you have and what you want from them. Truck should be doing a search. Second engine should be securing a water supply if not already done by your driver, and second engine should also be stretching a backup line.
7. Take the line in the front door and head for the interior door to the garage. You do not need to wait for a FAST team to be assembled as there is a potential life hazard. In any event, another engine and the truck should be there by now or in another minute, as per the scenario information. Be agressive but cautious. Keep in mind that your company is undermanned, that you might only be working off the tank, that the wind is blowing toward you, the fire may be in the attic, etc. All of these things are concerns but no reason not to initiate an interior attack.
8. Put the fire out. At this point I will take some time to explain...several others in this thread have stated that this fire should be an exterior attack, or that 2 1/2" should be stretched. In my opinion,, neither is correct. The amount of fire showing can certainly be knocked down with an adequately supplied 1 3/4" handline. 2 1/2" is too much to handle for a 2 man hose team anyway. Putting some water on this fire is the best thing we can do to save anyone who may still be inside.
It appears that the main body of fire is in the garage. It may be in the living area of the house too, and also in the attic. You will find out if fire is in the main part of the house when you enter with the line.Hopefully you have a thermal imager. If so, use it to scan the attic and the rest of the house. Before advancing far, check the upper levels of the room for heat and listen for crackling. Do not pass fire. Get the truck inside with you to complete the search and open the ceilings to check for fire in the attic as soon as possible.
Oh, if you encounter any occupants inside, remove them....
***Some of the things in this post which may raise some disagreement are my decisions to make an interior attack with this much fire showing; to enter without a FAST team assembled; to make the attack potentially on booster tank water; to use a 1 3/4" handline***
I acknowledge in advance that these actions may seem controversial to some in the fire service not because they should be, but simply because I am aware of the way many of us think.
OK. I took a few minutes to respond to this type of thread which I usually don't. Can I go back to bashing vollies now????

For those considering an interior attack with a 2 1/2, please take another look at the video. There is a red glow along the soffet almost all the way across the A side and blackening creeping downward on the walls below. By the time you stretch your line and finish gearing up, the rest of the house , more likely than not, will have flashed over.
Life is your highest priority, and you don't know Les is safe unless you left the audio on. In doing your 360, if there are bystanders, a quick shout "Does anybody live here?" might give you the "Everybody's out" answer that absolutely changes your mode to defensive. Points to consider at first look are:
1 This fire is bigger than your 2 1/2
2.Even if there may be an occupant, is there even an outside chance he's alive after the coming flashover in the living side of the house?
3. How far into the door can you go and still get out when you see signs of impending flashover? Does 5ft ring a bell?
I'D TEND TO SPIN MY DECK GUN AT THE MAIN BODY OF FIRE, USE MY 1 MIN OF TANK WATER (which won't come close to a knockdown) AND WAIT FOR MY WATER SUPPLY.

Mo, I think you need to re-read your post and make sure you mean what you're saying.
Are you realy suggesting that it doesn't matter who shows up for a class and an instructor should pass people who don't deserve to be passed? That's nuts. This isn't just school you may need the training to save your life or my life. You damn well better be paying attention and be proficient.
You should not be allowed to attend an intermediate course if you're not competent with basic skills. If the instructor sees that you're not up to the task they absolutely should be able to dismiss you. What good are people with a book full of certificates that can't be backed up with performance?
"regardless if they showed up or not" I hope your'e not suggesting that a student should be passed along if they don't show up for the required sessions. What good is that?
You may not have been there to judge how they did in the class but the instructor was. If you can't tie a knot should be allowed to call yourself a rope rescue technician? Come on, you're taking this too far now.

And when they become a chief or IC for that matter they too will have to follow the law and comply with the respiratory standard (2in 2out).

Maybe the signage is there to keep people out? You know, you need a confine space permit to retrieve anything from inside the cap? It has restricted/limited entry/exit, is large enough for entry and to perform work, yet not designed for continuous occupancy. Add in the CO poisoning issues inside caps and you now have a permit required confined space! Man I shoulda been a lawyer!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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,

Maybe the signage is there to keep people out? You know, you need a confine space permit to retrieve anything from inside the cap? It has restricted/limited entry/exit, is large enough for entry and to perform work, yet not designed for continuous occupancy. Add in the CO poisoning issues inside caps and you now have a permit required confined space! Man I shoulda been a lawyer!

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?

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...

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