CTFF

Members
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    305

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by CTFF

  1. Posted

    Often here at work when I have down time my mind naturally drifts to the events unfolding with our Fire Service back home. Like most I am truly concerned with what will happen, not only because as a volunteer I will be affected by any changes, but more importantly because I have a wife and three childern as well as other members of my family whose lives depend on the outcome.

    Recently as I dwelled on our mess I realized that with each "plan" presented there are flaws which may ultimately fail the public .

    For the volunteers:

    5) A unique problem also arises for the union. If in fact this plan comes to fruition and it becomes apparent that, as is regularly stated, additional resources are needed who do you think the SVFD will turn to. Well SFRD of course. Now given that scenario will L-786 refuse to sanction responses into the new SVFD district? To do so would be suicidal in the court of public opinion. And as City employees SFRD members are charged with carrying out the policies of the City, their employer.

    Cogs

    You've lost me with the above point.

    5)You're concerenced with mutual aide already in the SVFD? You also expect it to simply come from SFRD? So you still see the need for SFRD to put out fires up north, you would rather not pay for it though, right?

    Later on in your critique of the SFRD plan you worry about out of town residents who may be put in risk as their FD comes to aide stamford. Are you worried about the downtown residents who's closest unit may be up north fighting a fire an unable to provide water or CPR?

  3. Posted

    I have been a proponent of a confederated FD for a long time. One in which SFRD and the VFDs work together in a much more formal manner than is currently the case. A dept made up of two divisions which ultimately answers to one authority be it a Chief, or commissioner or whatever. There are differences and unique circumstances between SFRD and the VFDs which cannot just be overlooked or plowed under if there is to be any kind of real working relationship. Now an idea was hoisted up the flagpole before the Task Force which both sides found fault with, and maybe to an extent rightfully so, but that idea did merge everyone under one ultimate authority while allowing for the differences, hence the two division model. OK so SFRD or should I say L-786 doesn't want it;'s members to work days only, ok that's a point which can be negotiated so that the needs of the community and SFRD are met while the unique contributions of the volunteers are also incorporated. Greenwich's system is not the model I would suggest to achieve that, nor is Danbury's even if they work fine there. A more integrated system is what I firmly believe is in all of our best interests. Again a combination of a Montgomery Cty type model and aspects of what has worked here is to me the best route. Anything that puts one "side" above another will not yeild a lasting solution, or maybe it is that perception that one has an advantage, but let;s face it perception IS reality to those involved. What is needed is compromise and a willingness to respect and incorporate the things that are most valued by the players to reach the common goal of premeir fire protection for Stamford. Both SFRD and the VFDs can provide that when working together, but that must be a two sided coin, not one telling the other it's this or that or the highway. Concessions would be necessary from 786, there's no way around it, just as they would be required of the VFDs. The trick now is to find that which can be conceded without either '"side" losing it'self in the process. Keeping sight of the overall goal.....an integrated, combination fire service for Stamford.....is key.

    Cogs

    This all depends on the city administration. The city could encourage all sides( SFRD, L786, The VFD's & LRPDA) to sit down and talk. From what I've seen to this point I don't see the City supporting talks.

    FFPCogs likes this

  5. Posted · Edited by CTFF

    I have heard such runmors as well. I try not to put too much stock in rumors as they usually are started to support someones agenda or create animosity that needn't exist. If in fact that is what happens than so be it, but until then nothing is lost in keeping an open mind and willingness.

    Cogs

    it's tough to reach any other conclusion in regards to the Mayor and pushing forward, I don't think we've seen any pause from him on this issue. He has repeadetly stated that one Fire Dept in Stamford can't happen now for a variety of legal reasons. Yet somehow a way has been found to merge three (hopefully four) of the volunteer dept under one Chief. The Charter hasn't changed, no boundries have been changed, so what has? If four of the Dept's can merge, why couldn't all six? I Doubt there is any thing in the charter that precludes SFRD and Glenbrook from joing the other 3 (soon to be four?).

  9. Posted

    1) Do YOU support allowing volunteers to ride on every rig from every station citywide when scheduled and certified to the FF2 and EMT (or other specialized level such as Recue or HazMat tech)?

    2) Do you support the addition of volunteer staffing as a means to offset personnel costs and thus save taxpayers money?

    3) Do you support equal standards for all personnel and for all ranks?

    4) If so above, do you then support working under volunteer officers since they will have met the same requirements?

    5) Do you support integrated training under certified volunteer training oficers?

    6) Do you support the complete integration of the career and volunteer sectors in terms of the administation and decision making process?

    7) How far are YOU personally willing to go to help create a truly integrated combination fire department to better serve our City?

    I've answered all of your questions, now I look forward to your answers

    .

    Cogs

    1. Nope. SFRD has not built it's stations with the thought of working as a combination stations. Parking is a mess at 3 different stations during shift change and additional cars can make it even more of a challenge, Many of the day rooms are not conducive to having extra bodies there and the same can be said about the bunk situation. On the rare occasion that more firefighters are working then minimum staffing those bodies are sent north. This is to help the houses that have longer response times for second due engines. While I'm against vollies riding out downtown If we are told it will happen I would expect the On duty Deputy to have say where this man power is stationed.

    Do you envision a ride along program to have structured shifts or as the volunteer has time available?

    2. No, I don't support the concept of allowing volunteers to fill spots needed by minimum manpower. Overtime benefits the cities and career firefighters, when you consider while I am being paid time and a half it truly only costs the city the half ( they've budget for the shift anyways). Plus they don't pay any extra benefits.

    Will the SVFD have overtime or will volunteers fill shifts? Will the volunteer be paid for that shift?

    3. Yes. If you do get to ride downtown I'll expect you'll sit the watch, handle the orderly detail and other details handed out by the Officer. This is done in a systematic way currently and you guys have many watches , orderly and yard details to catch up to us.

    4. I have no problem following the chain of command, I work for a Capt or LT. If you need something done go talk to that guy.

    5. Most of our training is done during the day in conjucntion with the training divison or the house officer. This allows us to train in a much faster time period then training with the volunteers on a standard drill night. That being said I think on drill night the career and volunteers in a combo house should work together.

    6. No. Would you support the Career staff in voting for volunteer officers positions? Or descions an individual company needs to make?

    7. Until the mayor is willing to get everyone in the room, this is about it.

  10. Posted

    Under the proposed staffing guidelines that may be correct as they are the minimum, but it is entirely possible that those staffing guidelines will be subject to change based on the availibility of guaranteed, scheduled volunteer staffing. Alternate guidelines remain a possibility and have recieved a number of modifcations to allow for 4 man staffing in each station 24/7. As has been said before this will be a work in progress and as such little is cast in stone at the moment. If or when some of the other programs associated with recruitment and retention bear fruit it is even more likely that residents of North Stamford will actuially see an increase in staffing per rig to 6 or multiple units staffed per station to better serve them. Given continued supprt from 888 the residents of North Stamford will see a far greater return for their investment than they have in the past or would with the proposed SFRD plan.

    Cogs

    Are you saying 24/7 with a mix of paid and volunteers? Or does the plan already recognize the need for 4 man career staffing but it will be sold to the public as something else?

  12. Posted

    What is truly amazing is that anyone would question why GFD is being singled out based on their performance.

    As much as some may want to divert attention away from the truth, the fact is it is GFD that is a problem, not the "model" solution some espouse it to be. As has become readily apparent to anyone with eyes, GFD under the tuteledge and supervision of SFRD has become a completely non functional organization. Yet even in the face of such a blatant example of failure it is still held in high regard by some as the model for our future. Sorry but that is a future we don't want, nor do many on the Board of Representatives or the public. This is evidenced by the fact that even under the unrelenting assault by L-786 and the previous administration no Charter change or specific ordinances were passed to abrogate the status of the VFDs. Why do you think that is? Because a clear example of what lies ahead under the SFRD plan is staring everyone right smack in the face in the form of GFD no matter how much smoke, mirrors or wiindow dressing some have tried to obscure the truth with. Besides Stamford Fire Lies.com and some members of L-786 have done a marvelous job of relating the response numbers of the other VFDs (sans BFD's 100% of course) to the public, the Board of Reps and the contributors here so there was no need for me to cite them yet again.

    Chirp chirp

    Cogs

    Cogs,

    I'd simply like to see all the numbers for all of the dept's. Hell I'd like to see the NFIRS for each dept showing who actually responds to calls. I think the whole situation is still a very long way off from being resolved.

  16. Posted

    I believe CTFF is closer to what a little birdy told me was in the works for later today. As for Glenbrook, well it's wonderful to read that such a good "working" relationship has developed from their situation. Unfortunately with a response record of only 12% of their dispatched calls, one has to wonder just how much work they are actually doing. That record by the way is one that is far worse then even the most abysmal response from the other much mailgned VFDs in town. Frankly many tend to see Glenbrook and it's relationship with SFRD as more akin to that of a "puppet regime" to it's master. They have been repeatedly touted as the "model" VFD to support the SFRD vision for Stamford's future. With that 12% as a model is it any wonder the others have chosen a different route.

    Cogs

    A little birdy? C'mon Coggs, if there is a signed agreement one would have to think that the memberships of the big four have seen the agreement and voted on it, right? Or did you miss that meeting?

  17. Posted

    I guess it would be open to interpretation. I would certainly hope that both parties being affected would be included in the discussion, and would have to sign off on any changes. But, as we have seen, sometimes the powers that be arent interested in hearing the "advice" from both parties affected. I am curious to see what this announcement today is going to bring, though.

    My guess is you'll see the "Big four" ( Long Ridge, Turn of River, Belltown & Springdale) have agreed to merge...

  18. Posted · Edited by CTFF

    Actually, less liability then you might think. Courts have generally held that no "contract" exists between the public and emergency services for their action or inaction.

    what about the company officer or IC who sent his people on a rescue they are not trained for nor equiped for? If one of his crew is killed or hurt badly this may open the city and himself to a lawsuit.

  19. Posted

    I dont know what department you are from but i think u should find out the other side of the story. I for one am a member of this department and if you have any problems OR questions before you go and run your mouth about something you have no idea about you should really ask there are plenty of us on here that you can contact from my department

    Give us the other side of the story then.

  20. Posted

    At what point is consolidation no longer and effective option? Using the Nassau/Sufffolk example, while it is great that they recognize daytime staffing is a problem and moved apparatus to a more 'central' location. But what if responding volunteer spend more time driving to the apparatus due to the increased distance, and it effects response times. I guess these departments allow these members to store their turnout gear in the personal vehicles or do they have multiple sets or do they secure them on the apparatus if they are able to respond that day.

    Consolidation as I meant it means to reduce the number of Fire Deptartments, not meaning to move equipment to one location.

  22. Posted

    Clearly in a community where the FD only goes out once or twice per week there isn't much need for in-house staffing (whether paid or volunteer). If the volume is that low, is it safe to say that the population (and attendant traffic issues) is also very low and it is a mostly rural/agriculture type community?

    This program is best suited toward those departments with high volume and low membership so they can "guarantee" a timely initial response with appropriate staffing. Think of those departments that go out 3-4 times a day and rely on mutual aid for a room and contents fire. That's the kind of department that would benefit from this.

    This grant is acknowledging that a properly staffed initial response is the best form of delivery in the fire service and is striving toward that as its goal. Nowhere in anything that I've read in the grant guidance does it suggest anything about whether or not a response from home to the FD is unsafe. Don't know where you're getting that from.

    From the short article in the link there is talk of staffing firehouses 24/7 not adequate staffing. To me it seems that this is about getting rigs on the road and cutting the delay out of home/work to firehouse to call aspect of the volunter service. I meant unsafe to the people who need a rig wherever they and need it now as opposed to unsafe for firefighters driving to the firehouse/call.

  23. Posted

    While I whole heartedly agree, some towns in NYS cannot even afford turnout gear or maintenance on their equipment, let alone 24/7 career staffing. Having a bunk in program like many departments do, particularly in Prince George County, MD, is a fantastic way to supplement a lack of manpower. Their programs are highly successful (probably because of the amount of work that they catch) and students line up to be part of the live in program each semester.

    I'll be the first to admit what I know about "bunk in programs" is from what I read on online firefighter forums. In my opinion it's a form of compensated staffing, free rent for making calls. Are there enough towns with all volunteer dept's with college's close by to make this happen? Shouldn't those dept's be making this move if there is a need for it?

    My family has a place in upstate and our local fd does about 80 calls a year, is there a great need for a bunk in program there?

    Also is this grant bascially saying that the respond from home to firehouse and then to the call an unsafe practice?