Update on Stamford Merger

[Bnechis 3,961]

That being said even paying into a LOSAP program and offering tax breaks to volunteers would still bring considerable savings compared to full time career salaries and benefits plus overtime. This is not wishful thinking, it's simple mathmatics.

Its simple mathmatics only if it work, if you pay into LOSAP and the vol rolls still drop off, where does the money go? and you still have to bring in career.

I have yet to find any study that can show that LOSAP programs actually recruit or retain members. Many in other threads have claimed they do, but no one can point to any proof.

[Guest Slayer61]

I think you'd have a hard time if the main reason someone's gonna volunteer in your community, shift coverage or simply on call, is a $200 per month supplement after a decade or two of service...

[FFPCogs 863]

Bnechis,

You are absolutely correct in that it's simple math only if it works. Regarding any unpaid funds, well they would sit there in the budget (collecting interest) to be used if in the end or at some future time career personnel are assigned. Or used I suppose at the discretion of the City administration as they see fit.

As to the second point, I haven't seen any study or proof that incentives such as a LOSAP program DON'T work.

I'm just pointing out that since the City said this was about budget control and financial savings ANY alternative or program that would offer such substantial savings should be investigated.

Slayer,

It has been my experience that incentives are NOT the main reason people volunteer. There are many reasons why people volunteer, as many reasons as there are volunteers. Incentives may or may not encourage members to join or stay, I don't have any data either way.

What I do have and what I have posted here simply shows that if money is the main reasoning behind assigning career personnel to volunteer houses to save money, incentives offered to volunteers will offer even greater savings...period. LOSAP programs also offer volunteers a small but tangible reward...yes reward, for their years of service.

As I stated before, I stand confidently behind what I post. My thinking may or may not be flawed, but I am offering an alternative solution and information in support of that possible solution.

So I will ask again:

"Based on the FACT that the BFD and TORFD are or are going to be 100% volunteer stations, what solutions can you offer to ensure that the residents recieve the best possible fire protection under these conditions"?

Take care

and as always

Stay Safe

Cogs

Edited July 2, 2008 by FFPCogs

[FFPCogs 863]

To all,

Let me just say if 24/7 coverage is a prerequisite to keeping volunteers in place, I don't know of any other method to achieve it other than in shifts by the volunteer members. I can think of no other alternative that will ASSURE such coverage. Although the necessary number of personnel is higher, isn't this what many volunteer ambulance corps have been doing for years?

Just a thought

Take care

and as always

Stay Safe

Cogs

[E58RET 24]

Since I made the statement about simple mathmatics, upon reflection I felt I should share those mathmatics with the audience here.

So I'll start with the BFD.

According to the "plan" 4 SRFD career personnel are to be stationed in Belltown. OK so 4 FFs at $50,000 per year = $200,000. No dispute there and this doesn't include benefits and overtime. Ok so that's $200,000 that would be spent in Belltown alone.

Now let's look at a LOSAP program that pays $200 a month per year per member.

$200 x 12 months = $2,400 per year per member. So $200,000 divided by $2400 = 83. In other words that same $200,000 that would pay 4 FFs salaries would fund LOSAP payments for 83 firefighters.

Now let's look at a situation somewhat more grounded in reality. Belltown doesn't have 83 active members. I'll be generous and say there are 40. Ok so 40 members each getting $2,400 per year = $96,000. $200,000 minus $96,000 = $104,000. So there in black and white is a savings of $104,000 per year in Belltown alone. Numbers don't lie. And in all honesty not all current members would be eligible for their LOSAP payments immediately which would lead to further savings.

Those live-ins college students I constantly mention would not be involved in the program unless they remain members after their schooling is complete. Their "payment" is a free roof over their heads while attending school.

As for shifts again using a base of 40 members. 40 members divided into 4 person crews = 10 crews. 365 days divided by 10 crews = 36.5 shifts a year. Or 36.5 shifts divided by 12 months = 3.4 shifts per month, or basically 1 shift every 10 days. Difficult -yes, impossible-no.

This all changes exponentially of course as you add additional stations and members. But 7 volunteer stations staffed by 4 firefighters each = 28 firefighters per shift.

So here's a bit more math. 28 FFs at $50,000 per year = $1,400,000. Let's see how many firefighter LOSAP payments that is.

$1,400,000 divided by $2400 per year per member would fund 583 LOSAP payments per year. That's alot of FFs.

If money saving is the goal here than I see an awful lot of savings here by the numbers. Of course there is alot more here than simply dollars, and again it is the volunteers who would have to be willing adopt the shift system. And the City would have to be willing to fund the program, but again from their statements this is about money so...

Take care

and as always

Stay Safe

Cogs

[TimesUp 148]

40 people between the ages of 18 and 22 or 23. Men and women living in a fire house. That should work? what happens at spring break or christmas?

[Bnechis 3,961]

Bnechis, You are absolutely correct in that it's simple math only if it works. Regarding any unpaid funds, well they would sit there in the budget (collecting interest) to be used if in the end or at some future time career personnel are assigned. Or used I suppose at the discretion of the City administration as they see fit.

In NYS those funds were already paid to an outside investment firm who sits on them earning interest and charging a fee to manage them, its unclear if the dept. ever see's it in our lifetime.

As to the second point, I haven't seen any study or proof that incentives such as a LOSAP program DON'T work.

And you never will. Too much money has been invested in too many communities betting on it will work. But before additional communities spend tax money on this, shouldn't the LOSAP programs be able to show the taxpayers that it actually does what they are saying it will?

[Jason762 2]

FFPCogs,

You state that the most important consideration in this whole mess is public safety, yet it appears to me that you are strongly advocating staffing firehouses with 18-21 year old college kids with little to no fire experience and training over a 3 or 4 man staffed career engine company. This strikes me as odd and does not fall in line with one who would place public safety first. Maybe I'm reading into this incorrectly, but this is the way I see it from what I've read.

[FFPCogs 863]

Everyone's opinion and views are valid and deserve their due respect, and close scrutiny of anything that I post is more than welcomed by me. This is how we actually move forward and allow all sides of an issue to be explored.

That being said I'll do my best to address the questions and statements regarding to my postings.

To itrob,

What happens when career personnel go on their paid vacations? Same dilema..same solution.

And nowhere did I state that firehouses would be manned by 18-23 year olds exclusively. There are many members of the BFD and other departments that are both older and more experienced that would be a part of any manpower pool.

To Bnechis,

Is there proof or reason to believe you won't see the monies earmarked for the LOSAP program?

Also it seems we won't be seeing any proof that this doesn't work any time soon either.

As for the taxpayers getting what they pay for, only vigilant oversight of the program can guarantee that the money will go where it's supposed to. Just like ALL other taxpayer money spent by government, be it local, state or federal. Whether or not that oversight will actually do what it's supposed to is open to question just as it is for all taxpayer funds.

And to Jason762

Public safety is absolutely the number one priority here and for any issues involving fire protection. Let me repeat that I never stated that college student would be the exclusive source of manpower for this alternative. Where that notion comes from is beyond me. If you read my previous postings here you will see that they will make up a portion of the total manpower pool. It is true that they may well make up the majority during daytime hours, but they would be augmented by retired members, and those that work 2nd or 3rd shift jobs. Again this is a system that is already in place and working well in other states, as I've already mentioned. Those college student by the way that are enrolled in the programs in Maryland and Virginia all have previous training and most have at the very least some experience. They must be current certified FFs with a bona fide department as well as medical first responders to even be considered for the live-in program. These are not people who just walked in off the street or on a lark. This criteria would be a must for any such similar program in Stamford. I'm fairly certain that an acceptable number of candidates who meet this criteria can be drawn from area colleges and universities here to fill the need, just as they are there.

As for experiene and training. I could not and would not dispute that overall paid firefighers have access to more training, but there are many volunteers trained to the same or higher levels of certification as their average career counterparts. I for one have a wall full of IFSAC certifications. Regarding experience let me start by asking a question: what is the average number of working fires worked by any given shift of SFRD personnel? 6 maybe 8 per year or roughly the same number as dealt with by the volunteers in Stamford overall. Now I know that the SFRD responds to most if not all working fires within the city limits now, but by virtue of the mutual aid and automatic response set-up the volunteer response has climbed as well, as has their experience level.

My final point to you is this, the simple fact that a person receives a paycheck DOES NOT guarantee that they are a good firefighter. All departments have great firefighters, average firefighters and firefighters of questionable abilities. that's a fact. A paycheck does not necessarily guarantee a persons dedication to this craft or their abilities...I'm sorry but it just doesn't. Those of us who do this to serve generally are better at it than those who don't paid or volunteer.

Just one final note. Yet again my posts have been questioned as is your right and honestly your obligation as good firefighters to do. But none of you managed to answer the question posted.

What alternatives can you offer to those involved based on the facts as they now stand? That is that both the BFD and the TORFD have chosen to become 100% volunteer departments at least for now. What can these departments do to provide the best possible coverage for their residents without a SFRD presence?

Take care

and as always

Stay Safe

Cogs

Edited July 2, 2008 by FFPCogs

[Geppetto 31]

Blaze tests city's new fire reality

Wynne Parry - Stamford Advocate 07/02/08

STAMFORD - When a pool heater caught fire shortly before 10 a.m. yesterday at 7 Briarwood Lane, a neighbor's call for help tested Stamford's troubled fire service.

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/localnews/ci_9761205

[eckyphats 0]

what a mess, not know everything about this battle, I can only state that TOR is a fairly busy dept and as a 100% volunteer dept would need to staff the stations just to handle all the medical calls

[Guest Sqd47]

Blaze tests city's new fire reality

Wynne Parry - Stamford Advocate 07/02/08

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/localnews/ci_9761205

Yep, read the article.

Already 2 comments up as well... seems like the tone of the article is going to ignite a firestorm (no pun intended).

I get the impression that Engine 8 was staffed with 3 personnel yesterday... am I correct?

[FFPCogs 863]

Read the article too.

Well there you go, the VFDs are going to have to change their operating methods to meet the new reality. I've repeatedly stated what I think would work given the time and determination to put it into place. As it now stands the SFRD is out of those firehouses so who's got a better idea?

Remember the VFDs are independent entities and are empowered by city charter to make the decision as to if there are paid employees or not. Based on that and respecting their current stance is anybody ready to actually step up and help SOLVE the problem?

Cogs

Edited July 2, 2008 by FFPCogs

[jcoppola 52]

I am so tired of hearing about this charter...does it say anything about compromising public safety because of pride in this charter??? When certain things cannot be accomplished for whatever reason, it should be admitted so and use the help that is available. How long does the TRFD plan on having their people take time off from work to match the staffing that is provided by SFRD out of their trailer on Vine Road...and what about when the cold temps get here...then what? A frozen pump and tank of water because they are not allowed to store their apparatus in TRFD's firehouse? This is outright infantile and heads will certainly roll if God forbid someone loses thier life over this silly quarrell over pride and this "famous" charter.

[FFPCogs 863]

Well the fact is that the "famous' charter exists and gives the VFDs the authority they have. I didn't write it I'm just pointing out the fact that it is there and must be dealt with.

It's not that I disagree that pride seems to have taken center stage, but like it or not it that pride on BOTH sides is a factor in this whole mess. Like I've said before, whatever happens it WILL directly affect the lives of those involved...so it is completely unrealistic to think that things like pride wouldn't be a factor.

There are alternatives available out there if all involved are willing to explore them. Some have even made their way into this forum. It is up to the parties involved to put the citizens first by considering all the factors that will affect them. Of course the residents safety is the absolute prime concern...and whoever doesn't think so needs to have their head examined.

I believe that the alternative that I have proposed can provide the necessary level of protection for the residents living in the districts involved, otherwise I wouldn't have posted it. Just as many here believe fervently that SFRD personnel is the ONLY possible solution. The fact is that it is really up to the BFD and TORFD to find a solution that will meet or exceed what SFRD personnel can and will provide.They have the authority to make the choices they have made. But with that authority comes the responsibility to do what is in the residents best interest. If they can't provide for the residents what is necessary then they MUST bite the bullet, and open their doors to the SFRD. This is a no brainer.

Personnally, I would like to see the BFD et al retain their autonomy, hence my proposal. But of far more importance than what I or anyone WANTS is doing what is right by the citizens.

Take care

and as always

Stay Safe

Cogs

[jcoppola 52]

Well the fact is that the "famous' charter exists and gives the VFDs the authority they have. I didn't write it I'm just pointing out the fact that it is there and must be dealt with.

It's not that I disagree that pride seems to have taken center stage, but like it or not it that pride on BOTH sides is a factor in this whole mess. Like I've said before, whatever happens it WILL directly affect the lives of those involved...so it is completely unrealistic to think that things like pride wouldn't be a factor.

There are alternatives available out there if all involved are willing to explore them. Some have even made their way into this forum. It is up to the parties involved to put the citizens first by considering all the factors that will affect them. Of course the residents safety is the absolute prime concern...and whoever doesn't think so needs to have their head examined.

I believe that the alternative that I have proposed can provide the necessary level of protection for the residents living in the districts involved, otherwise I wouldn't have posted it. Just as many here believe fervently that SFRD personnel is the ONLY possible solution. The fact is that it is really up to the BFD and TORFD to find a solution that will meet or exceed what SFRD personnel can and will provide.They have the authority to make the choices they have made. But with that authority comes the responsibility to do what is in the residents best interest. If they can't provide for the residents what is necessary then they MUST bite the bullet, and open their doors to the SFRD. This is a no brainer.

Personnally, I would like to see the BFD et al retain their autonomy, hence my proposal. But of far more importance than what I or anyone WANTS is doing what is right by the citizens.

Take care

and as always

Stay Safe

Cogs

Pete,

All well and good, but the fact remains that professionalism is being clouded over by spitefulness and pride. It is disheartening to see this become a total turf war. I am one of the doubters that a system in a city the size of Stamford can exist indefinitely as a totally volunteer one. The demands on the members for time, training and equipment maintenance are far too great. But, I have been wrong before and I certainly will be wrong again, so I guess we shall see. I still maintain that this whole charter thing carries too much weight and gives lots of leeway when it comes to the safety of the public. Charters were written in the early 1900s...much has changed since then, it is simple reality.

[FFPCogs 863]

Joe,

No argument from me. I agree that the charter is outdated, but that doesn't matter. The situation is what it is.

I do believe as apparently others do, that volunteers are still viable. That doesn't matter.

Many post here firmly convinced that paid personnel are the only option. That doesn't matter.

There are systems in which volunteers do exist and meet necessity in busy areas. Other than as a model, that doesn't matter.

What does matter, what is really important here is that those that can influence this mess need to pull their God-damned heads out of the sand, take their backs off the wall and sit down as Fire Service providers to figure this out. There is room for compromise

The City for it's part needs to justify the change in status forced on the volunteer departments in terms of their former paid employees.

The major burden though falls squarely in the lap of the volunteers. They MUST come up with a practicle, and workable alternative to paid employees to most importantly serve the residents and also support their decision to go 100% volunteer.

Neither side here is completely wrong, nor are they completely right. They all need to realize and accept that reality.

As a former member and current volunteer I do believe that there MAY be alternatives available. Also I hate to see another volunteer system die a slow, painful death.

As an outsider this whole affair borders on the absurd and it seems as though there is absolutely no willingness on the part of those concerned to entertain any point of view other than their own.

No matter what the outcome there will be repercussions. Those involved better be ready, willing and able to deal with those repercussions when they occur.

Take care

and as always

Stay Safe

Cogs

[jcoppola 52]

I also do not want to see the volunteers in Stamford die a slow death, everyone who knows me in this group of fire service folks know that I always give credit to BFD as the place I got my start. I just have a hard time accepting some of the rationalizations for why the system is just "fine". I saw problems like the current ones when I left as a paid driver 12 years ago, heck thats why I am where I am now.

I think the paid personnel from the combination houses are much better off now. Some may think I am nuts for saying this, but they now have leaders who are accountable and have a vested interest in their career well-being, like them or not. A volunteer chief is not going to worry about the paid personnel and thier well being, that was proven last year. The simple fact is that the department is first and its employees are second. That is no way to run a business and have human resources who care about the company. In my department for example, the Norwalk Fire Department is nothing without good officers and firefighters who know that they are the backbone of the place. The paid guys were constantly reminded that they were "supplimental" to the volunteers. That did not make me feel really needed when I was there, and I was told if I did not like it, I could leave and thats EXACTLY what I did.

Don't interpret this as bitterness. I have many, many issues with the way things were done years ago, and I found a way to make my career better. I am happy for most of my former co-workers in that they now have stability, comraderie and a sense that they are an influential part of a "company".

[FFPCogs 863]

When I first posted here I did so to show my support for the BFD, and offer whatever help I could. I didn't have any set proposals or ideas in mind as to what that help may be. Very quickly by reading up on this in the paper and by talking to some friends down at Belltown it seemed eveident to me that they do have some legitimate grievences. It also dawned on me very quickly that simply reverting to a 100% volunteer department would not rectify the problem. So in an effort to lend assistance I began to look into alternatives that would allow the BFD to remain 100% volunteer, while providing the level of service the citizens need and deserve.

I could only draw on my own experience, so I read up on what I could and then got on the horn with friends and colleages both career and volunteer that I knew had faced a simlilar situation years ago. (By the way those systems and 100%volunteer departments I regularly cite in my posts have been in existence in most cases since the mid to late 1980s. Also they currently and for the forseeable future are not in jeopardy of being unable to provide the necessary levels of coverage or being converted to fully paid organizations). Based on what I learned there and and my understanding of the current status of the situation in Stamford, the volunteer shift system seemed to me to be a viable alternative.

So that's what I have posted here in a manner I hope has been objective. I will readily admit that as a volunteer firefighter, I am inclined to work towards a solution that would favor the volunteers there. That being said I have consistently maintained that if the volunteers CANNOT meet the necessary criteria or levels of service needed that there is NO other option for them except an SFRD presence in their stations even if this leads to their eventual demise. For me, I will continue to post here citing the volunteer staffing option as a means to resolve this situation, while continuing to investigate other options. When and if I find any that will provide the levels of service demanded of the volunteers I will post them as well,

Although I'm something of an arrogant SOB, I did truly post this alternative and the facts and my opinion in defense of it, in the fervent hope that others here would follow suit. I had thought (apparently idealistically) that others would look and say "here's a better idea" or "hey that's a good idea" that would address this situation as it currently stands. Unfortunately up to now that hasn't happened.

The line that divides career and volunteer firefighters has yet again prevented any real substantial discourse. Actually in this case that line is more akin to the Berlin wall. After years in the fire service I guess I should have known better than to think anyone would cross the "wall". I suppose that for a volunteer to come here and post that yes, a paid presence is the only real option, they would be labled a "traitor" at the very least. And for the career union side, anyone accepting an alternative other than paid personnel in those VFD houses would be considered anti labor and outcast in their job.

That no-one seems able to move past their affiliations to offer an objective outlook is a travesty. It appears that reasonableness, objectivity and respect are just further casualties of this whole mess.

What a shame.

Take care

and as always

Stay Safe

Cogs

Edited July 4, 2008 by FFPCogs

[Geppetto 31]

Many of these things items HAVE come up in discussion before. Participants should realize that this thread is fairly recent.

Check into the previous thread, which is still accessible in the site's history -" Stamford Make Plans to Lay Off Firefighters".

Edited July 3, 2008 by Geppetto

[FFPCogs 863]

Thanks, Geppetto

Cogs

[Guest 372SFRD]

I am one of the Stamford Fire Rescue Dept. firefighters that has been assigned to the newly formed Engine 9, which is currently located at S.E.M.S. headquarters 684 Long Ridge Rd. Stamford, CT. This Engine company is stationed on the western side of the Turn of River Fire Dept. district. It's time, once and for all, to stop the viscious rumors, allegations, etc. from volunteer firefighters and their management, that the City of Stamford and the Stamford Fire Rescue Dept. want's to "end" the existance of the volunteer fire departments. There can be nothing further than the truth to that statement. I have been involved with the fire service in the City of Stamford since 1974 when I joined the Turn of River Fire Dept. At that time there were "paid drivers" in the Turn of River Fire Department. Even at that early point in time it was difficult to recruit and maintain an active volunteer firefighter base. Sure the rosters of the department showed upwards of 70 members, but what that fails to mention is that a great majority of those members were "inactive". Yep, the numbers look good on paper but when it came to actual responses ...well we all know those " true" numbers. In 1983 I, myself became a "paid-driver" for the Springdale Fire Co. I am proud to say that I was the first "official" paid driver hired by Springdale. I remained in that position until I became a City of Stamford firefighter with the Stamford Fire Rescue Dept. in 1997. That all came about because a great volunteer Chief ( the late John Hoyt) saw the need for greater fire protection for both the residents and property within the Springdale Fire District than he was providing with just two paid personel on duty 24/7. He realized his dwindling volunteer firefighting force just couldn't handle the call volume and the added support to his paid firefighters to provide a level of service to the Springdale residents. Chief Hoyt took it upon himself and the membership of the Springdale Fire Co. , against the enormous outcry of every other volunteer Chief in the "Big 5", to ask the City of Stamford to staff his firehouse with a fully paid , 4 man Engine company. This worked well for many years, and is continuing to work ,although of late, personality differences are arising to cloud over the actual "misssion statement" which primary function is to protect property and save lives! In my opinion that mission statement has been obliterated by statements that the City wants to eliminate volunteer firefighters from within the volunteer ranks themselves. How untrue that is! For the "lay" people who might read these posts, please take the time to listen , read and do research on the entire fire service structure within the City of Stamford. You might be truly enlightened as to the real "truths" about consolidation. I will serve the City of Stamford residents to the best of my capabilities as a firefighter. I will not allow myself to be "thrown under the bus" any further when it comes to the paid/ volunteer indifferences. I will work side by side with any adequately trained firefighter while stationed in the Turn of River fire district, be it paid or volunteer. Put this mean animal to bed once and for all and lets all work together towards one common goal....why we are here in the first place.......to save and protect lives and property.

Thomas Tisano

SFRD Engine 9

[E58RET 24]

WELL SAID SIR 372SRFD if only the hot heads on both sides of the issue could calm down and realize we are serving the public at large ,and they have no idea who is career vs volunteer

[dartnk45 11]

I Agree with the both of you and cooler heads do need to prevail in this case.

[348 4]

I am one of the Stamford Fire Rescue Dept. firefighters that has been assigned to the newly formed Engine 9, which is currently located at S.E.M.S. headquarters 684 Long Ridge Rd. Stamford, CT. This Engine company is stationed on the western side of the Turn of River Fire Dept. district. It's time, once and for all, to stop the viscious rumors, allegations, etc. from volunteer firefighters and their management, that the City of Stamford and the Stamford Fire Rescue Dept. want's to "end" the existance of the volunteer fire departments. There can be nothing further than the truth to that statement. I have been involved with the fire service in the City of Stamford since 1974 when I joined the Turn of River Fire Dept. At that time there were "paid drivers" in the Turn of River Fire Department. Even at that early point in time it was difficult to recruit and maintain an active volunteer firefighter base. Sure the rosters of the department showed upwards of 70 members, but what that fails to mention is that a great majority of those members were "inactive". Yep, the numbers look good on paper but when it came to actual responses ...well we all know those " true" numbers. In 1983 I, myself became a "paid-driver" for the Springdale Fire Co. I am proud to say that I was the first "official" paid driver hired by Springdale. I remained in that position until I became a City of Stamford firefighter with the Stamford Fire Rescue Dept. in 1997. That all came about because a great volunteer Chief ( the late John Hoyt) saw the need for greater fire protection for both the residents and property within the Springdale Fire District than he was providing with just two paid personel on duty 24/7. He realized his dwindling volunteer firefighting force just couldn't handle the call volume and the added support to his paid firefighters to provide a level of service to the Springdale residents. Chief Hoyt took it upon himself and the membership of the Springdale Fire Co. , against the enormous outcry of every other volunteer Chief in the "Big 5", to ask the City of Stamford to staff his firehouse with a fully paid , 4 man Engine company. This worked well for many years, and is continuing to work ,although of late, personality differences are arising to cloud over the actual "misssion statement" which primary function is to protect property and save lives! In my opinion that mission statement has been obliterated by statements that the City wants to eliminate volunteer firefighters from within the volunteer ranks themselves. How untrue that is! For the "lay" people who might read these posts, please take the time to listen , read and do research on the entire fire service structure within the City of Stamford. You might be truly enlightened as to the real "truths" about consolidation. I will serve the City of Stamford residents to the best of my capabilities as a firefighter. I will not allow myself to be "thrown under the bus" any further when it comes to the paid/ volunteer indifferences. I will work side by side with any adequately trained firefighter while stationed in the Turn of River fire district, be it paid or volunteer. Put this mean animal to bed once and for all and lets all work together towards one common goal....why we are here in the first place.......to save and protect lives and property.

Thomas Tisano

SFRD Engine 9

Well said Tommy. Let cooler heads prevail. Keep your head up

Sincerly

Your former Tower driver

[FFPCogs 863]

I'm posting this to keep my facts straight regarding the necessary requirements for volunteer staffing.

Upon reading an article in Firefighting News.com I have to amend information from a previous post. When I addressed the manpower pool for volunteers I based my calculations on a pool of 40 volunteers available to staff the firehouse. According to the article Chief Didelot states there are 20 active volunteers currently at Belltown. The actual number of shifts per volunteer would be as follows.

20 members divided into 4 person crews = 5 crews. 365 days divided by 5 crews = 73 shifts per year. Or 73 shifts divided by 12 months = 6.08 shifts per month. Basically 1 shift every 5 days. I'll be the first to admit that this obviously makes the shift alternative less attractive as a possible solution. But this is do-able in the short term. An extremely aggressive recruitment drive as well as coverage by willing certified non members would be needed as well to continue this for the long term.

Also the average number of live-ins in those staions in MD. and VA. that use them varies between 10-15, although they generally are not all there at the same time.

Take care

and as always

Stay Safe

Cogs

Edited July 4, 2008 by FFPCogs

[Flyboy69 1]

I'm posting this to keep my facts straight regarding the necessary requirements for volunteer staffing.

Upon reading an article in Firefighting News.com I have to amend information from a previous post. When I addressed the manpower pool for volunteers I based my calculations on a pool of 40 volunteers available to staff the firehouse. According to the article Chief Didelot states there are 20 active volunteers currently at Belltown. The actual number of shifts per volunteer would be as follows.

20 members divided into 4 person crews = 5 crews. 365 days divided by 5 crews = 73 shifts per year. Or 73 shifts divided by 12 months = 6.08 shifts per month. Basically 1 shift every 5 days. I'll be the first to admit that this obviously makes the shift alternative less attractive as a possible solution. But this is do-able in the short term. An extremely aggressive recruitment drive as well as coverage by willing certified non members would be needed as well to continue this for the long term.

Also the average number of live-ins in those staions in MD. and VA. that use them varies between 10-15, although they generally are not all there at the same time.

Take care

and as always

Stay Safe

Cogs

Your math is fine on paper, but I can tell you first hand that last summer when there were layoffs and Belltown was using volunteers to fill the vacant shifts they had a real hard time. They had volunteers coming and going every few hours, they were calling volunteers begging them to come down to the station, in fact the Chief and Assistant Chief had to fill shifts as a driver. So I do not have any idea how they are going to staff a 4 person crews 24/7 365. It may work in other areas of the country, but I do not see it happening here. I hope I'm wrong, but I do not think so.

[pjreilly 6]

If you look at the Belltown membership on their web page, 11 active members just started in 2008. Probies. The math gets harder and harder.

[FFPCogs 863]

Fly,

You are absolutely right... the BFD or any other VFD there would be hard pressed to meet the requirements of staffing apparatus 24/7 as things are now. I have always maintaind that this is a possible alternative, not the only one.

As to this system working in other parts of the country, they too had to start off somewhere. They were faced with the very same dilemas which the BFD et al face in Stamford now. When this system was put in place in those areas it was new to them as well, there were the same kinks to work out and adjustments to be made. The point is it WAS done.

Volunteers everywhere have to juggle the demands of life while making time to volunteer. The members of the 100% volunteer stations operating under this system also have families, jobs, hobbies ect that make up their lives...in that respect they are NO different than volunteers here. What is different is the manner in which they serve. They have committed themselves to providing 24/7 staffing of their firehouses, and even with family obligations, jobs, and all the other factors of life they manage to do it. If and it's a HUGE if, the volunteers in Stamford are willing to accept this type of change in operations and make the necessary commitment, there is no reason to assume this wouldn't work in Stamford as well. No matter what I or anyone else posts here ultimately it is up to the volunteers to devise a method to guarantee the safety of the citizens they protect.

Another thing, unlike the departments down in MD and VA. which had to figure all this out as they went along, the volunteers here have access to a system that is already up and running. All they have to do is ask for advice from them as to ways to help make this work.

Take care

and as always

Stay Safe

Cogs

[FFPCogs 863]

PJ R.

Very true 11 probationary members. And 19 active members who joined in or before 2005 (not counting veteran members who are not currently IAFF members). The 19 are ones that Chief Didelot cited.

By the way do ALL paid firefighters come on the job with years of experience under their belts or do they too learn on the job?

Cogs

Edited July 4, 2008 by FFPCogs