Update on Stamford Merger

[dragonrescue 28]

I don't have access to those records for the other VFDs, but I have already given a rundown on BFDs membership's interior certification. As far as following the orders of an IC, well who determines they're level of experience or what the quaility of their training is? If they have been to numerous fires/incidents and handled them what then is the problem. Do you really believe a piece of paper certifies someones qualifications? If so than that is extremely dangerous. In answer to you question, yes I would follow their orders until such time as I was given an order that my experience leads me to question. That is the ICS after all.

WHAT? We know how the volunteer officer system works in Stamford. If you're popular, "POOF" ,you're an officer......

[FD828 77]

Well you got me there. It could come to pass that members would only meet at shift change but since the houses belong to the volunteers they can come and go as they please when not assigned for a duty shift. Same with the rigs, we own em therefore we ride em when we're there once qualified to do so. Also under such a "plan" during the day the paid crews would ride whatever rig is dispatched from the fleet, not just one engine that they would be assigned to. In theory it would work something like this: for in distict calls volunteers would be responding from the house with the paid crew on the assigned rig if there aren't enough volunteers in house to staff another rig or on other apparatus from that house when full crews are available to staff them in house. At night the same applies except all staffing is volunteer. This was spelled out in the proposal. A similar system has been up and running for over 20 years in MD and for at least half that long in parts of VA, PA, DE CA, TX, NH, NJ and OH to name a few off the top of my head. Google combo systems, the info is there for all to see.

As far as training goes weekend sessions could be scheduled that would be comprised of both "sides" to foster unity.

By the way what would be the composition of these combination crews in the volunteer houses?

For any type of integration to work there would need to be compromise on both sides and a willingness of all to be "a family". Even now the SFRD members working in Glenbrook and Springdale are in fact coming into someone elses house, at one it appears they get along...although it does beg the question do GFD members regularly attend all the "training, eating meals together, cleaning the station together etc..Ya know, working together" that you speak of?

As for the other house...well we all know how well that's working out.

I am a member in good standing and as such I have the authority to look for alternatives to bring to my membership for their consideration. Any changes of such a magnitude come before the membership for their approval, just as it was at the beginning of this mess. Ultimately though it is the Chief that enacts those changes the membership approves.

Cogs

THANK YOU! You just hit the nail on the head! You just proved my point! Statements like the one above ("the houses belong to the volunteers they can come and go as they please when not assigned for a duty shift. Same with the rigs, we own em therefore we ride em") is the mindset that will cause the conflict. This is not a statement of someone who wants to have a unified combination department. This is a statement already setting the ground work for conflict. Paid staff as guests in a volunteer department is NOT UNITY. Those departments in MD and all the other states you mention, are they volunteer departments with paid staff from some other department or are they truly one department working together?

If I had any input it would be this. The career crew consisting of an officer, driver, and 2 FF's would be assigned to a SINGLE piece of apparatus 24/7. The volunteers would man whatever other apparatus housed in that station. Example, say SFRD maned the engine in BFD. If during the day if there were enough volunteers they could man the truck, they would call into service and be added to the CAD. If there were not enough then the next closest truck company would be dispatched. The volunteers of course could ride out on the paid rig if they so desired. At night if they had a duty crew they would again call into service and be added to the CAD. If an emergency called for a truck company the closest would be dispatched (wherever the call is in the city) wether it be BFD or a downtown truck. This all being that training is standardized city wide.

I would have to find a copy of your plan to pull out what I like and don't agree with to give you a complete an honest answer. I will get back to you on that.

Unlike you, my boss doesn't want to meet or discuss anything let alone the fire service. So where you can go to your members and vote and bring it to the chief for change, we cannot.

[FFPCogs 863]

THANK YOU! You just hit the nail on the head! You just proved my point! Statements like the one above ("the houses belong to the volunteers they can come and go as they please when not assigned for a duty shift. Same with the rigs, we own em therefore we ride em") is the mindset that will cause the conflict. This is not a statement of someone who wants to have a unified combination department. This is a statement already setting the ground work for conflict. Paid staff as guests in a volunteer department is NOT UNITY. Those departments in MD and all the other states you mention, are they volunteer departments with paid staff from some other department or are they truly one department working together?

You are entitled to take my comment any way you choose and in all fairness maybe my wording seems to mean what you think. That is not the case. What I mean by those statements is that "off duty" volunteers would ride any apparatus assigned to a call to fill out the assigned crew as a matter of course...or policy if you prefer. I welcome unity based in mutual respect and the desire to serve the community nothing more...or less. As it stands now SFRD personnel live in seperate quarters (either by choice or due to circumstances) do they not? Where's the unity in that? How or why would it be different in the future? Why should we pay for people to staff a firehouse for hours that volunteers could do it to the same level?

As to your question, there are a really just about as many varieties of methods used to combine personnel as there are departments that combine them. Some in MD and VA use the guidelines I have described to a large extent based on volunteer availability although there are some stations which are more akin to what you describe below. In CA and OH volunteers are paid per call or recieve stipends to fill duty shifts which are completely legal and fall within the definition of a volunteer under their laws. A few Depts rely completely on volunteer personnel to provide their staffing but they are, as you can well imagine few and far between.

If I had any input it would be this. The career crew consisting of an officer, driver, and 2 FF's would be assigned to a SINGLE piece of apparatus 24/7. The volunteers would man whatever other apparatus housed in that station. Example, say SFRD maned the engine in BFD. If during the day if there were enough volunteers they could man the truck, they would call into service and be added to the CAD. If there were not enough then the next closest truck company would be dispatched. The volunteers of course could ride out on the paid rig if they so desired. At night if they had a duty crew they would again call into service and be added to the CAD. If an emergency called for a truck company the closest would be dispatched (wherever the call is in the city) wether it be BFD or a downtown truck. This all being that training is standardized city wide.

I'm not opposed to such a system in theory although I find it far more flexible to allow crews to cross train and staff apparatus as needed. I think operating in such a manner does give more bang for the buck since crews would not be limited to only one type of apparatus thereby limiting their usefulness.

I would have to find a copy of your plan to pull out what I like and don't agree with to give you a complete an honest answer. I will get back to you on that.

Thank you, hopefully there will be areas of agreement should you find one.

Unlike you, my boss doesn't want to meet or discuss anything let alone the fire service. So where you can go to your members and vote and bring it to the chief for change, we cannot.

Well we all have our crosses to bear and obstacles to overcome. I believe a grass roots effort would produce a viable alternative but I am fully aware of the circumstances which make such an effort extremely difficult to embark upon.

This may be hard for some to believe and almost impossible to envision but we all want the same thing in the end, a fire service that meets the needs of the community.

Cogs

[Bnechis 3,961]

Why should we pay for people to staff a firehouse for hours that volunteers could do it to the same level?

You are correct. You should not pay to staff firehouses IF volunteers can do it.

My father always told me that "if" was the biggest word in the english language.

The problem in North Stamford (and much of the nation) is volunteers are no longer showing up. In North Stamford this has been the case at every working fire, day, night & weekends. If the reports are true (and I have no reason to believe they are not) there have been many calls that have gone unanswered (covered by SFRD) or only a VFD chief has responded.

If the current level of volunteer response is acurate, then the 2 FD plan is doomed to failure bucause its relying on vollunteers that do not exist.

[jcoppola 52]

You may be right that it's time for a reexamination of the Charter but be that as it may the City Charter is a legal document that requires a specific process to be changed and it's provisions must be adhered to while that examination is underway. Should anyone wantonly disregard any of the rules, policies, regulations or procedures of their department if they don't agree with them? Should they disregard them while they were under review? Should they disregard the process to change them? Would anyone advocate simply ignoring the process and doing what they want? My bet would be no. Yet that is exactly what is happening here in regards to the Charter. While the previous Administration may have turned a blind eye or one could argue even encouraged such action, it appears the current one will not.

It simply comes down to this, right or wrong, for better or for worse to the public and for Stamford's firefighters as a whole, the City Charter stands. If anyone doesn't like the way things are then they need to follow the process to change it, but until such time as it is changed we are all still bound by it's provisions. As "tired" as you, I or anyone may be with that or with hearing about it, the fact remains that we don't have the right or authority to disregard it. And that has nothing to do with paid or volunteer, it's just a matter of following the law.

Cogs

I could tell you one person who could legally disregard the process to change the charter...a JUDGE with an INJUNCTION stopping the whole mess before another resident of Stamford loses their house or worse because of incompetency and lack of sufficient fire department structure to handle whatever is thrown at them. If you recall, this was the case several years ago at LRFC station 2.

[jcoppola 52]

Admit a deficiency and have to give up that precious white helmet and free ride to cruise around in? No way.

They'll never admit that they can't do it and they'll continue to threaten the politicians as a big block of voters.

If the politicians are refusing to take action on the threat of lawsuits, they're cowards and incompetent. Lawsuits get threatened every day and if the city is right the city will win. If the city's goal is to save money and improve fire resposne and accountability of the departments, they would have a very strong case. What's the volunteers lawyer going to do in court when he can't prove being able to meet NFPA 1920 for a minimum response or produce all the required records and documentation of training, etc.?

Unless the volunteers in an integrated system rostered in house and responded with the SFRD, it will be a tiered response.

Stop spouting off about how the volunteers save money because if they can't put a fire out they're not saving anyone anything.

As long as nobody is holding anyone accountable and demanding action, this is going to continue endlessly and sooner or later someone is going to die while everyone protects their turf.

Totally agreed. Exactly what I have been saying all along.

[FFPCogs 863]

I could tell you one person who could legally disregard the process to change the charter...a JUDGE with an INJUNCTION stopping the whole mess before another resident of Stamford loses their house or worse because of incompetency and lack of sufficient fire department structure to handle whatever is thrown at them. If you recall, this was the case several years ago at LRFC station 2.

Well there has already been a number of lawsuits brought before a series of judges, none of whom thought to bring such an injunction. Why? Most likely because the State's role here is very limited due to the home rule provisions of the General Statutes. Fair? No. In the public's best interest? Maybe not, but again like it or not that's the way it is. And let me just say that even I find many of the same obstacles extremely frustrating as everyone once else here, but they can't just be ignored because we don't like them. Ignoring or disregarding established ordinaces and laws is a slippery slope indeed. What's next? Ignoring the Charter is no different than if the labor contracts were to be arbitrarily and unilaterally ignored by an administration for say financial reasons. How well would that sit? Do you think the union would go to court over such a move?

So maybe instead of all the finger pointing, chest thumping and foot stomping the situation would be better served and more importantly so would the public, if the union accepted the fact that they will have to deal with the volunteers as an integral part of the process not a subsidiary one.

Cogs

[dragonrescue 28]

Well there has already been a number of lawsuits brought before a series of judges, none of whom thought to bring such an injunction. Why? Most likely because the State's role here is very limited due to the home rule provisions of the General Statutes. Fair? No. In the public's best interest? Maybe not, but again like it or not that's the way it is. And let me just say that even I find many of the same obstacles extremely frustrating as everyone once else here, but they can't just be ignored because we don't like them. Ignoring or disregarding established ordinaces and laws is a slippery slope indeed. What's next? Ignoring the Charter is no different than if the labor contracts were to be arbitrarily and unilaterally ignored by an administration for say financial reasons. How well would that sit? Do you think the union would go to court over such a move?

So maybe instead of all the finger pointing, chest thumping and foot stomping the situation would be better served and more importantly so would the public, if the union accepted the fact that they will have to deal with the volunteers as an integral part of the process not a subsidiary one.

Cogs

THE VOLLY SYSTEM IN STAMFORD IS A DISGRACE! The so called mayor and his side kick are making it worse.....If I die in the line of duty, because of incompetency up north, my wife has a laundry list of people she will be suing......God Speed!

[348 4]

I have refrained from posting on this topic because it is the same s**t getting thrown against the wall but in different words. However, Cogs has made several statements that I would like to question/refute. The location of living quarters of SFRD personnel in the volunteer houses was made by the volunteer companies- not SFRD management. If you recall, Eng 7 personnel were quartered on the second floor initially (the second floor now considered off limits to SFRD)but repeated issues occured(theft, noise, questionable activity by minors) that required the construction of the present situation. At Eng 6, the room is only large enough for 3 bunks and the 2nd floor bunkroom at the time was occupied to capacity. Do you not agree that personnel should have someplace to call "home" and not bus terminal of activity? As for your statement about certifications, in one comment you state that experience/ time served is adequate and certs are just a piece of paper but you also state that certs will be required for officers. Which is it? For the record, L786 negotiated to have contractual language requiring certifications for positions(i.e FO1 for LT, FO2 for Capt) but was denied by the city. When you talk of cooperation, did the city not ask for the training and OSHA physical records of the volunteer members several times which was never provided( I believe this to be at the request of the SFRD administration)? Did the city not request that when volunteer apparatus sign on they state the numbers of certified members on board? And did the volunteers refuse? Explain to me the coopertion in this. As a company officer responding M/A I think it would be nice to know if the first due volunteer engine has only a driver or is a staffed company. As for your position on staffing, do you not think that a NFPA 1710/1720 compliant minimum number of personnel guaranteed 24/7 is better than 2 guys and we hope that volunteers show up? We have the technology that if 4 volunteers are in house, and if they have an OSHA physical, and if they are minimum FF1, hazmat ops/awareness, and MRT(same requirements for SFRD)and if they have a company officer(someone accountable) and a driver/chauffer(not to worried about certs here- if the officer/department feels comfortable riding on a rig with the guy so be it)then the company can place itself in service on the MDT and respond as closest company. This instead of hoping someone is around? You know and I know that on a daily basis volunteer companies fail to respond to calls in their districts(BFD excluded) I can't see how this will change with the Mayors plan. You keep saying that more members will appear but unless Stamford is exempt from national trends I cannot see this happening. The only point you have brought up that I cannot/will not agree with you on is personnel bouncing between apparatus. In the combination departments you sight as examples and the ones I am familiar with, the paid personnel are basically drivers(like the old Stamford system)and that the stations that have 4+ personnel ride only their assigned rig. For example(and if Stamford had one department) if an incident required a truck, then the closest truck would respond- regardless if paid or volunteer so long as it was an in service "company". Never a question of how many guys or what they are capable of when they get there. As for Chief Browns plan and the number of companies downtown, I agree that we could put more miles on the vehicles by moving them north but this really should be the least of our worries( Greenwich Eng 1 logs tens of thousands of miles a year). Norwalk covers the entire city with two trucks and one rescue(IMO terribly inadequate)and the companies due what they can and go where their are told. Lastly, you assertion that SFRD are amateurs at rural water supply is true on the level of a time line but false in our abilities. Since the creation of Engs 8 & 9 I think a good effort has been made to be proficient in rural water supply and it can be argued that more has been done in the last few years than in the previous 20. The last several houses that burned down were not do the inablility of SFRD to get water( maybe a lack of personnel on scene??). Cogs- I am more than willing to discuss my feelings to you and meet but other than a free meal(your buying) I cannot see what can come out of it. Also due to inadequate fire protection the meeting will have to be downtown(joke, calm down).

[FFPCogs 863]

I have refrained from posting on this topic because it is the same s**t getting thrown against the wall but in different words. However, Cogs has made several statements that I would like to question/refute. The location of living quarters of SFRD personnel in the volunteer houses was made by the volunteer companies- not SFRD management. If you recall, Eng 7 personnel were quartered on the second floor initially (the second floor now considered off limits to SFRD)but repeated issues occured(theft, noise, questionable activity by minors) that required the construction of the present situation. At Eng 6, the room is only large enough for 3 bunks and the 2nd floor bunkroom at the time was occupied to capacity. Do you not agree that personnel should have someplace to call "home" and not bus terminal of activity? As for your statement about certifications, in one comment you state that experience/ time served is adequate and certs are just a piece of paper but you also state that certs will be required for officers. Which is it? For the record, L786 negotiated to have contractual language requiring certifications for positions(i.e FO1 for LT, FO2 for Capt) but was denied by the city. When you talk of cooperation, did the city not ask for the training and OSHA physical records of the volunteer members several times which was never provided( I believe this to be at the request of the SFRD administration)? Did the city not request that when volunteer apparatus sign on they state the numbers of certified members on board? And did the volunteers refuse? Explain to me the coopertion in this. As a company officer responding M/A I think it would be nice to know if the first due volunteer engine has only a driver or is a staffed company. As for your position on staffing, do you not think that a NFPA 1710/1720 compliant minimum number of personnel guaranteed 24/7 is better than 2 guys and we hope that volunteers show up? We have the technology that if 4 volunteers are in house, and if they have an OSHA physical, and if they are minimum FF1, hazmat ops/awareness, and MRT(same requirements for SFRD)and if they have a company officer(someone accountable) and a driver/chauffer(not to worried about certs here- if the officer/department feels comfortable riding on a rig with the guy so be it)then the company can place itself in service on the MDT and respond as closest company. This instead of hoping someone is around? You know and I know that on a daily basis volunteer companies fail to respond to calls in their districts(BFD excluded) I can't see how this will change with the Mayors plan. You keep saying that more members will appear but unless Stamford is exempt from national trends I cannot see this happening. The only point you have brought up that I cannot/will not agree with you on is personnel bouncing between apparatus. In the combination departments you sight as examples and the ones I am familiar with, the paid personnel are basically drivers(like the old Stamford system)and that the stations that have 4+ personnel ride only their assigned rig. For example(and if Stamford had one department) if an incident required a truck, then the closest truck would respond- regardless if paid or volunteer so long as it was an in service "company". Never a question of how many guys or what they are capable of when they get there. As for Chief Browns plan and the number of companies downtown, I agree that we could put more miles on the vehicles by moving them north but this really should be the least of our worries( Greenwich Eng 1 logs tens of thousands of miles a year). Norwalk covers the entire city with two trucks and one rescue(IMO terribly inadequate)and the companies due what they can and go where their are told. Lastly, you assertion that SFRD are amateurs at rural water supply is true on the level of a time line but false in our abilities. Since the creation of Engs 8 & 9 I think a good effort has been made to be proficient in rural water supply and it can be argued that more has been done in the last few years than in the previous 20. The last several houses that burned down were not do the inablility of SFRD to get water( maybe a lack of personnel on scene??). Cogs- I am more than willing to discuss my feelings to you and meet but other than a free meal(your buying) I cannot see what can come out of it. Also due to inadequate fire protection the meeting will have to be downtown(joke, calm down).

I'd be happy to buy the meal so that you, I and a few others could sit down and delve a little further into the above to see what if anything can come from it. As far as where we meet well it really doesn't matter where, it's a safe bet that we'd be in the crosshairs from both sides of the fence anyway so the building burning down around us is just icing on the cake. And it makes landing the shot that much easier...no walls left to get in the way.

Cogs

Edited January 9, 2011 by FFPCogs

[FFPCogs 863]

Well I'm getting pretty damn hungry waiting to find out where we're going to eat so I'll get the ball rolling here.

I have refrained from posting on this topic because it is the same s**t getting thrown against the wall but in different words. However, Cogs has made several statements that I would like to question/refute. The location of living quarters of SFRD personnel in the volunteer houses was made by the volunteer companies- not SFRD management. If you recall, Eng 7 personnel were quartered on the second floor initially (the second floor now considered off limits to SFRD)but repeated issues occured(theft, noise, questionable activity by minors) that required the construction of the present situation. At Eng 6, the room is only large enough for 3 bunks and the 2nd floor bunkroom at the time was occupied to capacity. Do you not agree that personnel should have someplace to call "home" and not bus terminal of activity?

I absolutely agree that crews should have a place to call "home" when on duty but to achieve that "hominess" requires compromise from all parties not just one side. It falls to each to make the necessary adjustments that allow for a good working environment. To be fair I was not present during any negotiations that may have taken place prior to SFRD personnel staffing the VFD houses although it is my understanding that in Belltown's case there was a request from SFRD to convert our hall into the SFRD living quarters had that plan gone through. That doesn't sound like a cooperative venture to me if from the beginning there was the idea of segregating the crews. Unlike career houses volunteer ones generally find people coming and going or manning the house at all hours for a variety of reasons, that's just the nature of the volunteer service. To me it is unrealisitc to think that that would or should change. And quite frankly it would be the height of arrogance to demand it. I'm sure enforcable rules can be enacted to reduce the strain on the career personnel but there needs to be an understanding and a willingness to compromise on the part of the career personnel assigned to accept the nature of our side of the service if there is to be cooperation.

As for your statement about certifications, in one comment you state that experience/ time served is adequate and certs are just a piece of paper but you also state that certs will be required for officers. Which is it? For the record, L786 negotiated to have contractual language requiring certifications for positions(i.e FO1 for LT, FO2 for Capt) but was denied by the city.

I'm a firm believer that certification should be ONE of the requirements to serve as an Officer and have been for quite some time (maybe that's because I hold a number of them). But the fact is as it now stands time served (another criteria I would encourage) is the only prerequisite used by SFRD to determine eligiblity to test (yet another of my ideal criteria) for a position. I'm not a big fan of the current selection process used by any FD in town either, unfortunately I cannot dictate any more that you can what the selection process entails for other FDs. As such time served is the only realistic and quantifiable factor that we can use at this time to judge officer candidates.

As I said before BFD's Bylaws require that members pass an in house exam which deals with our SOGs, Bylaws, tactics and stategic considerations before becoming eligible as a candidate to run for a Line position and that has been in place since long before the 30+ yrs I've been associated with the Department, I would have no problem with VFDs electing their leadership if the process were to include Time served: to gain some level of experience, Certification: to quantify a standard and Testing: to ascertain the expertise of a candidate. But again that decision is not up to me alone

When you talk of cooperation, did the city not ask for the training and OSHA physical records of the volunteer members several times which was never provided( I believe this to be at the request of the SFRD administration)? Did the city not request that when volunteer apparatus sign on they state the numbers of certified members on board? And did the volunteers refuse? Explain to me the coopertion in this. As a company officer responding M/A I think it would be nice to know if the first due volunteer engine has only a driver or is a staffed company.

Personally I have no problem with honoring such a request as long as that is a reciprocal arrangement. I also have no problem with stating the crew size when signing on as this was standard practice in 2 or the 4 VFDs I have had the priviledge to serve with. Again though that is not my choice alone to make and I cannot and will not attempt to explain or defend the rationale of those whose choice it is.

As for your position on staffing, do you not think that a NFPA 1710/1720 compliant minimum number of personnel guaranteed 24/7 is better than 2 guys and we hope that volunteers show up? We have the technology that if 4 volunteers are in house, and if they have an OSHA physical, and if they are minimum FF1, hazmat ops/awareness, and MRT(same requirements for SFRD)and if they have a company officer(someone accountable) and a driver/chauffer(not to worried about certs here- if the officer/department feels comfortable riding on a rig with the guy so be it)then the company can place itself in service on the MDT and respond as closest company. This instead of hoping someone is around? You know and I know that on a daily basis volunteer companies fail to respond to calls in their districts(BFD excluded) I can't see how this will change with the Mayors plan. You keep saying that more members will appear but unless Stamford is exempt from national trends I cannot see this happening.

My position on staffing is clear and has remained steadfast throughout this "debate". 4 personnel 24/7 365 (or 366 in a leap year) in every VFD firehouse. The differences lie in the composition and duty tour hours of those crews. I do believe it is possible to staff the VFD firehouses in the manner in which I have proposed in spite of the national trends. I am equally convinced that this can be accomplished by embarking on an aggressive recruitment effort coupled with introducing an incentives plan which although costly would be far less so than hiring ANY new FFs. I have a number of such plans which have been thoroughly researched that have a proven record of success on which to base one for Stamford. Just yesterday another BFD member and I visited a 100% volunteer department in a NJ city that has not only maintained it's membership but actually grown it to serve it's diverse urban (factories, taxpayers, hi rise [10-20 story] apartment and office buildings, multi-family and row wood frame dwellings, as well as single family PDs) district. It has done so by investing in volunteer recruitment and retention, something that hitherto has not been the case in Stamford. How can anyone refute programs which have not been attempted here without first trying them?

The only point you have brought up that I cannot/will not agree with you on is personnel bouncing between apparatus. In the combination departments you sight as examples and the ones I am familiar with, the paid personnel are basically drivers(like the old Stamford system)and that the stations that have 4+ personnel ride only their assigned rig. For example(and if Stamford had one department) if an incident required a truck, then the closest truck would respond- regardless if paid or volunteer so long as it was an in service "company". Never a question of how many guys or what they are capable of when they get there.

Stamford has a long and proven record of utilizing cross trained personnel to respond to calls on the appropriate rigs. Setting aside crew size for a moment can you cite me any examples when that system failed? (Not being sarcastic here maybe I'm wrong). What I propose would still maintain crew integrity it is just that the crew would not be tied to only one rig. From a financial standpoint this make perfect sense does it not? Especially if as you say the unreliable volunteers don't respond or staff the house in addition to a career crew to get that much needed rig on the road when it is the closest. Would this not lead to the necessity of hiring yet more career firefighters to staff specific units to ensure their timely response?

If the firehouse is staffed as I have proposed then the closest appropriate unit would be dispatched from that house and there would be a crew in house to staff it

As for Chief Browns plan and the number of companies downtown, I agree that we could put more miles on the vehicles by moving them north but this really should be the least of our worries( Greenwich Eng 1 logs tens of thousands of miles a year). Norwalk covers the entire city with two trucks and one rescue(IMO terribly inadequate)and the companies due what they can and go where their are told.

Mileage is not the only issue here. As we have seen E-6 is responding downtown far more than it is in Vollywood. With a reduction of the available resources downtown it is inevitable that the northern units would also be taken out of their assigned areas on a regular basis, which leads us back to the necessity of having to hire more career firefighters to staff additional rigs to cover the city effectively.

Lastly, you assertion that SFRD are amateurs at rural water supply is true on the level of a time line but false in our abilities. Since the creation of Engs 8 & 9 I think a good effort has been made to be proficient in rural water supply and it can be argued that more has been done in the last few years than in the previous 20. The last several houses that burned down were not do the inablility of SFRD to get water( maybe a lack of personnel on scene??).

I never said amateurs

Amateur

noun

1. a person who engages in a study, sport, or other activity for pleasure rather than for financial benefit or professional reasons.

2. an athlete who has never competed for payment or for a monetary prize.

3. a person inexperienced or unskilled in a particular activity

nor do I think that of SFRD, I said novice

Novice

[nov-is] –noun

1. a person who is new to the circumstances, work, etc., in which he or she is placed.

2. a person who has been received into a religious order or congregation for a period of probation before taking vows.

3. a person newly become a church member.

4. a recent convert to Christianity.

There is a difference between the two words and their definitions and it is an important one. I don't think SFRD are amateurs at all, what I think is that being new to their circumstances there is room for improvement. While there has been improvements to the rural water supply capabilities up North more are needed. Chief among them at least to me is a Tanker Task Force preplan similar to that in Westchester County and then constant training on it's implementation. Another component might be to add rural water supply operations training to any officer requirement, a move which the training division at BFD is considering.

Cogs- I am more than willing to discuss my feelings to you and meet but other than a free meal(your buying) I cannot see what can come out of it. Also due to inadequate fire protection the meeting will have to be downtown(joke, calm down).

I'm still hungry!!

Cogs

[Bnechis 3,961]

I do believe it is possible to staff the VFD firehouses in the manner in which I have proposed in spite of the national trends. I am equally convinced that this can be accomplished by embarking on an aggressive recruitment effort coupled with introducing an incentives plan which although costly would be far less so than hiring ANY new FFs.

While this sounds great what happens if it does not work? Since the Mayors plan does not consider the potential for failure, if it does not work then everything he is claiming about costs and staffing are wrong and the taxpayers will then have to pay for both the incentive and the additional career staffing needed to cover the gap. There have been many posts on EMTBravo about how these programs have not improved manpower and have only hurt the depts. I have asked a number of companies that provide LOSAP if they can document even one case where this investment has actually worked....I'm still waiting.

I have a number of such plans which have been thoroughly researched that have a proven record of success on which to base one for Stamford.

Please feel free to share it with the rest of the fire service. Currently there are over 34,000 VFD's that are looking for a proven record.

How can anyone refute programs which have not been attempted here without first trying them?

I am not refuting it, just questioning the wisdom of a multi-million dollar plan to protect tens of thousands of people with the promise that this will work, because we know it will. But unable to show prof or even answer basic questions about how it will work.

Stamford has a long and proven record of utilizing cross trained personnel to respond to calls on the appropriate rigs. Setting aside crew size for a moment can you cite me any examples when that system failed? What I propose would still maintain crew integrity it is just that the crew would not be tied to only one rig. From a financial standpoint this make perfect sense does it not? Especially if as you say the unreliable volunteers don't respond or staff the house in addition to a career crew to get that much needed rig on the road when it is the closest. Would this not lead to the necessity of hiring yet more career firefighters to staff specific units to ensure their timely response?

If the firehouse is staffed as I have proposed then the closest appropriate unit would be dispatched from that house and there would be a crew in house to staff it

We have a cross trained crew that mans a tower ladder and a heavy rescue do to lack of manpower and many times we have delays because it is a system of robbing peter to pay paul. Either you need multiple rigs or you don't. This is why every standard looks at either response distance or response time (which is the same thing) and says you need X number of engines and x number of ladders (or service/rescue companies) to properly respond. Not one or the other and if we can only get one then we will srtrip another station (which is beyond the recommended distance) to make do. Is it cheaper...yes, does it work.....yes, until that call where it fails and thats not an option in emergency services.

I thought how can I explain this one to my 10 year old? She wants to buy a candy and a drink. Each cost $1. I give her $1 and send her to the store. She can buy which ever one she wants most when she gets there, but can only have 1. Will she buy the drink (engine) or the candy (truck or rescue)?

[FFPCogs 863]

While this sounds great what happens if it does not work? Since the Mayors plan does not consider the potential for failure, if it does not work then everything he is claiming about costs and staffing are wrong and the taxpayers will then have to pay for both the incentive and the additional career staffing needed to cover the gap. There have been many posts on EMTBravo about how these programs have not improved manpower and have only hurt the depts. I have asked a number of companies that provide LOSAP if they can document even one case where this investment has actually worked....I'm still waiting.

What I'm suggesting is that a portion of the money that is to be alloted to paying career firefighters be used to fund incentive programs. If those programs should fail after a realistic but definitive timeframe then the only other option would be to eliminate the program(s) and pay for full time career coverage round the clock. And while a LOSAP is definitiely one such program under consideration there are others that have proven more successful right here in CT such as tax abatements, paid per call and stipends...Greenwich has had a measure of success at least on paper and according to their recruitment officer with these other programs. So have depts in Montgomery and PG Counties in MD, Louden County VA and one outside Killeen TX and Fort Lee NJ to name a few. There are a number of others nationwide as well. It may be that you are not looking in the right place or your criteria of success is restrictive. Success to me and to those that I've dealt with in regards to such programs means ensuring that there is enough qualified members available and accountable to meet the needs of the department. More specific to my thinking is programs that will provide staffing in each VFD house to the level of 4 personnel during the volunteer duty tour rotations. Obviously the more members there are the less the strain on the individual. Remember also I'm not talking about 100% volunteer coverage here but rather a combination of career and volunteers to provide 24/7 365 coverage. There are a number of departments nationwide that do manage to do this effectively as I have described or by combining career and volunteer personnel on every shift.

Please feel free to share it with the rest of the fire service. Currently there are over 34,000 VFD's that are looking for a proven record.

My suggestion would be to do as I did, Google successful volunteer firefighter recruitment and retention programs and start dialing.

I am not refuting it, just questioning the wisdom of a multi-million dollar plan to protect tens of thousands of people with the promise that this will work, because we know it will. But unable to show prof or even answer basic questions about how it will work.

I have explained how it can work based on how it has worked elsewhere such as those places mentioned above.

We have a cross trained crew that mans a tower ladder and a heavy rescue do to lack of manpower and many times we have delays because it is a system of robbing peter to pay paul. Either you need multiple rigs or you don't. This is why every standard looks at either response distance or response time (which is the same thing) and says you need X number of engines and x number of ladders (or service/rescue companies) to properly respond. Not one or the other and if we can only get one then we will srtrip another station (which is beyond the recommended distance) to make do. Is it cheaper...yes, does it work.....yes, until that call where it fails and thats not an option in emergency services.

While you are correct that there is the possibility of delays one could argue that regardless of what rig a crew responds on that potential always exists. If Engine 1 responds to a call than Engine 1's response area is no longer covered is it and another unit must take in any calls in that area right? Same for truck or rescue companies in their assigned areas. Don't the same "rules" apply with cross staffing? When a rig and crew are out of the house they are out and another must fill in right? So by always having a crew assigned to a particular type of rig the potential for failure still exists does it not? To alleviate that potential would require an enormous amount of staffing and apparatus to be available to answer every potential call always and no City has the resources to pay for that. Nor is that the intent of the standards. There is a point where a line must be drawn and the run cards assigned by what's available at any given time. That's why we have mutual aid, callbacks, relocations ect. An engine or truck staffed by SFRD in a VFD house will still be gone when called out will they not? And it will still fall on the volunteers to backfill the house and respond with additional resources or as I'm sure it is with your FD the remaining in service or mutual aid units relocated to cover.

I thought how can I explain this one to my 10 year old? She wants to buy a candy and a drink. Each cost $1. I give her $1 and send her to the store. She can buy which ever one she wants most when she gets there, but can only have 1. Will she buy the drink (engine) or the candy (truck or rescue)?

Well thanks for giving me the credit for at least having the intelligence of a 10 year old but the fact is she will buy whichever item she wants more at the time she wants it won't she because that is what she wants at that time. Finite resources are just that finite and we can only do with those resources what they will allow based on what's available at the time they are requested. In our cimcumstances cross staffing works because of the availability of the various types of apparatus already in service and the flexibility that this allows in assigning responses.

Cogs

Edited January 11, 2011 by FFPCogs

[jcoppola 52]

Bottom line...there is a enormous duplication of resources in Stamford (and elsewhere too) that are costing taxpayers big money. This hair-brained scheme the mayor is trying to enact only makes that duplication of resources worse! There, I said it. Truth hurts sometimes.

JVC

[Geppetto 31]

Resources

SFRD

Front Line

E-1, E-2, E-3, E-4, E-5, E-6, E-7, E-8, E-9

T-1, T-2, T-3

R-1

Reserve

E-10, E-12, E-13(LDH)

T-4

R-2

GFD

E-32, E-34

T-31

BFD

E-41, E-42

T-45

R-44

Springdale

E-52, E-53

R-54

TORFD

E-61, E-62, E-63, E-64

T-67

R-66

Tanker 68

LRFD

E-71, E-72, E-73, E-74

Tanker 78

26 Engines, 7 Ladders, 5 Rescues, 2 Tankers + whatever other rolling stock exists. (chief's cars, fire marshal's, pick-up trucks, etc.) That's quite a collection of inventory.

[JohnnyOV 2]

Resources

26 Engines, 7 Ladders, 5 Rescues, 2 Tankers + whatever other rolling stock exists. (chief's cars, fire marshal's, pick-up trucks, etc.) That's quite a collection of inventory.

How big is the "district"

[mstrang1 213]

Geppetto- You forgot about Truck 5(the old tower ladder)

[CTFF 65]

According to wikipedia stamford is 52.1 sq miles

[sfrd18 360]

According to wikipedia stamford is 52.1 sq miles

Stamford is actually 37.7 sq. mi.'s of land w/an additional 14.4 sq. mi.'s of water.

Also, Geppetto, in conjunction w/mstrang1, don't forget about Truck 5(Reserve), the old Truck 1/Truck 2's Sutphen and Engine 14(Reserve), the '02 HME currently serving as Engine 1. I think there might also be another reserve engine, 11 maybe, that's used for training. Additionally, the SFRD's Unit 4(Deputy Chief) is the only paid command vehicle in the city and responds city-wide as command. And I think that Long Ridge also operates a Rescue, 77 I believe.

Edited January 11, 2011 by sfrd18

[Geppetto 31]

I think the point is made. SFRD maintains the reserves for obvious reasons. ISO (BNechis could probably expound on this)requires a certain minimum reserve fleet to be maintained. But other than that, most of the rolling stock rarely gets on the road; Belltown excepted. That's a pretty expensive hobby to maintain, for apparatus that shows little mileage and less fire duty.

[sfrd18 360]

But other than that, most of the rolling stock rarely gets on the road; Belltown excepted. That's a pretty expensive hobby to maintain, for apparatus that shows little mileage and less fire duty.

That's true. It would be interesting to know how many runs volly dept.'s like Glenbrook and Springfield actually make a year, since Engine's 6 and 7 are stationed at each Volly house, and Glenbrook's somewhat close locale to Downtown and the East Side.

[FFPCogs 863]

26 Engines, 7 Ladders, 5 Rescues, 2 Tankers + whatever other rolling stock exists. (chief's cars, fire marshal's, pick-up trucks, etc.) That's quite a collection of inventory.

Yes it is indeed.

Whatever version of consolidation we end up with let us hope that there will be a corresponding reduction in the amount of redundant resources.

Cogs

[FD828 77]

Yes it is indeed.

Whatever version of consolidation we end up with let us hope that there will be a corresponding reduction in the amount of redundant resources.

Cogs

Just curious, if the consolidation plan goes through and it calls for a reduction in apparatus as well, do you think that would fly with all the departments? Say if they said there is no need for an engine at BFD and the rescue from TOR is not needed, and an engine from Sprindale can go as well, and while were at it get rid of a truck company downtown, that would be ok with everyone? I think not! Boy I bet you would hear just as much screaming as when they told people that they might have to actually bring their garbage to the curb! Heaven forbid!

[Geppetto 31]

OK - adjusting the numbers that would be 28 Engines, 8 Ladders, 6 Rescues, 2 Tankers. How much of this equipment was purchased with the original thought that "we can/should be self-sufficient" and we can get in on the road by swapping drivers? Any major truck traffic on the Merritt requiring a "heavy rescue"?

[IzzyEng4 427]

Any major truck traffic on the Merritt requiring a "heavy rescue"?

No, but you have to admit over the years there have been some nasty and unusual wrecks on the Parkway that require more than just a Hurst tool and a couple of rams set up on an engine or a truck. But yes there has been some truck traffic by those drivers who cant read the "NO TRUCK" signs at the Parkway entrances.

[Geppetto 31]

We can justify everything I suppose. But it's the same wherever you go. How many districts down in Westchester now have Tower Ladders?

[FFPCogs 863]

OK - adjusting the numbers that would be 28 Engines, 8 Ladders, 6 Rescues, 2 Tankers.

That's more fire apparatus than you'll find in some third world countries I've worked in....

How much of this equipment was purchased with the original thought that "we can/should be self-sufficient" and we can get in on the road by swapping drivers?

The idea of self sufficiency dates back to the inception of each VFD and in it's time that method served the City well. But as we all know that is no longer practically applicable and hasn't been for quite some time. I remember helping to develope some of BFDs mutual aid protocols as a Capt back in the early 80's. And the idea then was never to have all of those rigs on hand so that driver's would swap between them all. We always designated one Engine as the in district 1st due engine and another as the outgoing mutual aid engine, the Truck on the other hand always went where ever it was needed. All of the other rigs of the fleet were meant to serve as the remaining assignment for a box or as resources left in district to handle additional calls in keeping with the self sufficiency tradition. While the idea of that tradition has held over, in some cases it's practical application has not. I personally would have no problem with a consolidation that produced a reduction in the number of rigs in town, along with the expenses of maintaining them, so long as adequate resources remained to allow for cross staffing and a ready reserve on hand in Vollywood.

Any major truck traffic on the Merritt requiring a "heavy rescue"?

No, but you have to admit over the years there have been some nasty and unusual wrecks on the Parkway that require more than just a Hurst tool and a couple of rams set up on an engine or a truck. But yes there has been some truck traffic by those drivers who cant read the "NO TRUCK" signs at the Parkway entrances.

And I would venture to say that both Long Ridge and High Ridge Rds have their fair share of major truck traffic as well.

Cogs

Edited January 13, 2011 by FFPCogs

[FFPCogs 863]

Just curious, if the consolidation plan goes through and it calls for a reduction in apparatus as well, do you think that would fly with all the departments?

No!! Tradition and money on the VFD side, jobs and money on the career.

And before anyone decides to climb up on their high horse here take a minute to remember that although you may not agree with what drives another it's a safe bet to say that they are just as committed to their beliefs as you are to yours. In the end when talking about any consolidations we must make every effort to take ALL factors into account before moving forward. There is no other way if there is to be a mutually beneficial and successful outcome that results in better service to the community.

Cogs

Edited January 13, 2011 by FFPCogs

[FD828 77]

Just a side note thought while we are talking about consolidating the VFD's. Does that mean that each department's money will be consolidated into one big bank account too? That would greatly benefit one department in particular that owes its' paid drivers/chief/president/volunteers a HUGE amount of money!

[helicopper 1,050]

Just a side note thought while we are talking about consolidating the VFD's. Does that mean that each department's money will be consolidated into one big bank account too? That would greatly benefit one department in particular that owes its' paid drivers/chief/president/volunteers a HUGE amount of money!

How does a volunteer FD owe it's chief, president, and volunteers a huge amount of money?