Update on Stamford Merger

[Bnechis 3,961]

Barry,You do nice work, but don't waste your time. The new Public Safety Director and The Mayor has it all figured out......along with Cogs and a few other wizards......I can hardly wait for the responses to your layout....hehehehehe

Thanks

I find it amazing that a fire plan for a non hydranted area does not include water. I guess its doomed to fail.

[Bnechis 3,961]

Good work indeed and useful to boot, Thanks Bnechis, your work will not be in vain, it will be a great help in developing a response matrix for the "new" FD. Unfortunately though no plan yet proposed distributes the available resources to meet NFPA or ISO standards effectively.

Thanks. Whats unfortunate is that the "plans" are not based on "service" they are based on politics. I find it amazing that the VFD's that do not want to be under 1 dept have not commented on the fact that the mayors plan does not provide water. Kind of ironic that they have commented on SFRD's lack of understanding of tanker ops & "rural" firefighting.

I normally do response plan studies in GIS (ArcView w/network analysis) but its time consumming. the map I put together was just a short project so I got the lay of the land (so to speak). The red lines are 1.5 miles to give reference for apparatus response. A formal study would most likely show the need for at least 2 additional engines and 1 additional trucks based on distance.

[CTFF 65]

Since the position was established under Malloy no Public Safety Director has been a public safety professional and all have been political appointments. From all I can gather none of them faced the ire seen towards this one though.

Cogs

Cogs,

Director Callion faced much ire when he asked the VFD's to provide training records to him. Were you in Ansonia or another thrid world country when that took place?

[Bnechis 3,961]

FFPCogs, on 13 January 2011 - 10:11 PM, said:

Under the other plan considered by the Task Force I believe the paid staffing would be distributed as such

TOR = 8: Sta.1 - one Quint, Sta. 2 - one Engine

SFCo = 4: One Engine

LRFCo = 8: One Engine in each station

for a grand total of 20 guaranteed on duty FFs in Vollywood.

You'll have to ask someone downtown as this distribution is the SFRD plan. And it is BFD not GFD that goes "empty".

You wrote GFD got 0/0 and based on the above math GFD gets 0. I understand that BFD is not part of the SVFD.

GFD is not part of the mayors plan in regards to SVFD. Engine 6 from SFRD would still be stationed there and stamford would still have 3 fire dept's.

If this is the case the mayors 2 dept plan is as follows:

SFRD

SVFD

BFD

GFD (covered by SFRD)

Thats 4

So we now have 6 depts and the proposal is to merge and have the following:

1) 1 dept

2) 2 depts

3) 3 depts

4) 4 depts

5) None of the Above

6) All of the Above

It does not matter what the answer is, as soon as this mayor runs for Gov. they will have to re do the entire program because based on the current math there is no correct answer.

[FFPCogs 863]

Cogs,

Director Callion faced much ire when he asked the VFD's to provide training records to him. Were you in Ansonia or another thrid world country when that took place?

But did he when he was appointed? No he was given the opportunity to serve before judgements were made. And let me see, I think I may have been in Kuwait at the time which low and behold has internet access so the news from home was readily available.

Cogs

[CTFF 65]

Cogs,

Bobby has already served in a capacity in regards to the fire service in Stamford and to me he was/is a flat out liar. My opposition to the Mayors choice is also more about the fashion and timing of the selection then it is about unqualified "Bobby V". But I understand you've got tow the party line.

[FFPCogs 863]

Cogs,

Bobby has already served in a capacity in regards to the fire service in Stamford and to me he was/is a flat out liar. My opposition to the Mayors choice is also more about the fashion and timing of the selection then it is about unqualified "Bobby V". But I understand you've got tow the party line.

Well upon reading through your posts I can see you're well versed at "toeing the party line" yourself. Just another thing we have in common I guess.

Cogs

Edited January 17, 2011 by FFPCogs

[dragonrescue 28]

Well upon reading through your posts I can see you're well versed at "toeing the party line" yourself. Just another thing we have in common I guess.

Cogs

The funny thing is, in the end "toeing the party line", is not going to get you a job.....Just sayin'

[CTFF 65]

Well upon reading through your posts I can see you're well versed at "toeing the party line" yourself. Just another thing we have in common I guess.

Cogs

Cogs,

I've seen Bobby V in action, I've come to my own opinion of the man. I'm glad you agree we both "toe the party line". My line is public/firefighter safety, your party line is all about protecting fiefdom and you've done little to sway anyone's opinion that your about anything else.

Cheers,

CTFF

[FFPCogs 863]

The funny thing is, in the end "toeing the party line", is not going to get you a job.....Just sayin'

And your point is?

[FFPCogs 863]

Cogs,

I've seen Bobby V in action, I've come to my own opinion of the man. I'm glad you agree we both "toe the party line". My line is public/firefighter safety, your party line is all about protecting fiefdom and you've done little to sway anyone's opinion that your about anything else.

Cheers,

CTFF

Well you know what they say about opinions.

As far as me "toeing the party line" goes, I think it's safe bet to say that there's a line of people up here in Vollywood that would disagree with that assessment.

And finally you can believe what you will, but my "line" is about trying to provide the best possible service to our City by integrating the talents, experience and dedication of all of Stamford's firefighters to better serve the community....not ourselves, and that is clearly evident to many far beyond these pages.

Cogs

[FD828 77]

Well you know what they say about opinions.

As far as me "toeing the party line" goes, I think it's safe bet to say that there's a line of people up here in Vollywood that would disagree with that assessment.

And finally you can believe what you will, but my "line" is about trying to provide the best possible service to our City by integrating the talents, experience and dedication of all of Stamford's firefighters to better serve the community....not ourselves, and that is clearly evident to many far beyond these pages.

Cogs

Then why are not speaking or yelling out against this ridiculous plan that has come out of the mayors office? It is not integrating anything but the "volunteer" departments! All you say is this is the hand we were dealt blaa blaa blaa. All interested parties should be banning together against this plan.... unless it is exactly what you and the rest actually want to happen......

[Goose 188]

Stamford sounds more and more like Tammany Hall

[CTFF 65]

Then why are not speaking or yelling out against this ridiculous plan that has come out of the mayors office? It is not integrating anything but the "volunteer" departments! All you say is this is the hand we were dealt blaa blaa blaa. All interested parties should be banning together against this plan.... unless it is exactly what you and the rest actually want to happen......

Exactly.

[FFPCogs 863]

Then why are not speaking or yelling out against this ridiculous plan that has come out of the mayors office? It is not integrating anything but the "volunteer" departments! All you say is this is the hand we were dealt blaa blaa blaa. All interested parties should be banning together against this plan.... unless it is exactly what you and the rest actually want to happen......

Exactly.

I have made my views of the plans offered obvious for all to see...and hear if they choose to listen...at every opportunity. I have also repeatedly requested that a grass roots or more precisely a rank and file effort to produce something better be undertaken. The silence to that request has been deafening!!. You say all parties should be "banning together against this plan"..well where the hell are you then?

Since there has been absolutely no effort on the part of anyone to move towards a cooperative effort I and a few others in Vollywood that believe something better is possible, continue to work to develope options that we believe will better serve the new FD...since that is the only area in which we have a say at this time. We may not succeed, but we are at least trying!!

Just what exactly have you done?

Cogs

Edited January 18, 2011 by FFPCogs

[x152 179]

Just thought I would chime in....

Although I have significant disagreement with Pete regarding some of his remarks and positions, he has always remained calm, courteous, and professional when debating this issue here or when interacting in person.

If you want to beat-up his opinion or position, try and do so without going personal. Yes, I find his remarks somewhat obtuse to my beliefs, but his general poise and tact could be a lesson for others involved in this debate (I am not referring to those debating here).

Just trying to keep the discussion where it should be.

PS - Geppetto starting to come out of his shell, could his true identity soon be revealed??

Edited January 18, 2011 by x152

[FFPCogs 863]

0000000000

Just thought I would chime in....

Although I have significant disagreement with Pete regarding some of his remarks and positions, he has always remained calm, courteous, and professional when debating this issue here or when interacting on scene.

If you want to beat-up his opinion or position, try and do so without going personal. Yes, I find his remarks somewhat obtuse to my beliefs, but his general poise and tact could be a lesson for others involved in this debate (I am not referring to those debating here).

Just trying to keep the discussion where it should be.

Thanks Cap

PS - Geppetto starting to come out of his shell, could his true identity soon be revealed??

Yes with each post the answer to this long standing riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma is closer at hand.

ps I had to look up obtuse...is this about right...LOL

Cogs

[FD828 77]

Just a question to the more experienced or knowledgeable firefighters here..... Could there be any (not sure how to word this) issues with career staff speaking out against their boss's plan publicly on their own or as part of a group to undermine that plan other then the union? Could there be ramifications for that individual's career? All legalities aside because we all know how the real world works. Could it be considered insubordination?

Edited January 18, 2011 by FD828

[FFPCogs 863]

Just a question to the more experienced or knowledgeable firefighters here..... Could there be any (not sure how to word this) issues with career staff speaking out against their boss's plan publicly on their own or as part of a group to undermine that plan other then the union? Could there be ramifications for that individual's career? All legalities aside because we all know how the real world works. Could it be considered insubordination?

Don't union members have a say in how their union proceeds? Isn't the union's job to protect it's members from this type of "intimidation"? Aren't union member free to do as they please on their own time? It would seem to me that by not allowing the free exchange of ideas to take place it would be the SFRD administration and by extension the union if they endorse the plan that has pre set conditions and an agenda to fulfill.

Unless an individual has malicious or self serving motives it wouldn't be undermining but simply exploring other alternatives to bring to the attention of the powers that be for their consideration. And like I've said before crossing the "party lines" unofficially has the very real potential to have them opened officially thereafter.

In the real world of which you speak people stand up, take risks and work together to solve problems..otherwise they don't get solved and we're stuck with what we get.

Cogs

Edited January 18, 2011 by FFPCogs

[CTFF 65]

I have made my views of the plans offered obvious for all to see...and hear if they choose to listen...at every opportunity. I have also repeatedly requested that a grass roots or more precisely a rank and file effort to produce something better be undertaken. The silence to that request has been deafening!!. You say all parties should be "banning together against this plan"..well where the hell are you then?

Since there has been absolutely no effort on the part of anyone to move towards a cooperative effort I and a few others in Vollywood that believe something better is possible, continue to work to develope options that we believe will better serve the new FD...since that is the only area in which we have a say at this time. We may not succeed, but we are at least trying!!

Just what exactly have you done?

Cogs

Cogs,

I've debated the current plan, your plan, offered a different plan of my own (on this site or another)and I've attended public meetings in regards to the fire service. At one of these meetings I heard you plan brought up and I'm pretty sure I saw task force members chuckle about it. I'm not saying that to put your plan down, I think your plan is better then the mayors plan but I don't agree with everything you've proposed. The task at hand should be how do we fix the system once and get it right the first time? Now is not the time for a grassroots effort. I don't see this mayor listening to people outside of his inner circle until his plan falls flat and I'm sure he'll have an equally bad plan "b" as well.

[TRex 9]

Just a question to the more experienced or knowledgeable firefighters here..... Could there be any (not sure how to word this) issues with career staff speaking out against their boss's plan publicly on their own or as part of a group to undermine that plan other then the union? Could there be ramifications for that individual's career? All legalities aside because we all know how the real world works. Could it be considered insubordination?

FD828,

First, are you refering to the Mayor when you say boss? I think you are. I have no doubt in my mind that repercussions would ensue. That being said, although the local has spoken out against this lunacy in many ways, most of us, as a union, have contributed to the factual information being presented. I just learned this evening, that an informational mailing that I personally contributed to has been distributed. I have not seen it as yet, but I also understand that I am qouted which I was aware would be the case. I gladly contributed. So in answer to your question, I am not afraid to speak up where it counts, when I beleive what I am saying is truthful, logical, and based on factual educated points and opinions. I was just having this conversation with one of the other guys this evening. At the beginning of my career back in the early eighties, I stood up on another issue that was controversial then as well, related to the understaffed fire prevention bureau. The Mayor at that time was infuriated at three of us who were in the office at the time. Our pictures were on the front page of the Advocate. We were eventually vindicated, but during that time I though my promotional prospects were gone before I was even able to get going. Thought I would never do it again. I am a captain now and as I look back, and like I just said, when it is called for and I believe in what I am saying based on sound principles and facts, I would do it again. This time I have more experience, training and qualifications to say what I have said.

Sorry for the long answer to your short question.

[FD828 77]

FD828,

First, are you refering to the Mayor when you say boss? I think you are. I have no doubt in my mind that repercussions would ensue. That being said, although the local has spoken out against this lunacy in many ways, most of us, as a union, have contributed to the factual information being presented. I just learned this evening, that an informational mailing that I personally contributed to has been distributed. I have not seen it as yet, but I also understand that I am qouted which I was aware would be the case. I gladly contributed. So in answer to your question, I am not afraid to speak up where it counts, when I beleive what I am saying is truthful, logical, and based on factual educated points and opinions. I was just having this conversation with one of the other guys this evening. At the beginning of my career back in the early eighties, I stood up on another issue that was controversial then as well, related to the understaffed fire prevention bureau. The Mayor at that time was infuriated at three of us who were in the office at the time. Our pictures were on the front page of the Advocate. We were eventually vindicated, but during that time I though my promotional prospects were gone before I was even able to get going. Thought I would never do it again. I am a captain now and as I look back, and like I just said, when it is called for and I believe in what I am saying based on sound principles and facts, I would do it again. This time I have more experience, training and qualifications to say what I have said.

Sorry for the long answer to your short question.

Thanks Capt! I greatly appreciate your input.

[FFPCogs 863]

Cogs,

I've debated the current plan, your plan, offered a different plan of my own (on this site or another)and I've attended public meetings in regards to the fire service. At one of these meetings I heard you plan brought up and I'm pretty sure I saw task force members chuckle about it. I'm not saying that to put your plan down, I think your plan is better then the mayors plan but I don't agree with everything you've proposed. The task at hand should be how do we fix the system once and get it right the first time? Now is not the time for a grassroots effort. I don't see this mayor listening to people outside of his inner circle until his plan falls flat and I'm sure he'll have an equally bad plan "b" as well.

That may very well be true, chuckling included, but for some of us it's better to try and fail than not to try at all.

Cogs

[CTFF 65]

http://www.stamfordfiretruths.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Stamford_Fire_Final.pdf

Mailing sent out by Local 786 to residents in Stamford.

[FFPCogs 863]

http://www.stamfordf..._Fire_Final.pdf

Mailing sent out by Local 786 to residents in Stamford.

Interesting read and very well written too. But ...ah yes the infamous but...there are a few points that could stand a little scrutiny.

Let's start with the taxing district

"It shall be the obligation of such legislative body [in this case the Board of Finance and Board of Representatives] to impose such levy as a municipal levy, and such

levy shall be in addition to the regular municipal levy, and it shall be the obligation of the municipality to collect such a levy for the benefit of such district."

This is absolutley true but what this letter fails to mention is that anyone that will pay this "additional levy" (fire tax) will also see a corresponding reduction in their property taxes. In other words if I pay $5500 annually in taxes now, once this goes into effect I will still pay $5500 overall in taxes but it will be split based on the pre determined mil rate calculation of the cost of fire protection. i.e. $5000 in property taxes and $500 in fire tax. So yes there will be a new tax but not a tax increase.

And now on to the "Brown Plan". Although this has been cited before I guess it bears repeating since it was omitted from the mailing. While the plan is cost neutral the redistribution of SFRD units and the susequent loss of a truck co in no way increases the overall effectiveness of SFRD but diminishes it. It also limits the type of apparatus that will be available to respond in any given area or any given call when needed. There is also the 800 pound gorilla of the fact that the introduction of SFRD has without fail reduced the level of volunteer participation in the fire houses in which they are present. It may not be right, it may be entirely the fault of the volunteers (although I highly doubt that) or it just may be that that's the way it is, but whatever the reasons the fact remains and has been proven that this IS the way it is. Also there is the omission of the comments made here in which a number of ranking SFRD members freely admit they have reservations if not an outright aversion to this plan.

So yes the plan is cost neutral but it begs the question...for how long?

Nice touch in having former volunteers sound off as well. I can say with all candor that the SFRD members that remain as member of the BFD are NOT on active status and therefore are NEVER counted as a part of our active membership. But to be fair there is some truth to some of their statements which fortunately the Mayor's plan does address in terms of centralization of command (1 paid Chief), standardization ect. And we can definitely agree that volunteers are indeed a valuable asset although some of us see that value as being far more than a support role.

Another interesting note is the citing of instances of volunteer "failures" in the mailing and on firetruths.com from areas far afield from Stamford. I find it odd that only the failures (if indeed that is what they were) of volunteers are useful for comparison while the successful operations of other VFDs outside of Stamford are not. As I've been told time and again this isn't city "X" or County "Y" when citing them as models to emulate so then by that logic neither should these "failures" be germain to Stamford.

There is also the many references to Long Ridge and their recent incidents. Were there mistakes made? Yes there were and every citizen has a right to know about them. Part of the problem though is that the resources that were available "up North" are no longer there in terms of the flexibility of responses. An engine is still an engine and SFRD crews are tied to that engine. When a tanker or Truck is necessary but there is no crew to staff it because they are tied to only one rig there will be a problem. Previously when paid personnel were at every station cross staffing was the norm so necessary units could be dispatched as needed, when needed, where needed. This ties into the major failing of the Brown Plan as well..not enough variety of units available "up North" when they're needed.

Remember too that at all of these incident SFRD were there as well.

Other than that it was a very entertaining read.

Cogs

[mstrang1 213]

Cogs- To clear it up a little further, the "fire tax" is not an actual tax in the same way. It will be for a fire district, so therefore, it will not be tax deductible. So with your example, only $5000 of the previous $5500 would be tax deductible.

[Alpinerunner 61]

http://www.stamfordfiretruths.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Stamford_Fire_Final.pdf

Mailing sent out by Local 786 to residents in Stamford.

That was certainly an extremely slanted and very carefully written to imply a lot of things that aren't true. I don't have time to go over it paragraph by paragraph, but let's look at the section on the Wallenberg drive fire. That section makes it look like the Volunteers aren't there. It makes it sound like the 29 FFs SFRD sent were all that were there and all that were needed. It doesn't mention that TOR alone sent 24 volunteers between the fire and station coverage. What if they weren't there? How much would they cost? It also says none would have been able to respond to be second fire. Well guess what: THEY WERE! The initial response was 1 SFRD engine, 1 TOR engine, and a Belltown ladder.

That night there was also an MVA. SFRD had very few engines left, and no rescue as it was at the fire along with TOR's. So who made the inital response? TOR engine and Belltown rescue. What if the volunteers weren't there? What is the brown plan was in place and there were even less apparatus downtown? What if something happened downtown?

I also like how it mentions the situation in Roanoke, to try and imply to the Stamford residents believe that under pavia plan, there would be such an abysmal response time. However, everyone in the know, knows that the volunteers would be able to respond with to the scene directly, with paid staff getting the truck out the door immediately.

Say what you want about 786 career guys vs. SVFD career guys, say what you want about having 1 department, but when people try and say that the plan will fail because of lack of volunteers, that's just not true.

[TRex 9]

That was certainly an extremely slanted and very carefully written to imply a lot of things that aren't true. I don't have time to go over it paragraph by paragraph, but let's look at the section on the Wallenberg drive fire. That section makes it look like the Volunteers aren't there. It makes it sound like the 29 FFs SFRD sent were all that were there and all that were needed. It doesn't mention that TOR alone sent 24 volunteers between the fire and station coverage. What if they weren't there? How much would they cost? It also says none would have been able to respond to be second fire. Well guess what: THEY WERE! The initial response was 1 SFRD engine, 1 TOR engine, and a Belltown ladder.

That night there was also an MVA. SFRD had very few engines left, and no rescue as it was at the fire along with TOR's. So who made the inital response? TOR engine and Belltown rescue. What if the volunteers weren't there? What is the brown plan was in place and there were even less apparatus downtown? What if something happened downtown?

I also like how it mentions the situation in Roanoke, to try and imply to the Stamford residents believe that under pavia plan, there would be such an abysmal response time. However, everyone in the know, knows that the volunteers would be able to respond with to the scene directly, with paid staff getting the truck out the door immediately.

Arent you slanting the real truth as well by not allowing you actual volunteer records be viewed. What are you suppossedly hiding?

Say what you want about 786 career guys vs. SVFD career guys, say what you want about having 1 department, but when people try and say that the plan will fail because of lack of volunteers, that's just not true.

[TRex 9]

That was certainly an extremely slanted and very carefully written to imply a lot of things that aren't true. I don't have time to go over it paragraph by paragraph, but let's look at the section on the Wallenberg drive fire. That section makes it look like the Volunteers aren't there. It makes it sound like the 29 FFs SFRD sent were all that were there and all that were needed. It doesn't mention that TOR alone sent 24 volunteers between the fire and station coverage. What if they weren't there? How much would they cost? It also says none would have been able to respond to be second fire. Well guess what: THEY WERE! The initial response was 1 SFRD engine, 1 TOR engine, and a Belltown ladder.

That night there was also an MVA. SFRD had very few engines left, and no rescue as it was at the fire along with TOR's. So who made the inital response? TOR engine and Belltown rescue. What if the volunteers weren't there? What is the brown plan was in place and there were even less apparatus downtown? What if something happened downtown?

I also like how it mentions the situation in Roanoke, to try and imply to the Stamford residents believe that under pavia plan, there would be such an abysmal response time. However, everyone in the know, knows that the volunteers would be able to respond with to the scene directly, with paid staff getting the truck out the door immediately.

Say what you want about 786 career guys vs. SVFD career guys, say what you want about having 1 department, but when people try and say that the plan will fail because of lack of volunteers, that's just not true.

Yeah, as slanted as the vollunteers are when they refuse to back up what they claim when they say we have plenty of TRAINED and AVAILABLE people. Why then don't they provide the records of all their claims of sufficient resuorces as requested after over 100 days. Oh, that's right, they are volunteers and should not have to keep such records right. After all they are doing this for nothing. Is there anyone available to supply these requested documents?

[TRex 9]

Interesting read and very well written too. But ...ah yes the infamous but...there are a few points that could stand a little scrutiny.

Let's start with the taxing district

"It shall be the obligation of such legislative body [in this case the Board of Finance and Board of Representatives] to impose such levy as a municipal levy, and such

levy shall be in addition to the regular municipal levy, and it shall be the obligation of the municipality to collect such a levy for the benefit of such district."

This is absolutley true but what this letter fails to mention is that anyone that will pay this "additional levy" (fire tax) will also see a corresponding reduction in their property taxes. In other words if I pay $5500 annually in taxes now, once this goes into effect I will still pay $5500 overall in taxes but it will be split based on the pre determined mil rate calculation of the cost of fire protection. i.e. $5000 in property taxes and $500 in fire tax. So yes there will be a new tax but not a tax increase.

And now on to the "Brown Plan". Although this has been cited before I guess it bears repeating since it was omitted from the mailing. While the plan is cost neutral the redistribution of SFRD units and the susequent loss of a truck co in no way increases the overall effectiveness of SFRD but diminishes it. It also limits the type of apparatus that will be available to respond in any given area or any given call when needed. There is also the 800 pound gorilla of the fact that the introduction of SFRD has without fail reduced the level of volunteer participation in the fire houses in which they are present. It may not be right, it may be entirely the fault of the volunteers (although I highly doubt that) or it just may be that that's the way it is, but whatever the reasons the fact remains and has been proven that this IS the way it is. Also there is the omission of the comments made here in which a number of ranking SFRD members freely admit they have reservations if not an outright aversion to this plan.

So yes the plan is cost neutral but it begs the question...for how long?

Nice touch in having former volunteers sound off as well. I can say with all candor that the SFRD members that remain as member of the BFD are NOT on active status and therefore are NEVER counted as a part of our active membership. But to be fair there is some truth to some of their statements which fortunately the Mayor's plan does address in terms of centralization of command (1 paid Chief), standardization ect. And we can definitely agree that volunteers are indeed a valuable asset although some of us see that value as being far more than a support role.

Another interesting note is the citing of instances of volunteer "failures" in the mailing and on firetruths.com from areas far afield from Stamford. I find it odd that only the failures (if indeed that is what they were) of volunteers are useful for comparison while the successful operations of other VFDs outside of Stamford are not. As I've been told time and again this isn't city "X" or County "Y" when citing them as models to emulate so then by that logic neither should these "failures" be germain to Stamford.

There is also the many references to Long Ridge and their recent incidents. Were there mistakes made? Yes there were and every citizen has a right to know about them. Part of the problem though is that the resources that were available "up North" are no longer there in terms of the flexibility of responses. An engine is still an engine and SFRD crews are tied to that engine. When a tanker or Truck is necessary but there is no crew to staff it because they are tied to only one rig there will be a problem. Previously when paid personnel were at every station cross staffing was the norm so necessary units could be dispatched as needed, when needed, where needed. This ties into the major failing of the Brown Plan as well..not enough variety of units available "up North" when they're needed.

Remember too that at all of these incident SFRD were there as well.

Other than that it was a very entertaining read.

Cogs

Cogsy Ol' boy. You too, can right a very intelligible diatribe as well. And as I have stated in the past, Kudos to Belltown in not obscuring the truth and not counting the SFRD members that continue to belong to the Belltown organization in one way or another as active available participants. As we also know they shouldn't be for a number of reasons, but none the less there is history right? I will however say that the comments of the former volunteer to whom you refer seems to have done more than just "sound off". He apparently has alot of background and background information, and is not afraid of stating fact. He does not seem apprehensive of any retaliation either from his employers. I think he provides credible insight, and possibly veiw point that may be of more interest to the real people that actually count, the Tax Paying citizens that are actually interested.

I hope he has nothing to loose in acting like the true professional he is, unlike some other former volunteers that could also have contributed but refused for some reason, (they are on promotional lists as chance would have it as I understand). Did someone say "Tammany Hall" in a previous post?