Update on Stamford Merger

[FireMedic049 597]

Yes at least from a BFD perspective. As one of a number of members that scrutinized the plan objectively and made recommendations on what points needed addressing, I again know for a fact this took place. We never dismissed this plan out of hand simply because it was developed by SFRD, far from it in fact.

OK, but what about the other 3 departments?

The problems arise from the stalwart refusal of the "other side" to acknowledge that deficiencies exist or even entertain the notion that they might when seen from "our side" of the fence. Again a complete unwillingness to compromise or even acknowledege that our concerns may have merit and sit down as the "bigger person" to address those concerns directly.

I agree with your points, but I think the same can be said for volunteer side too.

I mean no disrespect but it may be that you do not fully understand the complexities of the situation here. Your point is a valid and logical one, except that it does not take into account that the issue of control is a major one, not from a ego standpiont at all but more so from one of survival. Both Malloy's plan and the "BP" do not provide any legal means for the VFDs to be integrated at all. They will be tolerated until such time as someone get's a hair across their a** and decides a full career fire department is in order....regardless of the actual circumstances. And before you jump up thinking I'm paranoid, look around at the many places this type of process has occured over the years. You will find many active, productive and valuabe VFDs have gone the way of the dinosaurs as piece by piece their share of the pie was consumed by the needs of the career component. One of the reasons I have been so staunch in my view of the Montgomery Cty system is that from the outset they incorporated the operational parameters of their integration and the means to achieve them for both "sides". Maybe more importantly they have also provided legal avenues for conflict resolution for each "side"..conflicts that no matter how well organized or integrated, any combination system will face. Such is not the case here now, nor has it been for many "integrated" or better yet "absorbed" VFDs, with the end result being the extinction of volunteering and any benefit that may have provided the community. I am not opposed to a unified department, nor are many of my volunteer colleagues. But until such time as the "other side" accepts that we are partners and treats us as such, there is just no moving forward....nor quite frankly should there be.

You are correct that I probably don't fully understand the situation. I can appreciate your side's concern over long term survival within the system and the desire to be "partners", however I'm not exactly seeing your side extending to the other side what you expect from them.

Just a couple of questions:

Why is it that it must be the volunteers in general and Belltown in particular who take that first step as the "bigger person"?

It doesn't have to be. I just see it as being a beneficial step in the process for your side. An overt act, like allowing the current SFRD units into your stations could possibly be the catalyst for the discussion you desire. Even if your hand gets slapped away, you still should get "credit" in the eyes of the public for making the offer.

By what right is it that Stamford's career FFs are entltled to the position of dictating to Belltown what is "best" for our community?

I doubt that there is any "right", however this issue is about more than just the Belltown community. This is about and affects the entire City of Stamford. As such, Stamford's career FFs should be part of the conversation. At the very minimum, SFRD probably has more experience regarding administrative issues regarding the use of career firefighters and therefore could provide valuable insight into those areas that the volunteer leadership is likely not as experienced with.

[FFPCogs 863]

OK, but what about the other 3 departments?

I agree with your points, but I think the same can be said for volunteer side too.

You are correct that I probably don't fully understand the situation. I can appreciate your side's concern over long term survival within the system and the desire to be "partners", however I'm not exactly seeing your side extending to the other side what you expect from them.

It doesn't have to be. I just see it as being a beneficial step in the process for your side. An overt act, like allowing the current SFRD units into your stations could possibly be the catalyst for the discussion you desire. Even if your hand gets slapped away, you still should get "credit" in the eyes of the public for making the offer.

I doubt that there is any "right", however this issue is about more than just the Belltown community. This is about and affects the entire City of Stamford. As such, Stamford's career FFs should be part of the conversation. At the very minimum, SFRD probably has more experience regarding administrative issues regarding the use of career firefighters and therefore could provide valuable insight into those areas that the volunteer leadership is likely not as experienced with.

As usual a very well written, erudite and valid response. In response I can only say, and this is for everyone's consumption, that I and the majority of volunteers want nothing more that to work WITH our career colleagues. It is unfortunate that although the same attitude seems to be prevelant by many of the SFRD contributors here, we still are unable to connect. From my perspective nothing can happen until we are assured that our concerns are acknowledged and our voices heard. I have the utmost respect for the guys from SFRD, whether they believe that to be true of not it is so, and am thankful for the opportunities to work with them. But be that as it may I strongly believe that there is a wealth of experience and knowledge on my side of the fence as well.that has every right and in fact duty to be an integreal part in building a unified service. As you can tell I am of the belief that the majority of the issues stem from SFRDs treatment or should I say indifference, to our needs and concerns. I'm also sure that my opinions are probably somewhat biased, but in spite of that I and a number of other volunteers have made genuine attempts to cross the bridge only to find it blocked at the other end. What then is the answer. I have been told that the union cannot implement anything and that is true to an extent, but it can influence what happens and what options they support just as a volunteer membership can influence the direction their department takes by doing the same. Seems to me then that if enough members from each "side" convene, and work together at developing a plan we could also encouage our leaderships to pursue it. This is not fantasy, it is a means to break the stalemate and it all starts with one step. My offer stands as it has for some time now to meet with anyone genuinely interested in building a better combined unified service. In the end if we accomplish nothing more than building bonds of mutual respect we will have accomplished alot. I'm home in February and my email is in my profile...I'll be waiting.

Cogs

Edited December 8, 2011 by FFPCogs

[FD828 77]

Cogs here is a quote from your post above #1739 "SFRD and the union was my way or the highway". Again, the UNION did not make the sweeping changes to your departments so STOP BLAMING THEM! We were faced with an altimatem just like your departments FROM THE CITY. Stop bashing the wrong people. It was NOT the UNION's idea to merge all the paid guys into SFRD.

Just out of curiosity, how many times has (and I will just use BFD here) your department officially requested SFRD to attend one of their training nights, and of those times, how many have been refused by SFRD to attend?

Edited December 8, 2011 by FD828

[FFPCogs 863]

Cogs here is a quote from your post above #1739 "SFRD and the union was my way or the highway". Again, the UNION did not make the sweeping changes to your departments so STOP BLAMING THEM! We were faced with an altimatem just like your departments FROM THE CITY. Stop bashing the wrong people. It was NOT the UNION's idea to merge all the paid guys into SFRD.

Just out of curiosity, how many times has (and I will just use BFD here) your department officially requested SFRD to attend one of their training nights, and of those times, how many have been refused by SFRD to attend?

5 or 6 over the last few years that I know of, but to be fair there may have been operational commitments that made attending difficult or impossible for at least some of them, I don't honestly remember. As far as bashing the union goes I'm not. I'm saying that the union has done and is doing nothing to support a combined approach to solving this mess. Union members have stated the "BP" is flawed, yet the union continues to endorse it while hammering the Mayor's plan unremittingly. And correct me if I'm wrong but it's my understanding that the union voted to allow the VFD drivers into SFRD. And the quote "my way or the highway' in my opinion was the attitude in 2008 and it seems still is hence Stamford Fire Truths which is quite good at bashing as well.

I meant what I said about repectiing SFRD and I also meant what I said about working together to create a REAL cooperative plan. We all have our predjudices and mistrust, to overcome to say otherwise is flat out BS. I'm not perfect (although I know that's hard to believe... ...) and if my opinions are misgiuded I welcome the opportunity to be set straight by sitting down and looking at the situation reailstically based on ALL the circumstances not just the ones we want. I may have a huge ego, but my desire to provide the best possible service to our community TOGETHER far outweighs it. I'm more than willing to be proven wrong, in fact I hope I am,. but the actions thus far have not done much to show a spirit of cooperation from either "side". Let's change that situation and break the stalemate...what have any of us got to lose?

Cogs

[FD828 77]

The vote that allowed the VFD firefighters into SFRD was done to prevent guys from being laid off right at Christmas time. We were put between a rock and a hard place. So even though not everyone thought it was a good idea, nobody(well that's not exactly true) wanted to see the guys laid off.

And IMHO, I feel the best way to get a compromise, and work together is if the VFD chiefs pull away from the mayor's plan. If they do that, and allow the SFRD Chiefs to sit and come up with a plan together, it might just work. If the BOR sees that (because they have stated they want us all working together, and I truly feel they don't like either plan) it just might go a long way. And I honestly think it has to be Belltown that leads the charge, because lets be honest. BFD is the only ones doing their jobs out of the VFD's. They are the only ones that have credibility showing that they are getting it done. Not saying that they wouldn't need help at some emergencies, just that they are answering the calls, turning out guys etc. But as long as the VFD's continue to back the mayor and his plan, there is no cooperative planning going on. Of course those that are intending on getting a new job out of the deal will railroad this in every possible way.

[Geppetto 31]

Op-Ed: Volunteer Dept. chair: Mayor's Fire Plan the only solution for Stamford

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

by Stephen Gladstone (Chairman of the board of the Stamford Volunteer Fire Department)

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/opinion/article/Op-Ed-Volunteer-Dept-chair-Mayor-s-Fire-Plan-2371970.php

[Goose 188]

Op-Ed: Volunteer Dept. chair: Mayor's Fire Plan the only solution for Stamford

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

by Stephen Gladstone (Chairman of the board of the Stamford Volunteer Fire Department)

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/opinion/article/Op-Ed-Volunteer-Dept-chair-Mayor-s-Fire-Plan-2371970.php

I'm not a fireman, but after reading that op-ed and knowing the little i do about whats going on in stamford...i can't help but feel that this guy is smoking crack.

The overwhelming argument he seems to outline is a fiscal one, which is fine. But within the first few paragraphs he talks about all the real-estate and apparatus the Stamford Volunteer Department owns. 11 engines, 4 rescues, 2 trucks, 3 tankers and a number of other vehicles. Again, i'm not a fireman but that seems like an overabundance of extremely expensive apparatus that frequently never makes it out the door. The article doesn't even seem to account for the 50+ (forget the exact number) of career firefighters the Stamford Volunteer Fire Department has to hire to ensure a timely response.

Maybe I'm missing something...someone care to clarify?

[CTFF 65]

Maybe I'm missing something...someone care to clarify?

Over the course of nearly 90 pages nothing has been clarified. This has turned into a modern version of the Hatfields and the McCoy's feud.

I think Mr. Gladstone and those who think like him (not every volunteer in Stamford) is trying to change the course of this situation by capitalizing on anti-union feelings and threats of lawsuits.

[FFPCogs 863]

Over the course of nearly 90 pages nothing has been clarified. This has turned into a modern version of the Hatfields and the McCoy's feud.

So who do we marry off to end it...

[rayrider 94]

*-+

-*

I'm not a fireman, but after reading that op-ed and knowing the little i do about whats going on in stamford...i can't help but feel that this guy is smoking crack.

The overwhelming argument he seems to outline is a fiscal one, which is fine. But within the first few paragraphs he talks about all the real-estate and apparatus the Stamford Volunteer Department owns. 11 engines, 4 rescues, 2 trucks, 3 tankers and a number of other vehicles. Again, i'm not a fireman but that seems like an overabundance of extremely expensive apparatus that frequently never makes it out the door. The article doesn't even seem to account for the 50+ (forget the exact number) of career firefighters the Stamford Volunteer Fire Department has to hire to ensure a timely response.

Maybe I'm missing something...someone care to clarify?

It is an over ambundance. Take a city like yonkers for example. 200,000 people, approx 50 sq miles and over 15,000 runs a year. All covered by 11 engines, 6 trucks and one rescue.

[Guest truck1234]

We have a town with a pop of 85,000 50sq mi. serviced by 12 different vollie depts. running out of 16 sta with 37 eng co 9 truck co. 5 rescues 1 that makes any FDNY's small and 36 cheifs with an annual budget of 14,000,000 and they think they are a bargain

[Geppetto 31]

And now for something completely different, a politician who actually thinks:

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/City-should-but-won-t-have-one-fire-department-2341170.php

[Guest truck1234]

43.8 million dollars for 5 years thats alot of money for volunteer fire service. Thats at least 60 good paying jobs that their plan is taking out of the economy. when good jobs are at a premeium.

[CTFF 65]

Local 786 has a op-ed response tonight in the advocate. If someone could post the link.

[FD828 77]

Advocate

[SFRD372 43]

You have got to be kidding me.....does Stephen Gladstone think that "bullying" the Board of Representatives into this horrible plan is gonna work? This isn't the "old days" when you could do this and get away with it. it's 2011!

[FFPCogs 863]

As I've stated many times before here IMO the "no cost" option is only no cost on paper. The redistribution of SFRD assests will create gaps in coverage as units are either disbanded or moved. I think the taxpayers should be made aware of exactly what this plan entails in terms of those redistributions and the possible effect that will have on their safety. In short order the operational effects on the ability of SFRD to cover the entire City will be felt and will need to be dealt with...at a cost in dollars far above "no cost", not to mention the cost in potential property losses and life the redistribution threatens. I think it is fair and prudent to say that there is no "no cost" option available and to continue to promote that notion not only misleads the public but in fact hurts SFRD and 786 as they are backed into the corner of unrealistic expectations. Public outcry when it's time to go back to the till to ensure proper coverage would be very damaging indeed to ALL of Stamford's FFs and our standing in the community. The work done by all to bring plans to the table should not be dismissed, in fact we should thank those involved for their efforts even if we disagree with them, alot of time, energy and effort when into their development, but like all plans revisons are generally in order once the reality sets in. A combination of both options is where we should be looking now keeping in mind that we shoud do so as partners not adversaries. Liquidation of VFD assets is not something I advocate, but working to maintain our ability to serve, including serving to ease the financial burden on taxpayers, is. I said it before I'll say it again, it's time to go back to the drawing board. Although miles apart what these plans show is that the foundation is there, it need only be strenghtened to achieve what's best for Samford's residents.

Cogs

[rayrider 94]

As I've stated many times before here IMO the "no cost" option is only no cost on paper. The redistribution of SFRD assests will create gaps in coverage as units are either disbanded or moved. I think the taxpayers should be made aware of exactly what this plan entails in terms of those redistributions and the possible effect that will have on their safety. In short order the operational effects on the ability of SFRD to cover the entire City will be felt and will need to be dealt with...at a cost in dollars far above "no cost", not to mention the cost in potential property losses and life the redistribution threatens. I think it is fair and prudent to say that there is no "no cost" option available and to continue to promote that notion not only misleads the public but in fact hurts SFRD and 786 as they are backed into the corner of unrealistic expectations. Public outcry when it's time to go back to the till to ensure proper coverage would be very damaging indeed to ALL of Stamford's FFs and our standing in the community. The work done by all to bring plans to the table should not be dismissed, in fact we should thank those involved for their efforts even if we disagree with them, alot of time, energy and effort when into their development, but like all plans revisons are generally in order once the reality sets in. A combination of both options is where we should be looking now keeping in mind that we shoud do so as partners not adversaries. Liquidation of VFD assets is not something I advocate, but working to maintain our ability to serve, including serving to ease the financial burden on taxpayers, is. I said it before I'll say it again, it's time to go back to the drawing board. Although miles apart what these plans show is that the foundation is there, it need only be strenghtened to achieve what's best for Samford's residents.

Cogs

You state gaps in coverage and safety, potential loss of property and life? Isnt that the reason why this whole merger and hiring paid staff in some of the volunteer houses started. What good is a fire house in your neighborhood with inadequate staffing on occasion? Id rather have a firehouse a couple miles away with ff's waiting for the bell to hit. Hope this complicated situation turns out the best for the safety of the citizens.

[FFPCogs 863]

You state gaps in coverage and safety, potential loss of property and life? Isnt that the reason why this whole merger and hiring paid staff in some of the volunteer houses started. What good is a fire house in your neighborhood with inadequate staffing on occasion? Id rather have a firehouse a couple miles away with ff's waiting for the bell to hit. Hope this complicated situation turns out the best for the safety of the citizens.

There are a number of opinions as to why the merger was attempted back in 2008. These run the gamut from an inability of the volunteers to cover their districts, to excessive overtime paid to the employees of the VFDs, to the desire of the union to expand and increase it's political influence and coffers, and my particular favorite, the desire of then Mayor Malloy to increase taxes which could then be siphoned off to feed pet projects and cronies. What ever the reason or reasons the attempt failed miserably leaving the City less protected not more and with the specter of tax increases ever more present. And while I see your point about having crews at the ready, with the redistribution envisioned the gaps will be enough to cause concern. A far better way must be found to staff firehouses and my personal belief is that volunteers can and should contribute to that coverage. If volunteers are available nights and weekends, which by and large they are, then they should provide dedicated staffing in their firehouses during those hours thus saving taxpayers the cost of career staffing. This along with a host of other initiatives to standardize training, certification, responses, command and equipment is how best to integrate...IMO. Thus far both "sides" have held firm to their belief that only their way is best, further complicating an already mind boggling assortment of legalities, egos and agendas. I too hope for all to turn out well, and believe that it will as the pressure to solve this mess increases forcing both "sides" to the same table.

Cogs

Edited December 10, 2011 by FFPCogs

[helicopper 1,050]

We have a town with a pop of 85,000 50sq mi. serviced by 12 different vollie depts. running out of 16 sta with 37 eng co 9 truck co. 5 rescues 1 that makes any FDNY's small and 36 cheifs with an annual budget of 14,000,000 and they think they are a bargain

Is that Colonie?

[Guest truck1234]

I think so

[Geppetto 31]

Stamford Fire Volunteers Unite On Mayor Pavia's Fire Plan

The Stamford Volunteer Fire Department awaits a decision on Mayor Pavia's fire plan that will decide their future.

Stamford Patch

12/22/11

http://stamford.patch.com/articles/volunteers-unite-on-mayor-pavia-s-fire-plan

[Alpinerunner 61]

Mayor names new fire chief, public safety director

STAMFORD -- Mayor Michael Pavia on Wednesday appointed a long-time Stamford fire service veteran to head the city's fire department and chose a retired New York City Fire Department deputy chief to the cabinet-level position of public safety director.

Stamford Advocate

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/Mayor-names-new-fire-chief-public-safety-director-2470841.php

[Geppetto 31]

Volunteer firefighters speak out on possible charter revision

KARA O'CONNOR

Stamford Times

01/11/2012

http://www.thestamfordtimes.com/story/517729

[JohnnyOV 2]

After almost 90 pages of discussion, can someone lay out on here what each plan actually entails? Just purely factual information, no hearsay or speculations. After 90 pages everything almost blends into one big idea.

[Alpinerunner 61]

Mayor's plan:

Create separate department for the 4 consolidated volunteer departments. Hire career firefighters to man 2 TRFD stations, 2 LRFC stations, Springdale, and Belltown, and 1 Chief. 3 FFs per station during the day 2 at night.

Chief Brown's plan:

Keep all as is (2 city engines in TRFD district, 1 in Springdale, 0 in Belltown, all with 3-4 FFs), but decomission 1 engine and 1 truck from the SFRD district and move those crews to cover the two stations of LRFC, therefore not adding any personnel or costs. (I don't know what the plan is for the current LRFC FFs). 1 SFRD DC to cover entire city.

That's as simple and unbiased as I can put it.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Alpinerunner

[ny10570 745]

Is there a simple and unbiased list of positives and negatives for both plans?

[helicopper 1,050]

Is there a simple and unbiased list of positives and negatives for both plans?

Simple and unbiased? I doubt it.

Is there a plan that creates one single FD for the entire City?

[FFPCogs 863]

Simple and unbiased? I doubt it.

True. I'm fairly cetain no one from Stamford will be completely objective on the subject. Not out of spite but more so because everyone has a horse in the race.

Is there a plan that creates one single FD for the entire City?

At present no. The City Charter grants each VFD autonomy and therefore operating money. Until that changes it would be hard to imagine any of them simply turning over the keys and for all intents and purposes disbanding.

Cogs

Edited January 13, 2012 by FFPCogs

[ny10570 745]

Ive been impressed with this thread. Obviously these discussions come with a lot if emotion and passion but it has stayed remarkably on track.