The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
IAFF Condemns Tennessee House Fire Policy
TODD FAULKNER
WPSD
Reprinted with Permission
PADUCAH - A local fire department's decision to let a home burn is attracting national attention and sparking national debate.
A firefighters group is lashing out against members of their own. The International Association of Fire Fighters is condemning the South Fulton Fire Department for their actions last week.
Fire crews refused to put out a house fire in Obion County, Tennessee, because the owner did not pay the $75 coverage fee. The Association's general president released a statement Tuesday on the city's policy of subscription fire service.
The IAFF statement reads, in part, "We condemn South Fulton's ill-advised, unsafe policy. Professional, career fire fighters shouldn't be forced to check a list before running out the door to see which homeowners have paid up. They get in their trucks and go."
The statement also reads, "Because of South Fulton's pay-to-play policy, fire fighters were ordered to stand and watch a family lose its home."
Todd Cranick, son of Gene Cranick, tells Local 6 that his parents have received several thousand dollars from the insurance company to cover immediate costs. Cranick went on to say that the insurance plans on covering all damage and property losses. Right now, there is no fund set up to help the Cranick family.
The IAFF is headquartered in Washington, D.C., representing nearly 300,000 full-time professional firefighters and paramedics.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Vic Silverfish on -
Gee, the IAFF takes a position on how public services should operate with no regard for how they will be paid for. What a shock. I expect the members of this department (I believe they are a union shop) to stop paying their dues.
-
Permalink Reply by Karr Quintero on -
i like how they say they refused then later state they were ordered, only the media can kill ya faster then a bullet!
-
Permalink Reply by David Sonnen on -
If you think this was tough, try getting sick without having $1,000 dollar a month health insurance. At $75 bucks a year, South Fulton's fire supression service is a bargan.
South Fulton gives us a hard look at what happens when the anti-tax crowd wins.
-
Permalink Reply by FETC on -
The City of South Fulton has no duty to act in the county. They are not the "county's" fire department, there was NO FIRE DEPRTMENT. The residents know that, I am sure they all understand the set up. The homeowner even saud on the first interview that he knew he chose to not pay but thought they would come anyway.
The county commissioners chose to contract the City of South Fulton to provide subscription service to the county residents seeing they do not want to force a fire tax on the entire county residents.
So in my opinion they did nothing wrong. They are charged to be the City FD, the taxpayers of the city expect the fire chief to secure funds if they are providing services to the county. Otherwise, you would never have a staffed firetruck in the city. The city protects 2,500 resdients and the county has 30,000.
The first time the City of Fulton, extinguishes a house fire for a non paying resident of the county, then everyone in the county will choose to not pay the annual subscription fee of 75.00. Thats like 20 cents a day. What the IAFF is saying is that the City shouldn't have to look up an address on a list before responding. I agree totally, what they are suggesting is the entire county pay afire tax like most of the world and everyone gets protection. I would also bet the fire tax assessment will be far greater than the current system.
This is all about personal responsibility, don't pay the fee, then don;t expect someone to come and supress. You can't drive up to burger king and demand a free burger can you? No customers pay at BK. You decide to not pay your mortgage, do you expect the bank to just let you have the house for free?
This isn't about mutual aid. This isn't about the county fire department refusing to extinguish the fire because the resident refused to pay the fee. This is a small city FD who responds out of their district to customers who pay a very samll fee for a service.
The homeowner got what he paid for.... nothing but it was his choice. The sad part about this is the City FD actually did what they are charged to do. Protect the city's interest.
-
Permalink Reply by Herb Genelly III on -
They've already allowed homeowners to pay AFTER the fact big shooter. He thought they would come because they've done it before...............Hummmm.
-
Permalink Reply by Tommy Warshaw on -
Just because something was done previously doesn't mean it's the right way to do it. That was done under a previous Mayor. You have already been shown the facts over and over again here, but still refuse to see that situation as it is.
-
Permalink Reply by Tommy Warshaw on
-
Absolutely. If Mr. Cranick doesn't like the system, he's more than welcome to bring it before the county to provide a fire department be it paid or volunteer. Either way, it's going to require taxes to cover it and as you alluded to, it will be much more costly than a $75 per year fee.
The City of Fulton FD has a responsibility to the citizens of the City of Fulton. They are providing a service for subscription to a area that is not part of their tax base. It is not the responsibility fo the citizens of Fulton to subsidize fire protection for the county. Fire calls cost money. Good use of the Burger King analogy.
-
Permalink Reply by Russ on -
responding then WATCHING THE HOUSE BURN--ON TV FELLAS then saying "the city manager told us not to put it out" good god, i didnt know a CM had such power (what do we need a fire chief for) since the CM calls the shots. the bottom line is they were willing to pay and (amoung those who watching on TV) all everyone will remember is that "Nero-(aka the FD) "playd the fiddle as dat home burnd to the ground" and thats the story. NOTE TO THE FIRE CHIEF- not commenting good or bad allows the media to MAKE NEWS. you should have stated the TRUTH (if you believe in it so much) and not "call the police (who didnt respond either-curious-). if this is the deal the members of the community accepted and went into with eyes wide open, OK i can accept that but all the rest of america saw was a FD standing around as somebody's house burned to the ground and that gives us all a black eye. my personal opinion IS- NOT putting it out after they wanted to pay is VINDICTIVE and thats where america and i will judge them STUPID...suppose the cops stood by as a woman was being gang raped because she didnt pay the "rape crime fee"?
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on -
Maybe because the Fire Chief reports to the City Manager???
The difference in your law enforcement analogy is that both the city and county residents are taxed for law enforcement protection, so there isn't any "rape fee".
The county residents are not taxed for fire protection, there is no county fire department, and the only black eye here is on the face of the property owner that didn't pay his subscription or even contact the fire department after he got free fire protection through his 3rd subscription notice.
-
Permalink Reply by Russ on
-
Wrong Ben-get what i said straight-responding and DOING NOTHING ON TV is stupid refusing to put it out even after he offered to pay was VINDICTIVE and thats where they screwed up and where i have a problem with them. The cops not comming was icing on the cake, it made sense, the reporters were not interfering with a fire that the fire department was not fighting...makes perfect sense
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on -
refusing to put it out even after he offered to pay was VINDICTIVE and thats where they screwed up and where i have a problem with them
Not really Russ. There is nothing vindictive about refusing to provide service AFTER the fact. A subscription is no different than an insurance policy for the most part. One can not expect to get collision insurance AFTER the accident occurred. The same thing here, despite the owner offering to pay, it was his choice not to pay in the first place, he gambled, he lost, it is that simple. There is no duty to act here and the FF's followed orders.
The gripe should be placed upon those who first, made the decision to have subscriptions vs a tax, and to those who wanted such subscriptions over a tax. The other gripe should be placed with the owner, who expected services would come despite not paying, not expecting services AFTER the fact.
i didnt know a CM had such power (what do we need a fire chief for) since the CM calls the shots
Despite what you may think, the CM, city councils, couty boards, fire boards and so forth DO absolutely have a say in such policies and such operations, that is a fact. After all, it isn't fire chief's looking to cut staffing, close stations, do brownouts and so forth afecting depts all across the country, but those elected officials creating the policies.
In this case the policy was in place....subscription = fire service, no subscription doesn't = fire service. The policy was ignored for years, but such cities stated they could no longer keep providing service for free for people who don't pay. The CM here decided to enforce the policy put in place by the county and voted on by the people, if such a decision is made, that is an ORDER.
-
Permalink Reply by Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on -
I ran for trustee to keep guys like me in line.
In Illinois, by law, fire protection district board of trustees are responsible for the fire protection in their fire districts. That means, setting policies. Anything that the fire department does, such as develop SOGs, is with the approval of the board. New members and those chosen as officers are with the approval of the board. The chief is responsible for the day to day operation, but he ANSWERS to the board.
So, is it clear that the governing boards and NOT the chiefs manage the fire department/fire districts?
Now; our policies DO have some wiggle room built into them, but if anyone on the department violates a known policy, such as responding to a call while under the influence, be assured that discipline will be taken.
Also; I don't care if TV cameras and reporters are at the scene or not.
We don't change what we do simply for the press corps.
We don't change what we do because of someone's personal opinions.
And we don't change what we do if it doesn't improve the service that we provide to our residents.
THEY have determined what level of service they want and it is our job to provide that service.
FireRescue Magazine
Find Members Fast
© 2012 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by 
.
