Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on October 18, 2012 at 11:49am

Don,

I think you've summed up perfectly the reasons for the 'demise' of the volunteer fire service. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on October 18, 2012 at 3:05pm

The fact is that if you wish to see FFI as the standard, great. I disagree and feel that imposing that standard on the volunteer fire service will quickly destroy many departments in communities with no other realistic fire protection options.

 

A little factoid that you are not seeing, the minimum requirements I mentioned doesn't entail FF1 at all. In order to be a volunteer FF, one has to be what is called "Entry Level FF"....and "entry" means the very basics, PPE, tools and uses, handlines and storage, etc....nothing about being an interior FF. FF1 is more advanced than these minimum requirements, so it begs to question why rely upon weakening standards you advocate?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bob Callahan on October 18, 2012 at 3:36pm

I really don't want this to get into another discussion regarding standards for the fire service, as it has been hashed out here quite extensively just within the past few months.

I believe in required entry level training relevant to the local jurisdiction as designed and delivered by local training personnel. I don't believe in FFI being a required standard for volunteer personnel.

I don't believe that stance contributes in any way to the demise of the volunteer fire service.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on October 18, 2012 at 3:47pm

Has anyone here ever been involved with a merger between two fire departments? What is involved with a merger and how can it be done successfully?

 

Yes. My dept has basically just merged with our neighboring combination dept. The village board finally decided to approve the merger with a couple minor changes to the contract which my city council will most likely approve at the next meeting.

 

Some background on this, a couple years ago the neighboring dept's chief and administrative assistant retired. The village was looking at options for the fire dept, which included recruiting and hiring a new chief and admin asst, mergewith the nearby combination dept, merge with a volunteer dept, merge with the city dept. These options were explored and it was decided the best option to maintain, and improve staffing was merging with us. This may also set the precedence for other depts merging in the future to make us a county type of fire dept.

 

Prior to this merger, since we are union and the members of the other fulltime or combo depts are union. The area locals merged into our local as one unit, wih different divisions. This was done a couple years before this dept merger ever took place and to be ready to address contract terms if a merger would come up in the future. This was actually a huge step in moving the merger forward. The biggest obstacle was the elected officials involved and the relinquishing of control. (One of the biggest obstacles)

 

While talks were going on, we started working more closer with the dept. We would incorporate training together, we would be going into the village for fire calls on a first response basis. They would attend our morning meetings and be involved like any other station. etc. Their SCBAs were switched over to ours (they had MSA, we have SCOTT), their ambulance was set up to be similar to ours and they were given a spare GB ambulance as well. Their radio system was placed on the same frequency and upgraded.

 

Staffing was a contentious issue and one part that manymembers of my dept don't truly care for, because it involves relocating a city engine company. However there are other cost savings involved for both parties, but essentially we are increasing our coverage area and responses with essentially the same staffing we already have. The city operates with 4 person engines and minimum of 2 paramedcs on the ambulance (ambulance does also do fire suppression activities). The village had minimum FT staffing of 5 personnel who cross staffed between the engine and ambulance.

 

The city, and union, was not interested in cross staffing at all. OT for village FFs was at the taking sinc they were down so many people and at one time asked if city FFs would take the OT. To which the answer was no because of the cross staffing issue. The merger creates two seperate units for the village, an engine company of 4 and ambulance of 2. A city engine company will be moved from the city to the village, that newer engine will be used to replace an older and ready to be replaced engine further out in the city. The city station being affected will basically become an administarion building with FD storage.

 

As far as personnel go, this was another sticking point for many, but is going through. Those village FFs move into seniority with the city for their years on, so if you have 10 years with the village, you move into a 10 year spot with the city. This means some ranks and promotions will vary, those slated to make Lieutenant may now have to wait longer because of a village FF coming in. The issue with volunteers is eliminated, there will be no volunteers. Part of this was the village has seen a steady drop off of volunteers over the years and even less showing up for calls etc. Those who were more regular had no problem with their spots being eliminated........NO, this was not the union pushing the vollies out.

 

This merger helps to staveoff further cuts in the city that the mayor would love to impose, and it helps the city to be more eligible for a SAFER grant considering how things change. After some cuts and a ladder taken out of service, we were in a position to have more officers than spots available. It was not uncommon to see a LT driving, or engineer riding backwards as a FF. With the merger, those spots are now back to have officers to fill. This is a long term contract and also contains staffing language to NFPA 1710, which is significant.

 

As mentioned previously, this merger may be the stepping stone to a county wide type of department. The city on the southside of the village is facing cuts and difficulty with responses and budgets, etc. Their chief may be leaving soon, all of which makes for a chance to grow the dept. The two bigger volunteer depts on the east and west side of the city have seen growth and have also started hiring fulltime day personnel because of coverage issues. There is potential they may also merge with fulltime staffing of an engine with volunteer backup specific to that dept. This is in the future, but this merger is a significant part of that.

 

We are a Fire District with a board of commissioners, and our chief of 5 years just resigned the whole department without reason.

 

If you are a district, my view is you may not have the issue with the relinquishing of control that seems to hinder such mergers. If the commissioners have a say in the other depts, then pursuing a merger should be more easily accomplished. While I know you said fulltimers is out of the question, for now, such a merger can still be done, which may possibly entail other depts responding directly into your area. This may also incorporate the potential of moving equipment, or even raisng taxes....not enough for FT personnel, but helps those neighboring communities that may see less service as neighbors respond more to your area for coverage. Having that authority by a commission may be a significant aspect.

 

We are in bad shape I admit, and I think our community needs a better level of service than what we can provide but career staffing is not an option in my area unfortunately.

 

What? You mean that the people aren't just OK with weakening standards to have a dept?  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Russ on October 18, 2012 at 7:34pm

John & Moose: Thank you for the claraification.WOW 40 responses as i write this and everyone has givenme some real things to think about. The reference to the shutdowns in Hillsboro co Fl was the reason i posted the question buti cannot help but ask if mismanagement is the reason i'm glad that NONE of the articles said that they were incapable of doing or was not doing the job.

I guess i'm wondering why the county bean counters didnt catch this because i refuse to accept that the county just handed over public money with no oversight...and that was the reason i asked the question about volunteers fading away in some areas

but I thank you for your posts and your insights

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Russ on October 18, 2012 at 8:14pm

I have been in 2. the first was a survival move to save a failing department which went well and the second was a political move which was done at the behest of a greedy administration. both were combination depts which gutted their volunteers in the end and are now 100% paid (i was paid during both occurances)

to answer your question directly it involves politics both internal and external. Be prepared for one of the departments to become the dominant of the two because in one of the two i was in the last was not a merger, it was a takeover. The best advise i can give is to make sure that it is clear and in the open as to why its being done and that everyone knows whats going on.

i could go into details of the takeover but suffice to say that political takeovers are the worse

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Moose on October 19, 2012 at 8:02am

What? You mean that the people aren't just OK with weakening standards to have a dept?  

I dont know what the people think, but shouldnt every firefighter want to provide the best of service to the community?  I know what you were referring too there though and I agree.  No one should "settle" for sub-standard service and the issue is the lack of educating the public about their local volunteers and what needs to happen in order to become a firefighter in todays world.  None of the communities know what it takes to go through the training, the drills, the physicals...they think its still a matter of signing up and getting turnouts and fighting fire, like in the days of the "Social Club" fire departments where farmers and factory workers left work and acted like firefighters whenever the alarm went off.  And most of that is to blame on the department themselves for failing to educate the public during fire prevention week and department open houses, which should be more than "stop drop and roll" and Operation EDITH, we should be educating them on what it takes to provide the service they need.

Thanks for the great advice and input, I appreciate it.  Stay Safe.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bob Callahan on October 19, 2012 at 8:56am

And I fully agree that irt is the department's fault for not setting training standards. But the key here is IMO it's the department's responsibility to set those standards - both for initial and on-going training - based on the response needs of the district. It is not the state's role or responsibility to set a minimum standard for all personnel - volunteer or career - statewide.

 

Should all personnel be trained to do the job? Absolutly and I have never stated otherwise. The trick is that in a small rural department, the training required may only be a 40 or 45 hour initial class (like my current volunteer department) while in another department in very well may be a full FFI class. But that decision is up to each fire departmnent, not the state to make a blanket training requirement.

 

As far as your situation it sounds like the department has dropped the ball and the lack of training has become the department culture. However, that may not be the whole reason why the department is failing, and without spending some time there or knowing more in the way of specifics, I'm not going to speculate on the other possible reasons for the problems..

As I have stated earlier, any department needs to be upfront with newe members about all training and attendence requirements, and they need to stick to those requirements. If a new member demonstrates that they cannot meet those requirements as set by the department, not the state, they should be dismissed from the department.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Moose on October 19, 2012 at 11:21am

I agree with you Bob, I was replying to Johns earlier post when he answered my question for me.

And I stated that its the departments fault for not educating the public on what is required to become a firefighter today, not the training standards.  Believe me, I am the first to want to improve training standards across the board for volunteers, I dont think that the 80 hours spent in FF I is enough (without field experience with senior firefighters and officers as well).

I believe that the volunteers need to make a better presence at their town/village/city government meetings and educate them about the training involved, both initial and annual refresher, the time dedicated to the position like meetings, drills, classes, fundraisers...and we have not even mentioned time for responding to calls too.  The public still perceives us as the guys who hang out at station and drink beer, respond to calls and do the best we can with what we have...and unless we change that perception we will never get the help we need to get better training, better equipment, a bigger push to recruit more people willing to give of their time away from family/home life, and better backing from both the government and public.

 

We have our issues, mainly with personalities not mixing well.  We have recruited 8 new members in the past year alone, and all of them are not showing up to anything anymore, and its all because of the personalities of our chief officers, and the older members who have been here for years who will not allow change to happen without a tremendous fight.  Hell, I had to fight for months to use the grant money I got the department on our FIRST thermal imager and 4 gas meter as well...MONTHS, of arguing, and explaining...On another occaision, we had our front line engine fail pump test, twice, so we didnt have anything.  I got a used engine DONATED to us, we only had to drive an hour to pick it up, but it was ours, free and clear......nope, they refused the truck, after I drove down with another officer in my POV on my gas to pick it up, and we argued for months and months about that too, but the commissioners voted to spend $35,000 to fix the other engine, which was old, outdated and not very dependable.  It went into service, they gave me the other engine I picked up so I donated it to another department that needed one as well.  A few months ago, the truck failed pump test again and we are again without an engine...I was ready to resign right there.  That and the fact I can not get anyone to train the way we should be.  I make plans for drills, get the props I need like dummies and what not, set it all up and no one shows...The next drill night I get all the same excuses "Sorry, I had to watch my kids..."  or "Sorry, I was working until 5 and went home to have dinner and just crashed..."  nothing but excuses and I am sick of it.

I guess I need to pray for a miracle to happen? 

Thanks for all the info on mergers, I am looking into the possibilities with my neighboring officers and their departments.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on October 21, 2012 at 11:34pm

Moose,

I understand the dilema and correct, this is a dept issue that has festered beyond the dept and now affects the community. While the issue with standards and responses have changed, there is also a valid reason.

 

I wholeheartedly disagree with Bob, and his consensus that requirements should be left to a dept. In this day and age where we actually see a push for working together, interoperability and so forth, we can not rely on some dept's individual training program to pass muster when additional resources are called for. There is a valid reason for standardized minimum requirements for all firefighters and those requirements are written in the special ink from burned structures and the blood of fallen firefighters. The PRIMARY responsibility of any dept is the safety and lives of the members first and foremost. Advocating the crap he is is wrong and is what gets people killed.



Now, there is an obligation of a fire dept to keep the community and people informed, but realistically it hinders recruitment and does contribute to the demise of the volunteer fire service. You come on here asking about mergers etc, because you DO see the reality of the issues and perhaps the dying fire dept. Yet, there are so many other depts that don't realize this and worse, those depts that subscribe to the snake oil that Bob is selling.

Yes, public education does and should reach beyond the kiddie material and so forth and should include adults. Elected officials should be aware of dept requirements and needs to be able to make informed decisions and so forth.

 

Yet, there is no reason to advocate to reduced standards or requirements just to maintain a volunteer aspect in the community. Instead of keeping some feigned, unrealistic, sense of a service, it perhaps is better to let a dept either merge or be acquired by another service.....most depts are afraid to give up their little fifedoms...AND that is usually the biggest obstacle.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bob Callahan on October 22, 2012 at 11:49am

Snake oil. Really?

I 100% agree that the primary mission of the fire department is the safety of the members. However, that being said, the skills that are required to keep the members safe are not standized, unlike FFI, but instead can vary greatly from community to community and gegraphic area to geographic area. Yes, there are common areas of knowledge and skills such as safety, fire behavior, SCBA,basic communications, size-up, NIMS/ICS, building search and rescue, self-rescue, maydays and rapid intervention and ventilation. But even basic areas such as building construction and water supply can vary significantly as  what one department sees on a regular basis another department may never see, even in a likely mutual aid response.

 

I can teach the basics to the members of my VFD in 42-45 hours to operate in the district. They will have additional skills added once they complete the class through weekly drills. But I can give them what they need for our district in half the time of FFI. And they will be safe.

My combo department uses a different system, but it's a longer process because we have more hazards and a larger array of equipment.

 

And by the way, we encourage that they take FFI, either via on-line or a physical class once they finish the rookie class. It's the same with the volunteers on my combo department. 

 

I fully agree that adequate training is essential, but my problem is piling training on small community and rural volunteers that they will never utilize simply to meet a standard that adds to department's recruiting issues by ballooning both the initial and on-going training requirements.

I know nothing about Moose's current training requirements or district in terms of building types, sizes and occupancies. I know nothing in terms of sprinklers, standpipes and other fixed systems. I know nothing about the services they offer beyond supression - extrication, technical rescue, haz-mat, wildland or the apparatus they operate. But I do know that his department is in the postion of determining the skills that thier members need to operate within thier response area, and they should be, IMO, the ones that determine what thier training will consist of, not a madate from the state.

 

It's not my call to comment on that as it's his department, but he has stated that it's an issue hindering recruiting.

 

Now the rumor mill has possible changes in haz-mat operations requirements being mulled over by NFPA as possibly doubling the length of a haz-mat operations course if they are made standard. That will be adopted, if it comes to pass by LSU FETI and simply make the road to FFI even longer.

 

Wonderful.

 

I do agree that there are volunteer departments with serious problems in terms of manpower. My VFD is very close the edge of being one of them. The only thing that keeps us at thias point from sliding over the edge is the fact that 3 of our officers work opposing 24-hour shifts as career members and the availbility of career multual aid from the neighboring small city on the east and my manpower-wealthy combo department to the west.

 

And there are many others in this part of the state that don't have the back-up my combo department has available. There are many, including a group of 4 in the northern end of my combo parish and a group of 3 in my volunteer parish, that have made adjustments including operational changes that has multiple departments training together and responding together on the initial call or cross-training which allows members from one department to respond with another if they happen to work or are in the other department's area.

 

That being said, the merging of districts in this area is often simply impratical due to the sheer size and distance, which can easily be 300 or 400 square miles covered by 15-20 volunteers. We discussed merging with the VFD to our north recently, however, the response time for our people to get there and thier people to get here on the first alarm assignment due to the sheer size of the district and distance was simply impractical. It was much simplier just to stay seperate and work as we have as mutual aid partners as the management of such a geographically large area under one department banner by volunteers was simply impractical.

 

Call reasonable standards for volunteers snakeoil if you wish. I call them a reasonable approach to maintain volunteer departments, often in communities with no other manpower options. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tom Batchelor on October 22, 2012 at 7:59pm

Wow, there's a lot to answer here, and I am unsure if I can do that without a research paper.. lol In regards to Volunteer versus Paid, I'm a career (paid) Company Officer/Paramedic and I can tell you, I'd love to have a volunteer presence in my agency. Unfortunately, where I work it's an ALS transport Fire-Rescue department in an affluent resort community, so the setup is just not for that form of "employee." We have to have Paramedics who are trained at a certain level and who are accountable to a medical director and that pretty much excludes volunteers. The medical director will not put his or her license on the line for anything other than career Personnel. That said, I think any professional firefighter in an area where volunteers are present who DOES NOT EMBRACE THEM is a moron. And yes, I'm a Union Firefighter. Lets be real here.. there are simply not enough tax dollars around to do the job right anymore in regards to staffing. I consider the Volunteers an ASSET to any agency because you have people who are undeniably dedicated to providing a very strenuous and personally dangerous service for free. They are just like everyone else, but they're interested in devoting their spare time to the cause. What's wrong with that? The argument of "Volunteers taking paid jobs" is not valid. The paid jobs aren't there in the first place! Today's fire service is much more sophisticated than years before, we're held to a very high standard. I am surprised some communities which are Volunteer are still Volunteer and not at least somewhat paid, like a Combination department. This is because the taxpayers demand a higher level of service for their money nowadays. Taxpayers are more sophisticated too and they are more and more keeping tract of their public services -- as they should be doing. I applaud any volunteer community that can actually muster a reasonably sized crew for a fire call, say, during the day on any given Tuesday afternoon. If they can do that, more power to them! There's probably no role for a paid service there. However, if a community cannot muster said crew for that type of call on a regular basis, then guess what... Career guys and gals are on the horizon. It's a mathematical certainty.

Communities that used to have a great number of people able to volunteer are fewer than many. People have to take multiple jobs to just get by. The bedroom communities are no longer such and they're working 12 hours a day sometimes to pay a mortgage. That leaves no time for volunteering. It's a damned shame, but it's the way it is. And I don't foresee that changing ever. I think that unfortunately, the number of volunteers will continue to dwindle, with these same communities screaming for the same level of service. Their taxes will go up and the paid services (or at least a Combination service) will ensue. It's a sign of the times.

But until that occurs, where there are competent, enthusiastic and proficient volunteers to respond, we in the paid services should not be their enemy, but rather, their friends. Many volunteers transition to the career services. Someone has to take a hold of the torch as we retire and leave the fire service. Why not nurture these dedicated individuals rather than isolate them?

Look, I'm just an old fart with almost 25 in now, I'm working on getting out, so my perspective is different I guess... You volunteer guys keep doing what you're doing and don't worry about certain short-sighted individuals who might criticize your dedication. You'll not hear that crap from me.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• Next ›
• Page