The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Almost entire firefighting crew quits
April 4, 2012
The Canadian Press - Charlie Lake, British Columbia, Canada
All but two volnteer firefighters in the roughly 30-member department in Charlie Lake, have quit.
Firefighters in the northesten part of the province handed in their pagers to protest the hiring of a new chief and the tansfer of department control to the Peace River Regional District from the local fire protection society.
Trouble within the Charlie Lake department has smouldered for nearly two years, but flared when former Kimberley assistant fire chief Steve Munshaw took over April 1, to replace the long-time chief, who was not considered for the post.
Firefighters in the commuunity eight kilometers north of Fort St. John say they don't know or trust their new chief, a paid full-time staff member, or the recently hired assistant fire chief, who also receives a salary.
Officials with the regional district hope the dispute can be resolved but in the meantime, fire crews from Fort St. John or Taylor, about 25 kilometers further south, will respond to major incidents in Charlie Lake.
The regional district is also launching a recruitment drive in hopes of attracting new volunteer to the fire department.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Bob Callahan on
-
Agree that the report didn't give a tremendous amount of information, but it did seem to indicate that there was friction between the District, and the "Society", which I took as the department, especially regarding the fact that they wanted to add some full-time day staff and couldn't get the district to go along.
I will say though that 3-4 full-time day personnel does seem pretty steep, in terms of cost, for a department running 50-60 runs per year.
As far as contacting the local businesses, I have heard of that before and it has been fairly effective in many areas. The fact that they run so few calls could easily make such a program work if they could get the businesses to buy in.
I do agree that there should likely not have been an expectation of the volunteers remaining on once the contract ended and the district assumed much fuller control of tghe department's operations.It seems to me, once again, that this is another example of the on-going communications issues between the diatrict and the department that were highlighted in the report as one of the major problems in the relationship.
I agree that this does seem to be ac ase of the district not communicating with the volunteers and identifying and addressing thier needs and concerns to keep them on-board. And yes, volunteers, as compared to career staff, do respond to a different set of motivations to stay on-board, and sometimes it can be difficult for career people to identify with and address those motivations. There are many good VFDs and combo departments that have recognized that, and mainatain solid membership levels because they address it, and many other that fail to, and have membership issues because they don't.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
Included within the report was a recommendation that:
The Regional District build a training facility closer to or within the Charlie Lake area, to facilitate training.
An hourly rate increase be enacted to further compensate the daytime members who may lose wages to respond. CLVFD is a POC and the pay is $10/hr.
Local employers be contacted and worked with to develop a release program so that employees/members could respond and not lose wages. This could be done on a rotating basis within a particular business so that an individual may only leave work 4-5 times per year.
Training be increased to meet NFPA 1001 Standards.
It seems to me that the recommendations (and present conditions) are (and would be) more than amenable to the members. I'm failing to see where or how the RD has failed the members, other than that, at the REQUEST of the CLVFD and Fire Protection Society, control has been turned over to the RD (and their Chief was not hired).
I'm still getting the strong whiff of sour grapes. Other than returning to the way it was I suspect none of the members would be happy. Walking off the job, en masse as a form of protest is not acceptable.
-
-
Here is a little more background from march 2011 on the transistion to the PRFD taking over direct control of the department:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 14, 2011 – On February 3, 2011 the Charlie
Lake/Grandhaven Fire Protection Society hosted a public meeting at the Pomeroy Hotel in
Fort St John. At this meeting the residents of Charlie Lake and Grandhaven who were in
attendance expressed their appreciation to the Charlie Lake Volunteer Fire Department and
the service they provide to the public. It was made clear that residents support the
continuation of the existing fire protection in their community.
Residents also expressed their desire for the Peace River Regional District to directly manage
the delivery of fire protection service in order to have direct public accountability. Since the
fire service was first established in 1981 the Peace River Regional District has contracted the
service, first to the Charlie Lake Community Club and then in 1994 to the Charlie
Lake/Grandhaven Fire Protection Society to deliver fire protection service to the residents of
Charlie Lake and Grandhaven. Currently the Charlie Lake/Grandhaven Fire Protection Society
manages the fire service delivered by the Charlie Lake Volunteer Fire Department.
On February 24, 2011 Charlie Lake/Grandhaven Fire Protection Society, President, Mr. Doug
Allen and Charlie Lake Fire Department Fire Chief, Mr. Alan Pinkerton, presented to the
Peace River Regional District Board of Directors their 2011 operating budget. The Board
resolved to refer the Society’s fire service budget as presented to budget discussions on
March 10, 2011.
On March 10, 2011 the Board of Directors reviewed the 2011 Annual Financial Plan for the
Regional District which included the budget for the Charlie Lake fire protection service. The
budget that was presented by the Charlie Lake/Grandhaven Fire Protection Society was given
First Reading as a component of the PRRD 2011 Annual Financial Plan. The 2011 Annual
Financial Plan will now be considered for adoption on March 24, 2011 at the Peace River
Regional District Board meeting.
At the February 24, 2011 Board meeting Mr. Allen, on behalf of the Charlie Lake/Grandhaven
Fire Protection Society, also requested that the Peace River Regional District take over the
management of the fire service. The Electoral Area Directors representing the fire service
area also asked the Board to consider taking over the direct management of the service.The Peace River Regional District Board of Directors resolved:
a) “THAT the Regional Board give notice to the Charlie Lake/Grandhaven Fire Protection
Society (the service provider), as per the Charlie Lake Fire Agreement, that the
Regional District no longer wishes to contract with the Society to administer the
service, and
b) THAT staff be directed to prepare a board report with recommendations on how this
service can be continued.”
As stated the fire service is administered under contract and in order for the Regional District
to take over management of the service, notice to terminate the contract must be given to
the Society in order to give the Society an opportunity to wind down its business affairs.
Notice has been given to the Society that the Regional District will no longer contract with
the Society to deliver the fire service past March 31, 2012. Over the coming months Regional
District staff will be identifying and examining a variety of options on how the Charlie Lake
fire protection service can be managed effectively and efficiently. The fire department
volunteers will continue to be a key component in delivering the fire service, the change will
be in the administration and management of the fire service and not the delivery of the
service.
The Regional District would like to thank the Charlie Lake/Grandhaven Fire Protection Society
for its years of dedication and service in administering the Charlie Lake fire protection
service. It is the Regional District’s sincere wish to continue to work with the Society over the
next year to implement and transition to a new service delivery model that works for the
citizens of the Charlie Lake fire protection area.-End-
I would be willing to bet that part of the problem was a minimum of communication between the district and the members as to exactly what was going to happen in terms of administration once the transistion took place, given the history of poor communications as identified in the earlier linked report. If the district didn't make it clear that they wanted to pursue a change in department administration before the transistion date, I can fully understand why the members were upset. Call it sour grapes if you want, but to yank the Chief without a fair amount of discussion with the members, if that was the case as it appears, to me is unreasonable.
Again, I'm sure there is a lot more to this story, possibly on both sides.
-
Permalink Reply by Derek J Sinesi on
-
Sounds like they all got there panties in a knot. I would think if you were going to hand over your control to someone else you would ask what they would do differently then you were doing them. So i'm not really sure who is at fault here but sounds to be the Society just because apparently they did not ask any questions on How or What the District was going to do. I know as President of a Fireman's association if people don't ask what i'm up to then some get a surprise at our meetings because i don't call everyone first. I have a job to do and i get it done. I have to agree with Jack/dt here sounds like sour grape's.
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
You seem to see no value in exterior personnel, while I do
You're right, I don't see value in such personnel who will limit themselves.Sure all your excuses for using such people may appear logical, yet when condoning such "operations" a dept severly limits itself. I am speaking of in terms when the shit hits the fan, having a limited handful of people to operate inside and limited handful outside, if something goes wrong it is a serious predicament to place people. Any FF should be able to go in an operate. If you have 10 people show up and only 4 are "interior" you are severly limiting what can be done as well as placing those people in a bad predicament.
Yes, I do know of such places that operate like this and have had some personal experiences which reinforces my convictions as to why allowing such operation should not be condoned. The fireground, if anything, is unpredictable and those operating on it should be ready to do any job asked....especially if having to go in.
So basic training requirements do vary and are certainly far from uniform, and do require differing levels of commitment.
And there in lies the crux of the issues myself and others do have, the defense of subpar standards. Basic firefighter certifications are by no means stringent nor difficult, hence the term basic, yet we see many people without even that. Asking to keep up on basic standards is not and should not be difficult to do.
In the VFD, if you start bringing outside personnel in instead of promoting from within, you may very well cause people to quit as you are, like it or not sending the message that you don't feel the current members are qualified enough to step up in rank and run the department
And that can quite be the reality, that one really is not qualified enough to run the dept or hold the rank they may want. Why should the community have to suffer because a person does not have the qualifications necessary just because we want to coddle some vollies who will leave if they don't get their way? Bucking for promotion should be about the person most qualified, most experience and most ready to hold the rank....not because of some popularity vote. If that means you need to bring in someone from the outside because no one is qualified internally, then so be it. If that is going to be the reason for one to leave, then by all means leave....it just goes to show what kind of professionalism they have. Whereas a true professional will look at what they have and strive to obtain the rank which they may want....so along with seeing no value in exterior personnel, I also see no value in a voting system for rank.
I disagree that career personnel, especially those with no volunteer background prior to being hired, can have unfair expecatations of volunteers in a combo organization
Why, how? Should not another firefighter expect the firefighter working beside them is capable of doing the same job? How is that an unfair expectation? Is it an unfair expectation for me, a career FF, who may run MA to a volly area or a volly dept coming MA to the city be able to do the job? Your damn right I expect the next FF to be able to do the same damn job as me. If our resources are expended and we have to call on volunteers for MA, I would damn well expect them to be able to do any fireground task...including going interior. Why should I have to settle for someone who is exterior only because their dept just "takes what they can get"?
Yet, while you may be defending the vollies, what about the career folks on such depts as well? I've experienced plenty of times the griping and grumbling of vollies against the career personnel and why they don't have to come to all trainings and so forth. Yet, how many vollies grumbling truly understand the labor laws and regulations governing FT personnel? So really the issues can go back and forth within a combo dept. I'm not saying either is right, but there should be a very basic expectation that any FF, career or volly, is capable of doing the same job.
While I am all for reasonable training standards for volunteers based primarily on the area they serve, as compared to national standards
Why? What is contained within national standards that is so damn difficult for any FF to do? Nothing. They are national standards because any FF should be able to meet them regardless of the area in which they serve.
you will have no idea of the sacrifice required to train on your own time in addtion to a full-time job.
Sure, hence the reason there is a disparity today. Yes there are more standards and minimum requirements to do the job, but that is also because of the changes within the service. Yes, attending training, making calls, and other requirements asked can tax a responder, but then again what is the alternative? Maintain a good ol boys club, no regard for standards or quals, and be a liability to the community as opposed to a resource? Sure there is a sacrifice to do the job, but then again how often do we see folks saying "We all do the same job"....if that was true, you wouldn't be defending differing standards would you?
Your decsions are based on your experiences, and if you have only spent time in the career world, or primarily in the career world, the way you look at training demands will be shaped by that experience
True, decisions should be based on experiences, yet the decisions that matter are going to come down to the fireground. Every decision made from training standards, equipment, funding, and so forth comes down to the fireground. It doesn't matter who you have for FFs, it is the decision to have them all ready to do the same job so they can perform when they are needed. Really it is no damn different than the military. A General is not going to give a damn if you are career military or a reservist, you are expected to do the same job........doesn't get any more simpler than that.
-
-
Bob,
You may have conformational bias. You keep saying, and keep seeing that the issue was a lack of communication. Yes, it was ONE issue, mostly on the part of the Society (as they claim). But my interpretation is slightly different., it wasn't that they weren't being told anything so much as the Society just didn't want to hear. There MUST be a reason that the CLVFD AND the Society went to the Regional District and asked them to take over. That seems significant to me.
"If the district didn't make it clear that they wanted to pursue a change in department administration before the transistion date, I can fully understand why the members were upset."
The report you keyed us to was dated August, 2011, eights months ago. Since the District was asked to come and take over by the Society it boggles the mind to assume that the members knew nothing about this. Furthermore, as the District is taking over management of Fire Protection services (and the manage a number of other fire department/areas) it only stands to reason that they want to bring in their OWN choice. The CLVFD has no leg to stand on demanding or expecting that, essentially the new owners would keep the same management.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
"There should not be these "exceptions" of members like "exterior only" or just a driver and so forth."
Gotta disagree with you there, brother. There are a bunch of problems with that statement. For starters, the standards for a CDL (or in some states, a Class E Emergency Operators license) don't require the same level of medical clearance as a NFPA 1582 physical for interior firefighter does. If a volly department is short on experienced, mature, safe drivers, recruiting some "driver only" status folks makes sense. It also costs a lot less per year, due to the difference in the required physicals.
Ditto for "Exterior Firefighter". If you are in a state where you can have 40-mile runs in your first due, you may as well plan on those fires being defensive, at best. For example, there are places in Montana with VFDs that have a basic strategy of having their 100% fully involved ranch house fires kept to the building of origin instead of being the cause of a 10,000-acre range fire. The residents should expect exactly what they pay for - and if they're not willing to pay for what it costs to have 24/7/265 coverage with short response times that generally beat flashover, then they've told the fire department that they're OK with what they get.
In that case, who are we to argue with them?
-
-
I'm not necessarily agreeing with your labels, but for starters, can you explain the difference between vollies that quit because their department didn't keep them happy and those that quit over "sour grapes"?
-
-
Ben,
Anyone can walk away for any number of reasons, disgruntled, pass over, bored, etc. For an entire (or most of a) department to walk off suggests to me that it was a stunt to protest...no sweet hires for 3 members, no sweet deal for the prevailing chief, lost of a collective identity/independence. Let's not quibble Ben, we both know what's meant by sour grapes. Hurt feelings, stepped on toes, whatever you (generic you) want to call it, I'm referencing a group of people who walked out because (IMO) they didn't get what they wanted in a situation where there was nothing to be given. Their department's control was being taken out of their hands. Apparently (again, IMO) that control was more important to them than the job they signed on to do.
-
-
...all of which are the same thing as the department not keeping them happy.
They signed on to do the job for a department that no longer exists, so no one should be surprised if they exercise their freedom to vote with their feet. It's their right to stop volunteering whenever they want, for whatever reason they want.
Thus my point about keeping volunteers happy. If the department doesn't have to keep the vollies happy in order to keep them, then that department isn't a volly department, it's simply slave ownership.
-
-
You very well may be right, but anytime there is a change in leadership, even if the new leader is brought up from within the ranks of the organization, there will be people that pull back or leave.
if the leader is brought in from outside, generally more people will leave. It's just the nature of change.
I have no idea how this change was announced by the district as how it is done can have a great affect on the result of the change. if it was handled in a gradual way, potentially with some input by the volunteers, the walkout may not have occurred. It may very well have happened that way and the walkout occurred anyway. We simply don't know. But to say that the members had no justification for leaving isn't fair either, as we know very little of the specifics of the events up there and none of personalities involved.
-
-
I can see the point with the driver aspect, I don't agree with it, but can see the point and buy that.
I don't see it with the exterior only aspect. In the situation presented, I sure would hope that an offensive strategy would not even be in the picture and that all you have is to keep the fire from turning into a wildfire. However, that doesn't mean that the personnel should not be trained and qualified to go inside if the circumstances are presented. It is one thing with long response times and limited resources that a citizen may choose by opting where they live......it is another thing to "take what you can get" as a dept and allow members to dictate they will be exterior only. I see no defensible reasoning for advocating as such.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
