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 Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on
-
You got it, Eric, but guess what?
Obion County is getting ready to vote...wait for it...
for a COUNTY WIDE SUBSCRIPTION FEE PROGRAM.
Even though there is a plan already done to establish a tax system for fire protection.
-
Permalink Reply by Mario Campos on
-
I agree with everything you said about companies, providers and newspapers. Except that these examples are not emergency services providers. Subrciption fees for emergency service should be illegal. The county and the city entered into a contractual agreement or memorandum of uderstanding, that is why this fee should be mandatory. If the arrangement would have been bewtween the home owner and the fire agency it might of been easier to justify. Secondly, the obligation of what was right changed the minute they arrrived on scene. If they would have not reponded at all, this might be all be mute. The diffrence is they responded and arrived onscene. Once we arrive at that point it's about what is right and not subcriptions. If the firefighters of South Foulton would have been allowed to do what I know inherently they wanted to do and some bueacrat tried to fire them for it the IAFF would now be saying Rock On Brother we comming to your aid just like you did. Right now all thier saying is Come on Brothers..
-
Permalink Reply by Todd on
-
As has been covered in several articles and numerous posts on this topic the South Fulton FD has a policy in place where if there is a life safety issue they respond and mitigate the life safety issue.
-
Permalink Reply by Vic Silverfish on
-
Well, Russ, that depends. Does the Fire Chief write the city budget or does the mayor? Does the Mayor answer to the fire chief, or vice versa? I would argue that when the mayor sets a policy for the use of city assets, the users of those assets are obligated to follow them.
Stalin? (note the one "L") Really? You are saying a community that decides to hold people accountable for their actions and asking people to pay their share is the moral equivalent to killing at least 10 million of your own citizens and having the state own all industry and property. OK, thanks for that.
-
Permalink Reply by Eric Henderson on
-
And the IAFF just sits by and watches while the county allows it's residents to opt out of fire protection while criticizing the South Fulton fire department for trying to provide coverage to as many out-of-district residents as they can.
For all I care the people of Obion County can vote down fire protection as much as they want, just so long as they don't go crying about it when they don't have fire protection they voted to say they didn't want.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
Herb,
How did miss this one wear you show your true colors, that of an egotist. And now you're taking personal pot shots at me, I don't believe I've insulted you. I guess when people disagree with you (and then show where you were wrong) your recourse is to call them names. Pfft...what a dooty head.
By the way, when you said "If the homeowner can prove exceptions were made in the past, you can bet a lawsuit will be filed." Prediction or not, it sounded a lot like someone who thinks they know the law.
And as for me being a "dummy", you've used the word president where you meant precedent at least twice. Now really, who's the dummy here?
-
Permalink Reply by M.J. 6821 on
-
I have to say since he is not a subscriber to South Fulton then technically not in their district how could South Fulton cancel the response of all the other departments that were called something just does not sound right with that aspect. And if your wondering where I got that other departments were called I listened to the audio that they released.
-
Permalink Reply by Herb Genelly III on
-
Oh Jack... You pored it on by calling me an ASS...then get all sensitive on me. Oh..Herb is an Egotist....ouch! I made my prediction, and it was brought up at the news conference (about an exception), and you gotta know where that's going Jack.
How many Lawyers do you think have called that homeowner Jack, after watching what's happened on T.V.? Boy, ...if they only dumped some water on that home......I wouldn't be having fun jacking you up Jack....LOL
-
-
Ben - in this case "much higher tax rate" equals $50/year.
I'm with you that the homeowner got what he paid for, but let's keep in mind exactly what they have vs. what has been proposed and struck down. On a personal level, I hate the subscription system because it causes incidents like this one. Fortunately, in a democracy we get to elect the guys who make the decisions. They (the voters) made a choice, and the homeowner made another choice. With choice comes consequences.
-
-
what are you talking about? I've made about 50 comments in these threads, you'll need to be more specific!
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
Jack, once again, a pertinent and accurate analogy.
-
-
If a patient has a valid DNR that is not readily available, then shows up after a resuscitation is in place, the right thing to do is to continue working the code while one of the paramedics calls the medical control physician and explains the situation.
I've had this happen to me several times, and in each case the medical control physician told us to explain the situation to the family, stop the resuscitation, and pronounce the patient dead. We followed the physician's orders, because legally, ethically, and morally, it was the right thing to do.
If a patient wishes to avoid bankrupting his family and prolonging his pain when he has a terminal disease with no hope of long-term survival, then following the patient's wishes when the DNR paperwork is presented is clearly the right thing to do.
In my state, it is illegal to resusciate anyone who has a valid DNR as long as the DNR is presented to the responders so that they actually know about it.
It is a good system, it's an ethical system, and it works.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
