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 John Crabbe on
-
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."If taking a look at the statement the IAFF isn't bashing the firefighters here, but instead the policy in place forcing such actions (or non-actions) to take place. Once again the media here has placed a focus not on policy but on the IAFF against the FFs here, which I don't see is the case. The IAFF is against such subscription policies and it is because of the subscription, and lack thereof, that snowballed this event to occur.
In short, the IAFF is condemning such policies rather than the FF's themselves. After all the FF's were following orders of those in charge. The IAFF doesn't tell how to run a dept, but does advise against such policies like subscriptions. If one looks into this, past the headline and first sentence, the issue isn't about the FF's response, but against such policies in the first place. Because of such policy, the FF's had no duty to act and followed orders....they were placed in a bad situation because of political policy and THAT is what the IAFF is talking about.
-
-
The IAFF should be the last people throwing rocks. They don't even support merit based testing systems in career fire departments. Ask the IAFF why they refused provide an amicus brief in the New Haven 20 lawsuit. Shame on you IAFF--get your own ducks in a row before you start casting stones.
Greg, the IAFF is condemning the policy of subscriptions, forcing such issues as seen here to occur, not the FFs. It was because of the subscription policy, that FFs followed the orders tey were given, whereas that wouldn't have been the case if this was a tax based system of providing fire services.
As for merit testing and the New Haven case, the issue there is that there are many different ways of promotions by many different IAFF member departments. The IAFF really can't, nor should it make a recommendation on which promotion system should be done. Promotions are something negotiated between individual locals and individual management. As such where I'm from we use a straight seniority based system....no testing involved....should the IAFF support that over merit based testing?
-
Permalink Reply by John on
-
True but once they showed up on scene they had a moral, ethical and professional duty to act. Yes the county needs to develop a fire tax that all county residents pay to provide a legitimate fire protection.
-
Permalink Reply by Herb Genelly III on
-
Wow Tommy...you're a lawyer too...LOL Is that another one of your FACTS bud? Or are you taking the Moral high ground and stating what shouldn't be able to happen?
If the homeowner can prove exceptions were made in the past, you can bet a lawsuit will be filed. In fact, it's been alleged that that very thing has happened on 4 occasions, with the last as recent as 12/09. Rules are one thing, setting a president is another. Hopefully, the courts will decide.
BTW...Did you listen to the Podcast on this subject?
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
LOL On the one hand you mock/accuse Tommy of being a lawyer then you yourself jump right in and start to make your own legal conclusions. LOL what an ass.
And for god's sake, it's spelled PRECEDENT, NOT PRESIDENT. That (consistent) error alone is enough to completely deflate your argument. Cripes, get a clue.
-
-
Jack...Jack...Jack.........Your ignorance is only surpassed by your stupidity. I didn't make a legal CONCLUSION. I said that if it's proved that an EXCEPTION was made, a lawsuit would soon follow. That's a PREDICTION you dummy.
And for God's sake, God is CAPITALIZED...LMAO. And why use a euphemism you big chicken!
-
-
You and your silly arguments. You stick by your rules and be right. Isn't that the same logic used by police officers prior to Civil Right Laws?
The Podcast was on the Firefighter Network, with folks from this site. You missed an education via enlightenment. Bet you just waiting for me to respond...LOL
-
Permalink Reply by Eric Henderson on
-
unfortunately, the county offered this, and the homeowners turned it down. In a democratic society, the homeowners get to choose what they get taxed for and what services they recieve from their government in return for those taxes, and they opted NOT to pay for fire protection. I find it impossible to comprehend how anyone could think that they don't need fire protection, but apparently these folks did.
-
-
Except the IAFF statement entirely misses the point. It's not the south fulton policy that's the issue here, it's the obion county policy. Obion county only pays the south fulton fire department to protect those homeowners which pay the fee. Obion county needs to require all homeowners to pay for fire protection services so that the fire department can have adequate funding to provide the necessary services to all residents of Obion county. Until that is done, the residents in Obion county have every right to turn down fire protection services and suffer the consequences if their home catches on fire.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
Why should the taxpayers of that small, rural county be forced to pay a much higher tax rate just so they can have a system like the one you are used to?
The Obion County taxpayers CHOSE to have the system they have. One person tried to game the system and lost due to his bad decision. That isn't his neighbors fault, and they don't deserve to have higher taxes crammed down their throats just because ONE of their neighbors made a bad decision.
-
-
Mario, that's not accurate.
Newspapers have subscription fees for providing the news.
Some EMS systems operate on a subscription basis.
So do cable TV companies.
So do telephone companies.
So do local internet providers.
So do a variety of trade magazines, including fire/rescue and EMS magazines.
Subscriptions are not mandatory, they're a choice. No one makes you buy an internet provider subscritption, and no one makes you NOT buy it. The same goes for homeowners in the part of Obiona County that don't have their own fire department. They have the choice to subscribe to South Fulton's service or NOT.
This homeowner chose to NOT buy the subscription, which means that South Fulton was NOT obligated to provide him with service. They WERE obligated to the neighbor with the subscription, and that's exactly what they did.
And Mario, politicians get elected primarily to make money decisions, so your comment about the difference really has no meaning.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
