Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on April 10, 2012 at 10:16pm

If the vollies lose local control and don't trust the new chief/asst. chief, then maybe their priorities are their own self-determination and/or their own safety.

 

Once again, if you depend on volunteers, then you have to keep them happy and secure in order to keep them there.

 

It's basic Maslow Heirarchy of Needs stuff.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on April 10, 2012 at 10:23pm

Thanks, brother. 

 

Most of our disagreements stem from simply having to do things different ways due to differences in building construction, manpower, station density, and the strategy and tactical differences those things cause. 

 

On the other hand, I don't tell you how I think your department should do things - you guys seem to do pretty well, despite the merry-go-round in the fire chief's office.  I just question assumptions and conventional thinking - as some crusty old-school chiefs taught me to do earlier in my career.

 

I have a lot of respect for anyone that works for DCFD - you guys NEVER have it easy.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bob Callahan on April 11, 2012 at 11:52am

So if your department is absorbed into a alrger district, which seems to be the case here, and as it seems, the members were not in favor of the move, even though they are volunteers, they should just suck it up and stay?

 

If they have new, completly unfamiliar leadership at the department apprently forced upon them by the new district, they once again, should suck it up and stay "for the good of the community"?

 

Answer to both is a "no".

 

As employees, they have the right to walk if they feel that as a department they are being treated wrongly or if new leaders are thrust upon them by a force outside of the department. Obviously, when you are not being paid and firefighting isn't putting food on the table, it's much easier to walkt, but sorry, they absolutly have that right .Last I knew volunteers or career members were not slaves and had the right to walk if they felt that the leadership wasn't treating them right or was putting them in an unsafe position. I am sure for them it was avery hard thing to do, so there must be some serious issues at play well behind the issue of the 2 new paid Chiefs.

 

Again, from the sound of the second article, I think the true beef is with the district. We have really no information on how big the district is, the department's relationship with and within the district,  how the district is run, who runs it, how friendly or hostile the apparent takeover was and exactly what the district is demanding or doing to make the volunteers so angry besides the issues of the Chiefs.

 

They obviously ahve enough power to replace the Chief of a department within the district so I'm betting that the department has lost a lot of the autonomy, which may very well be at the heart of the problems.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on April 11, 2012 at 12:36pm

I disagree,

 

While yes, they do have a right to walk away, but for the reasons you list really are not sound reasons for doing so. There are plenty of depts out there where leadership can come in from the outside, so that in itself is not a valid reason for walking, as it is moreso the loss of a fifedom. If you truly did care about the community, as so many like to say, then sticking around and helping to enable change and being a local "expert" has a place as opposed to just walking away.

 

Being absorbed into a larger district is also something that is not new and once again, walking seems to show a loss of a fifedom as opposed looking at the bigger picture. The fire service has changed and the costs incurred (even for volly depts) has gone up, so it beckons to understand that changes need to be made. Just because a dept is to be absorbed into a larger district with a single admin etc is a cost savings move as well as sharing resources etc. While it may not always be the best option, nor one people would like, it also doesn't pose a very valid excuse for just walking away either.

 

Now true, FFs are not slaves (despite how outsiders view them as with "I pay your salary" stuff) and do have a right to walk away, the issue of getting what you pay for does come into play as well. Being a volunteer dept, it does make it easier to take the ball and go home as opposed to working with career personnel. Typically you would not see career folks walking under similar circumstances. So the original comment of "get what you pay for" does have a valid place. When there is such an exodus based on arbitrary circumstances as upset with who is named chief or being absorbed into a district, the validity of walking is easily questioned. If there was actual and documented reasons for opposing such moves like chief being unsafe etc, then there could be a case. However, this appears moreso as a relinquishing of a fifedom and control and giving up before even taking a chance on something new.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bob Callahan on April 11, 2012 at 1:08pm

First of all, we know basically nothing abiout this situation. The only information that we have are the two newspaper articles, and they offer nothing in terms of specifics.

 

We also know nothing about the department, the district, the volunteer-career composistion of the district both in terms of admin and line personnel or any of the details as to how the absorption can inot being.

 

I will not disagree that part of this may be an issue regarding loss of control. You use the word "fifedom", which to me , does mean the same thing. Yes, volunteers are used to being in control of THEIR organization and choosing THEIR leaders from within. I agree that leadership coming in from the outside is somewhat common in career and combo departments, but it is EXTREMLY rare in volunteer departments. I'm sure that a situation has never occurred to them before. Compound the issue with the fact that the 2 top leaders have zero time with the organization, and are now paid and sorry, you have complete a total justification for the volunteer members taking a walk if they choose to.

 

In terms of the issue of the district, I have seen firsthand more than one situation where a volunteer department has been absorbed into a district either staffed and lead primarily by career members or lead by career adminisratation where the volunteers were then treated like crap, and had a pile of expectations placed and them that they couldn not meet (which was the plan by the career staff in some cases). Again, we have zero information on the background that brought these members to this point, but, there are certainly circumstances that could very easily justify the actions of these volunteers. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bob Callahan on April 11, 2012 at 3:32pm

After that last post I did some research.

 

http://www.prrd.bc.ca/services/emergency/documents/MItchellAssocCLR... is the link to a report done in August 2011 on the Charlie Lake Fire Department.

 

Among other things it states that the contract was up in 2011 and at that point direct control of the department would go to the Peace River Fire District, interestingly enough, at the request of the department. The department was previously self-governed and funded through a contract (since 2005) by the PRFD to provide fire protection to their service area.

 

The total volume of the department is 50 calls per year.

 

They have had a full-time Chief since 2005. Apprently in 2011, both the Chief and the Society approached the district about taking more control over the department and as a result the district agreed to terminate the contract with the department and take over the direct control of the department.

 

The report seems to indicate that the department is a fairly well equipped, well run, competent VFD with some daytime response issues and generally overal good, but not exceptional training.

 

The two major issues regarding district-department relations in the report are overall communications and expectations, as there are times that the district has felt the department has not meet some expexctations and there have been times that the districtrict has not supported the department on some issues such as a new water line to the fire station. The other major issue that seems to come up in the report is thae fact that the department has since 2006 attempted to add one full-time daytime firefighter a year during a 3-year period (for a total of 3) and the district refused to provide the budget through increasing the contract for that. 

 

Again, this report is quite clinical but does provide some insight into what seems to be happening.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Patti Walz on April 11, 2012 at 3:35pm

Nice research!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Oldman on April 11, 2012 at 5:18pm

Kinda helps put things in a different prospective.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on April 11, 2012 at 11:55pm

The report is a fairly standard consultant analysis, but it begs more questions than it answers...

 

Who is "the department"?  Apparently, it's not the bulk of the members.

 

Ifthe contract with the previous department was ended, then why would the new department should have no expectation that the previous department's members would automatically continue to volunteer, particularly when there was no apparent agreement between the new department and the volunteers?

 

If the district isn't completely happy with the previous department and the volunteers felt as if they weren't supported on things that would help them meet expectations during the day when virtually every volly department has reduced manpower availability, why should the district have the expectation that the volunteers would continue just because their leadership changed and some other agency gained control.

 

It is also was interesting that the consultant recommendations essentially include recruiting local businesses to essentially subsidize the department by allowing their employees to leave work to function as firefighters on a random basis, and that the old department's volunteers had been unhappy with the district for quite a while.

 

I repeat my earlier statement - the only way to keep a solid group of vollies is to keep them happy.  In this case, it appears that did not happen.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on April 12, 2012 at 1:24am

I'm only addressing the comments here and not the situation of this particular dept.

 

Yes, volunteers are used to being in control of THEIR organization and choosing THEIR leaders from within. I agree that leadership coming in from the outside is somewhat common in career and combo departments, but it is EXTREMLY rare in volunteer departments

 

A "real" professional is one who is going to be able to work with the challenges presented to them. Now perhaps my view is a bit biased from personal experiences and knowledge of similar situations, but I have seen several volly depts that had outside leadership come into the dept and they got along fine. Yes change can be difficult and may not go as one expects, but I see absolutely no professionalism of FFs who walk out just because outside leadership comes in. It shouldn't matter if the outside leaders have any time in the organization, what should matter is if they are qualified and able to perform the job. As for being paid for the services....well damn right they should be paid, the job duties of such a chief officer do tend to go beyond the realm of just a regular FF. Justification to walk....sorry, not seeing it.

 

In terms of the issue of the district, I have seen firsthand more than one situation where a volunteer department has been absorbed into a district either staffed and lead primarily by career members or lead by career adminisratation where the volunteers were then treated like crap, and had a pile of expectations placed and them that they couldn not meet (which was the plan by the career staff in some cases)

 

Pile of expectations placed on them that they couldn't meet? Like what, basic qualifications of the job and showing up routinely  (not once in a blue moon) for training? Face it the fire service has changed and become more technical and there are more qualifications and training necessary to do the job. Sorry, once again I do not see a valid argument with this point....any FF should be able to do the job asked of them.

 

There should not be these "exceptions" of members like "exterior only" or just a driver and so forth. Realistically the educational, the technical, and qualifications for the job has changed where it does take dedication to do the job. Furthermore, the challenges faced by volunteers are the same challenges faced in career depts. Now start to couple the realities of lightweight construction, an aging population, increased demand for service.....yet at the same time less jobs within the community where vollies could easily respond, or just the difficulties of sporadic responses makes for a compound decision to be made.

 

This is why you do see more FT FFs out there because those burbs with a once all volly crew are now combination or gone career. Typically not because of the "conspiracy" to get rid of vollies, but due to increased demands of both call volume and job requirements. Once again come down to "get what you pay for" why should residents expect sporadic or shoddy service because of less FFs able to respond during certain times of the day...or worse, "exterior only" folks showing up when their neighboring community has FT FFs able to provide quicker service with qualified personnel? Yep, comes down to what they wish to pay....some folks want to pay less for services (yet many expect so much more) as opposed to those who choose to live somewhere with better service, yet pay more for it.

 

As for vollies being treated like crap, yes sometimes this happens and it is a shame and no excuse for such behavior.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bob Callahan on April 12, 2012 at 9:29am

There are several things that we do disagree on, but that's cool.

 

You seem to see no value in exterior personnel, while I do. While they cannot or choose not to go interior, they do free up interior personnel in volunteer departments with a limited pool of potential volunteers who are physically capable of interior operations to actually work interior, and not have to throw ladders or sit at a pump panel. It's the same with folks that simply may want to drive and pump apparatus, especially in the case of older members who have done thier time as interior personnel. I have no idea of your background, so maybe you haven't worked in situations where exterior, support and driver-only personnel have been used, and as I said, that's cool, but having volunteered for several VFDs and now worked full-time in a combo department that use them, I can say, from personal experience, that it is very effective in terms of fireground operations. 

 

And yes, I agree that firefighting has changed dramatically over the years, and have experienced those changes. That being said, what a firefighter needs to operate an his/her district varies dramatically from place to place. As an example, as a volunteer in my previous VFD, we covered 20-25 3-5 story hotels, hospiatls, office buildings and college dorm, and had AMA responsibilities into an small city with an equal number of such buildings. Obviously, we needed to be trained to operate in those structures. Most of these structures, in addition to many single story structures including several very large factories, warehouses and retail structures, also had standpipe and sprinkler systems, so our pump operators had to be trained to effectivly pump these systems as well. In my current department, we have no such multiple story commercial structures in the district and only have 2 buildings with sprinkler systems, However, we have a refinary and gas/oil pads, which require a very different skill set from my previous department including some very complex foam operations.

 

To take it even further, does my small community VFD require the same skill set as my combo full-time job? No, and yes, are training requirements reflect that and are less strenous than what we have here for the volunteers at my full-time gig.

 

So basic training requirements do vary and are certainly far from uniform, and do require differing levels of commitment. 

 

As far as outside folks coming in and running VFDs, I have an issue with that in terms of keeping members motivated for promotion and advancement. Like it or not, the VFD is a very different place than the career department where folks are motivated by the fact that they are there, in part, because the job is putting food and in the table and gas in the car, and if they get passed over because a new Chief is brought in from the outside, while they may not like it, they likely will stay as the job pays the bills.

 

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. That message can and likely will have pretty significant effect on morale, especially with the current officer staff.

 

One final note is that 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. While I am all for reasonable training standards for volunteers based primarily on the area they serve, as compared to national standards, if all you have experienced are significantly higher training standards acheived while on the clock at the academy or at the station (or on-days off on overtime), you will have no idea of the sacrifice required to train on your own time in addtion to a full-time job. Often career administration do bring with them a training expecatation that is unreasonable for volunteers, either in terms of qualification levels or the time frame given to reach those levels, when volunteers are absorbed into a combination organization administered by career personnel, especially once again if they posses no volunteer background. 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.

 

Yes, there are places that are going full-time because either the volunteers are not longer available in enough numbers of the community's buildings have gotten larger and more complex, and very well may require more training to operate in than what can be reasonably expected of volunteers. If the community is willing to pony up for more FT staff, that's great, but in many places that's not the case and those departments still require volunteers to supplement paid staff. In those departments, admin must be very aware of what they reasonably acan require of volunteers. In many cases, the expecatations go beyond what would be considered reasonable.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on April 12, 2012 at 10:12am

The report was prepared to determine the overall strengths and weakness of the Charlie Lake VFD (the 'Department') and Charlie Lake/Grandhaven Fire Protection Society (the 'Society'), in ADVANCE of its being taken over by the Peace River Regional District (the 'RD'). The report, dated August 2011 indicates the date of takeover as April 1, 2012.

No major issues were discovered in terms of missing or misused funds, the department's records (specifically training records) were mostly handwritten, didn't conform to any standard format and made it difficult to trace any one person's training records.

One issue of concern was daytime availability of members, which further into the report seems to be contradicted by records that show a rather decent response level.  The CLVFD averages 50 calls per year (57 for year 2010) but responds to 8-9 structure fires per year.  They don't do MVA, EMS or HazMat.

There appears to be some issue (and it gets rather confusing here) with members of a committee that is supposed to oversee the  budget, equipment etc whose members either come from the VFD or, once on the committee become members of the VFD.  There is also a bylaw of the CLVFD that requires anyone wanting to become a member of the CLVFD to already be, or training to become, a volunteer firefighter, which led some to conclude that CLVFD was a 'closed society.'

There have been issues between the Charlie Lake F.P. Society and the Regional District.  the RD claiming that the Society is unable to provide adequate daytime responses (mostly) with the Society claiming that the RD doesn't communicate with them. The Department/Society wanted to hire one full-time paid FF each year for three years to have a paid, 3-man daytime crew, along with the paid Chief.  The RD considered and then denied the request (really, 4 paid FFs for 50 calls per year?)  Instead the RD agreed to pay for an Assistant Chief's position. [One issue was that the existing Chief (the one that was NOT hired) had a difficult time (read - refused) to delegate any tasks and so was overwhelmed with the responsibilities inherent in the position.)

It's all really a confusing mess up there.  In any event the Department and the Society approached the RD and asked the RD to take over.  I'm assuming this means the previous Chief (2005-2012) and members of the Society.  The members of the Department were all aware that this change was going to take place in April and that control of the Department/Society would be in the hands of the Regional District..

[Financially, the budget was increased by $180,000 per year to pay for both Chief slots.  Annual budget was around $300,000/yr prior to the increase.  The Department/Society requested budget increase for capitol expenses/reserves that would have made the budget over $700,000/year.  Hard to imagine needing that kind of money for one fire station, only two Line engines and 50 calls per year.]

I didn't go over the report with a fine toothed comb (others here may) but I really can't see anything that would have driven the members to quit en masse other than that:

they (the members) felt that they were losing their independence and identity;

they didn't get approval for 3 paid FFs;

the previous Chief was not hired.

Since the Regional District was taking over (and now is in) control, they have the right to hire a Chief as they see fit.  The new Chief was an assistant Chief elsewhere so it's not like he lacks experience.

This still seems like sour grapes on the part of the membership who may resent being handed over to the PRFD, loss of 3 potential full time FF jobs and a member/Chief not hired in the handover.

If the membership did indeed walkout because of the takeover and the 'unknown' Chief(s) it doesn't appear to me to be a failure of keeping everyone happy but more a case of sour grapes.  The RD has the right to hire whomever they choose (and hopefully, the best for the job.)  Walking out because the Chief is unknown and the members feel they can't 'trust' him is absurd. [For FF training the Province utilizes NFPA 1001.  One of the appendixes seems to show no record that anyone met NFPA 1001 Standards for FFl, so it may be that the entire department is 'exterior' only.  If this is true, how competent does any Chief need to be to IC a strictly defensive operation?]  It appears to me that the concerns of an unknown Chief is being used as a reason for the walkout when in reality it may have more to do with the takeover by the RD, loss of their fiefdom and former independence. [The CLVVD, formed in 1991 was overseen by a local community board.  Apparently the CLVFD wasn't happy with the way the Board (community) was governing them so they formed the Fire Protection Society which took oversight from the community and gave it to the Society.]

If anyone else wants to have a go at the Report and finds I'm partially or totally incorrect I'll be happy to stand corrected but overall, it still looks like a case of sour grapes and a complete disregard for the community (in which all the members live).  The takeover is a done deal and the members have to learn to live with it.  Any change (or betterment to the members) would have to be made from within the Department.  Abandoning it is irresponsible and shows that the mentality is less about serving the community and more about serving themselves.  In my opinion anyway.

Down here at least, in most career departments it is contractually forbidden (and in some cases, against the law) for a local to walkout on strike as part of/or a tactic for negotiating a contract.  There is a reason for this: Community Fire Protection.  How many career departments have worked for a number of years without a contract?  So in essence, the members of the Charlie Lake FPS effected a walkout as a tactic to (or attempt to) negotiate terms.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

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