Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse

Firehouse.com Forum Rules & Guidelines

Forum Rules & Guidelines

Not Permitted or Tolerated:
• Advertising and/or links of commercial, for-profit websites, products, and/or services is not permitted. If you have a need to advertise on Firehouse.com please contact [email protected]
• Fighting/arguing
• Cyber-bullying
• Swearing
• Name-calling and/or personal attacks
• Spamming
• Typing in all CAPS
• “l33t speak” - Substituting characters for letters in an effort to represent a word or phrase. (example: M*****ive)
• Distribution of another person’s personal information, regardless of whether or not said information is public knowledge and whether or not an individual has permission to post said personal information
• Piracy advocation of any kind
• Racist, sexual, hate type defamatory, religious, political, or sexual commentary.
• Multiple forum accounts

Forum Posting Guidelines:

Posts must be on-topic, non-disruptive and relevant to the firefighting community. Post only in a mature and responsible way that contributes to the discussion at hand. Posting relevant information, helpful suggestions and/or constructive criticism is a great way to contribute to the community.

Post in the correct forum and have clear titles for your threads.

Please post in English or provide a translation.

There are moderators and admins who handle these forums with care, do not resort to self-help, instead please utilize the reporting option. Be mature and responsible for yourself and your posts. If you are offended by another member utilize the reporting option. All reported posts will be addressed and dealt with as deemed appropriate by Firehouse.com staff.

Firehouse.com Moderation Process:
Effective immediately, the following moderation process will take effect. User(s) whose posts are determined by Firehouse.com staff to be in violation of any of the rules above will EARN the following reprimand(s) in the moderation process:
1. An initial warning will be issued.
2. A Final Warning will be issued if a user is found to be in violation a second time.
3. A 3-day suspension will be issued if the user continues to break the forum rules.
4. A 45-day suspension will be issued if the user is found to be a habitual rule breaker.
5. Habitual rule breakers that have exhausted all of the above will receive a permanent life-time ban that will be strictly enforced. Reinstatement will not be allowed – there is no appeal process.

Subsequent accounts created in an effort to side-step the rules and moderation process are subject to automatic removal without notice. Firehouse.com reserves the right to expedite the reprimand process for any users as it is deemed necessary. Any user in the moderation process may be required to review and agree to by email the terms and conditions listed above before their account is re-instated (except for those that are banned).

Firehouse.com reserves the right to edit and/or remove any post or member, at any time, for any reason without notice. Firehouse.com also reserves the right to warn, suspend, and/or ban, any member, at any time, for any reason.

Firehouse.com values the active participation we have in our forums. Please ensure your posts are tasteful and tactful. Thank you very much for your cooperation.
See more
See less

Automatic aid agreements-Perpetuating the Bureaucracy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bigjohn24
    replied
    Originally posted by Too_Old View Post

    We often have more than one chief officer on a mutual aid call. If the call is outside of their first-due area, they just act as company officer for the piece they arrive on. If its a larger incident and the IC needs a supervisor for something, he will pull one of the chiefs and assign him to that role.
    So the Chief is paid Chief's wages working as a company level fire officer? Sweet Deal just not for the taxpayers.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bigjohn24
    replied
    Originally posted by FyredUp View Post

    This by you is proof that you were either a really **** poor firefighter or never one at all. Major incidents call for more than one Chief to serve in support roles to the IC.

    Your post makes me believe you have never viewed a fire with the FDNY, Chicago, Boston, or LA. Every major incident has several chiefs there to help run the scene. Even in the area of myh rural volly FD a major incident will get multiple chiefs to help run the scene. I'm sure you will have some nonsensical response to this.
    Sure it does troll.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bigjohn24
    replied
    Originally posted by tree68 View Post
    He's laboring under the delusion that the reason districts/departments don't merge is because the leadership is trying protect their bureaucracy, yet the article from Kitsap that he linked says that it was the leadership of the districts in question that sought the merger.

    I'd put parochialism higher on the list of reasons for not merging than protecting a bureaucracy.

    And Fyred's comment about incident command is why I mentioned NYC (ie, FDNY). A good worker here might justify an officer for each side, an operations officer, an accountability officer, interior attack manager(s), truck ops, and (as we're rural) a water supply officer. That's at least nine incident management positions that may need to be filled. And we still have to have troops on the ground to actually fight the fire.

    What better use for all those white hats converging on the scene than filling those needs.

    Some time back, there was a video on-line somewhere from a traffic incident. Many of the commenters wondered why the chief was directing traffic. He wasn't - he was managing the incident. Traffic control was needed, and a mutual aid chief was assigned.
    Perpetuating the bureaucracy is done by Chiefs protecting their jobs with auto aid that does not follow State Law merging fire agencies only fire response. Leaving redundant fire admins in place and costing the different taxpayer groups differing tax dollars for tthe same all for one fire response. Something you seem almost proud of.

    The Chiefs in that article using lawful merger to combine FD''s were able to put community fire service first and their position second. And even in the one story that was aided by one Chief' approaching retirement.

    So merging instead of auto aid turns your dept into FDNY huh? ROFLMAO

    Somebody is delusional here and it's not me.

    And I am sorry to hear you work for a failing FD having to rely on other FD's for first response. Maybe you just need more Chiefs/? ROFLMAO

    Chief was directing traffic for something to do no doubt. So with autoi-aid you have plenty of Chiefs for traffic control. Quita a system you got.

    And somebody was going to show me automatic aid in their state law, but they couldn't. Go Figure. Why don't you show us auto aid in your State Law for FD's. Everybody is doing it, it must be covered in State Law like the other ways FD's can lawfully and really join forces, including turning multiple Fire Admins into one fire admin.

    Leave a comment:


  • tree68
    replied
    He's laboring under the delusion that the reason districts/departments don't merge is because the leadership is trying protect their bureaucracy, yet the article from Kitsap that he linked says that it was the leadership of the districts in question that sought the merger.

    I'd put parochialism higher on the list of reasons for not merging than protecting a bureaucracy.

    And Fyred's comment about incident command is why I mentioned NYC (ie, FDNY). A good worker here might justify an officer for each side, an operations officer, an accountability officer, interior attack manager(s), truck ops, and (as we're rural) a water supply officer. That's at least nine incident management positions that may need to be filled. And we still have to have troops on the ground to actually fight the fire.

    What better use for all those white hats converging on the scene than filling those needs.

    Some time back, there was a video on-line somewhere from a traffic incident. Many of the commenters wondered why the chief was directing traffic. He wasn't - he was managing the incident. Traffic control was needed, and a mutual aid chief was assigned.

    Leave a comment:


  • FyredUp
    replied
    Originally posted by Bigjohn24 View Post

    Won't bother finding it; That's rich!!!!

    ROFLMAO

    But you seemed so sure.

    ROFLMAO
    In Wisconsin, and actually multiple states in the midwest, we have MABAS. It is the Mutual Aid Box Alarm System a multi-state mutual aid system that includes preordained box alarm assignments in your local region as well as the potential for mutual aid companies from outside your region and even from outside your state if the size of the incident calls for it. It has been in place in Illinois since the late 1960's and has spread from there. It works and works very well.

    Leave a comment:


  • Too_Old
    replied
    Originally posted by Bigjohn24 View Post
    In the Tri Cities with their auto aid agreement there are 8-9 FD's involved. They have a single auto aid fire response with 8-9 Fire Chiefs, 8-9 assistant or deputy Chiefs (probably more), 8-9 training Officers, etc. and so on.
    Is it your claim that every department in the mutual aid agreement sends every chief and training officer on every call ?

    If they were to merge instead of use auto aid they would lose 7-8 Fire Chiefs, 7-8 Assistant or Deputy Chiefs (probably more), 7-8 training officers, etc. and so on. That's a lot of money in Fire Admin Salaries for a single fire response.
    As I said further up, the number of people with the title 'chief of the department' would go down to one. There would still be a number of deputy chiefs, a deputy chief for training, several training officers across the system, a training coordinator, a chiefs aide etc. You would need leaders at the individual stations (captains) and several supervisors on the EMS side of the operation.
    So maybe you could save on chief officer salaries, but maybe not.

    Leave a comment:


  • FyredUp
    replied
    Originally posted by Bigjohn24 View Post

    Two or more Fire Chiefs for a single fire response is redundant.

    Laughing stock of this forum. Now that's funny.

    Each Cief wants to keep their job is all.
    This by you is proof that you were either a really **** poor firefighter or never one at all. Major incidents call for more than one Chief to serve in support roles to the IC.

    Your post makes me believe you have never viewed a fire with the FDNY, Chicago, Boston, or LA. Every major incident has several chiefs there to help run the scene. Even in the area of myh rural volly FD a major incident will get multiple chiefs to help run the scene. I'm sure you will have some nonsensical response to this.

    Leave a comment:


  • Too_Old
    replied
    Originally posted by JSJJ388 View Post
    No, it is not redundant. Each chief knows his district. Different areas require different protection, this meas varying amounts of taxation. You are the one who needs to figure it out, figure out that you are now the laughing stock of this forum!
    We often have more than one chief officer on a mutual aid call. If the call is outside of their first-due area, they just act as company officer for the piece they arrive on. If its a larger incident and the IC needs a supervisor for something, he will pull one of the chiefs and assign him to that role.

    Leave a comment:


  • FyredUp
    replied
    Originally posted by Bigjohn24 View Post
    Just found this article on some Washington State FD mergers. The following is an excerpt from the article and the full article is at the link below:

    .....All six commissioners, three from each district, will initially serve on the joint commission, and as their terms expire, the commission will winnow to three or five commissioners.

    At a later point, voters in the new district would need to vote on whether they want commissioner districts within the fire district. Welander and Hunter also both plan to remain in their positions, with Welander likely serving as assistant fire chief until Hunter retires.

    Hunter is a volunteer with a stipend, while Welander is a contracted paid employee.

    "Ultimately, I'll probably be retiring soon," Hunter said. "That all hasn?t been worked out fully. The ultimate goal would be one chief."

    Throughout Mason County, there are currently 13 fire districts, many of which have a small cadre of volunteer firefighters and limited resources.

    In 2013, more than 75 percent of voters in Tahuya and Belfair voted to create a regional fire authority to combine Fire District Nos. 8 and 2........

    https://www.kitsapsun.com/story/news...ing/513565002/
    Yawn...Hurray for them. Doesn't mean it will work everywhere.

    Leave a comment:


  • tree68
    replied
    Originally posted by Bigjohn24 View Post

    Two or more Fire Chiefs for a single fire response is redundant.
    I hope you've informed NYC of this. They clearly don't understand.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bigjohn24
    replied
    In the Tri Cities with their auto aid agreement there are 8-9 FD's involved. They have a single auto aid fire response with 8-9 Fire Chiefs, 8-9 assistant or deputy Chiefs (probably more), 8-9 training Officers, etc. and so on.

    If they were to merge instead of use auto aid they would lose 7-8 Fire Chiefs, 7-8 Assistant or Deputy Chiefs (probably more), 7-8 training officers, etc. and so on. That's a lot of money in Fire Admin Salaries for a single fire response.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bigjohn24
    replied
    Originally posted by JSJJ388 View Post

    No, it is not redundant. Each chief knows his district. Different areas require different protection, this meas varying amounts of taxation. You are the one who needs to figure it out, figure out that you are now the laughing stock of this forum!
    Two or more Fire Chiefs for a single fire response is redundant.

    Laughing stock of this forum. Now that's funny.

    Each Cief wants to keep their job is all.

    Leave a comment:


  • JSJJ388
    replied
    Originally posted by Bigjohn24 View Post

    More than one Fire Chief for a merged fire response is redundant, by definition. Figure it out already

    WOrks great with more Chiefs than you need and all taxpayers paying different amounts of taxes for the same fire response. Works great? Not really.
    No, it is not redundant. Each chief knows his district. Different areas require different protection, this meas varying amounts of taxation. You are the one who needs to figure it out, figure out that you are now the laughing stock of this forum!

    Leave a comment:


  • Bigjohn24
    replied
    Just found this article on some Washington State FD mergers. The following is an excerpt from the article and the full article is at the link below:

    .....All six commissioners, three from each district, will initially serve on the joint commission, and as their terms expire, the commission will winnow to three or five commissioners.

    At a later point, voters in the new district would need to vote on whether they want commissioner districts within the fire district. Welander and Hunter also both plan to remain in their positions, with Welander likely serving as assistant fire chief until Hunter retires.

    Hunter is a volunteer with a stipend, while Welander is a contracted paid employee.

    "Ultimately, I'll probably be retiring soon," Hunter said. "That all hasn?t been worked out fully. The ultimate goal would be one chief."

    Throughout Mason County, there are currently 13 fire districts, many of which have a small cadre of volunteer firefighters and limited resources.

    In 2013, more than 75 percent of voters in Tahuya and Belfair voted to create a regional fire authority to combine Fire District Nos. 8 and 2........

    https://www.kitsapsun.com/story/news...ing/513565002/
    Last edited by Bigjohn24; 09-08-2018, 08:48 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bigjohn24
    replied
    Originally posted by tree68 View Post
    I'm sure I can find it, but I won't bother. NY has a statewide mutual aid plan - that allows us to go anywhere in the state should the need arise.

    My county has a countywide mutual aid plan to which all fire departments are signatories. No individual agreements between such entities are required. That means any department in the county can call on my department, either via an automatic, or via a special call. Even the two career staffed departments in this otherwise all-volunteer county are signatories.

    I haven't heard you mention battalion chiefs, or anything along that line. You're going to need one for each four or five stations, to maintain a reasonable span of control. And every five battalion chiefs will need another chief over them to maintain acceptable span of control. For that matter, each station will require a captain or lieutenant for each shift, which they may not already have in place (the chief may have served that purpose).

    This topic sure seems to be a burr under your saddle.

    Won't bother finding it; That's rich!!!!

    ROFLMAO

    But you seemed so sure.

    ROFLMAO

    Leave a comment:

300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

Collapse

Upper 300x250

Collapse

Taboola

Collapse

Leader

Collapse
Working...
X