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 sales@firehouse.com
• 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

  • #46
    Big...

    I have been in the fire service almost 40 years .... all of that time as a volunteer and the last 10 as a full-time member in a combination department.

    Much of that time ai have been in departments that were heavily involved in automatic mutual aid. It works. And in the places where I have been, it generally has worked very well.

    I have no idea what is driving you to speak against it. Hey, it's your right. Maybe you should focus on improving the system.

    Do you have a brother named SC? Just curious.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Bigjohn24 View Post

      My experience has me pretty firm on that. That and the facts of what is best for taxpayers and firefighters. If you need to have an auto aid agreement to fight fires you have a failure of a fire department, by definition.
      Seems the way to eliminate the auto aid agreement would be a larger department that needs no help. Isn't that also an added expense to the taxpayers?
      I'm not familiar with all this stuff. I operate in an entirely different realm. Does most mutual aid or auto aid arrive on scene quick enough to really make a difference at a modern structural fire? We know how critical every single minute is. I can't help but to think that a lot of this stuff is designed to fool the public. Or maybe departments are fooling themselves. Is the mutual aid arriving to fight a fire that never should have advanced to the point it is at when they arrive? Because the original units could not effectively handle the fire? This is the real discussion about the real problem. But solving it would not save the taxpayers a dime. It would cost them and they don't like it because everyone knows they will never have a fire at their house.

      Comment


      • #48
        How is trimming down fire admins and at least maintaining fire response levels or maybe improving firefighter response with saved fire admin dollars adding expense to Taxpayers?

        The tri Cities example I give above is 8-9 fire admins with an average in neighborhood of $500 K a year each probably more. Do the math. Smaller mergers smaller savings. But all taxpayers will pay the same for the same fire service, something I have not seen with auto aid deals.

        Mutual aid was backup assuming all FD's involved were making their best effort at first response for their community and not just relying on mutual aid to get by on the cheap. And automatic aid is first response, from a distance usually. Usually mutual aid, unless for a specialty piece of equipment, is/was called for when a community's fire rescue service was tied up with a big emergency or multiple emergencies.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by captnjak View Post

          Phrases like "gravy train" and "sucked on the tit of a government paycheck" have no place here IMO.

          The value to a community of an effective emergency medical/fire/emergency mitigation force has been repeatedly established.

          I think you would agree and you just got carried away with your responses here.
          Perhaps, but I grow weary of this kind of guy that probably never said a word about economic efficiencies in his own career department but now has moved into the burbs and pays more in taxes and does nothing but complain about how the local FD is run.
          Crazy, but that's how it goes
          Millions of people living as foes
          Maybe it's not too late
          To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Bigjohn24 View Post

            If you don;t pay for any fire admin, have fun with an auto aid agreement. Obviously this whole deal does not apply to you.

            This isn't about my bad experience. This is about the reality of what I am saying when there are significant fire admin dollars involved in multiple agencies doing auto aid deals. You don't think this applies anywhere just because you don't have a fire department?

            And my new FD providing me fire rescue is totally top heay. The Chief of this small FD makes over $140 K a year and has another Chief making about the same. For an island community of less than 10,000. Our Chiefs are approaching what the Seattle Fire Chief makes. And there is a $100 K a year fleet director and the same for a facilities director and two training officers. Totally too top heavy.
            Your situation is certainly not mine.

            Every area in which we used automatic aid was almost completely volunteer. There was one or two full-time or combination departmenst involved but it was an easy 90% plus all-volunteer agencies. No high paid Chiefs, or Training Officers or Fleet mangers. In fact, no paid administration at all. That's what our volunteer chiefs and volunteer training officers and Captains did.

            None of the communities involved could afford full-time or part-time staff. In a couple the volunteers received a small stipend (like $10 per call). And yes, we needed automatic aid to get enough bodies on the fireground to make a safe and effective attack.

            The residents of all the districts involved benefited. there were times that we were closer and knocked down fires before the home department arrived or visa-versa. There were times that we arrived just after the home department and were critical in making the push, and again, visa-versa. So it has worked, and has worked well.

            You remind me of the poster Tree referred to. E (claimed to be) a retired career firefighter in in department in Kalifornia with some volunteers, who apparently because of bad management and poor expectations from the top were not very effective. And because of that, he had a poor attitude regarding volunteers.

            So just because your area has an over paid and overblown command staff, and apparently a poorly run automatic mutual aid system, don't tell me the ones that I have worked in don't work and somehow "expand the blotted bureaucracy"
            Train to fight the fires you fight.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
              Big...

              I have been in the fire service almost 40 years .... all of that time as a volunteer and the last 10 as a full-time member in a combination department.

              Much of that time ai have been in departments that were heavily involved in automatic mutual aid. It works. And in the places where I have been, it generally has worked very well.

              I have no idea what is driving you to speak against it. Hey, it's your right. Maybe you should focus on improving the system.

              Do you have a brother named SC? Just curious.
              Yeah it works, to perpetuate fire admins unlike other lawful ways of joining forces.

              Do all taxpayer groups pay the same for the same all for one auto aid fire service? That's not my experience.

              Merge firefighters and why not Fire Admins too? Every lawful way of coming together, other than auto-aid (my experience), merges the entire fire agencies, fire admins too. and has all taxpayers paying the same in taxes for a new all for one fire rescue response.

              I speak for myself. Since when has discussing fire service issues become unwelcome?

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Bigjohn24 View Post
                How is trimming down fire admins and at least maintaining fire response levels or maybe improving firefighter response with saved fire admin dollars adding expense to Taxpayers?

                The tri Cities example I give above is 8-9 fire admins with an average in neighborhood of $500 K a year each. Do the math. Smaller mergers smaller savings. But all taxpayers will pay the same for the same fire service, something I have not seen with auto aid deals.

                Mutual aid was backup assuming all FD's involved were making their best effort at first response for their community and not just relying on mutual aid to get by on the cheap. And automatic aid is first response, from a distance usually. Usually mutual aid, unless for a specialty piece of equipment, is/was called for when a community's fire rescue service was tied up with a big emergency or multiple emergencies.
                No they don't all pay the same. It is, at least around here based on assessed value of the community on what they pay as part of a consolidation. There is one consolidated FD in our area that almost every contract year has one community threatening to leave and restart their own fire department because of a disproportionate, to every other community in the consolidation, amount that they pay in. It is impossible to charge all the taxpayers the same amount in this type of arrangement if assessments are vastly different. You cannot level the paying fee unless some pay too much for their assessed value or some pay too little. It isn't as simple as you want to make it appear.

                By the way, I have asked the question in the department where I am training chief about consolidating the closest 3 or 4 departments. Yeah, politics and financials got in the way, not the fire departments. It has been brought up multiple times BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENTS and failed.
                Crazy, but that's how it goes
                Millions of people living as foes
                Maybe it's not too late
                To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post

                  Your situation is certainly not mine.

                  Every area in which we used automatic aid was almost completely volunteer. There was one or two full-time or combination departmenst involved but it was an easy 90% plus all-volunteer agencies. No high paid Chiefs, or Training Officers or Fleet mangers. In fact, no paid administration at all. That's what our volunteer chiefs and volunteer training officers and Captains did.

                  None of the communities involved could afford full-time or part-time staff. In a couple the volunteers received a small stipend (like $10 per call). And yes, we needed automatic aid to get enough bodies on the fireground to make a safe and effective attack.

                  The residents of all the districts involved benefited. there were times that we were closer and knocked down fires before the home department arrived or visa-versa. There were times that we arrived just after the home department and were critical in making the push, and again, visa-versa. So it has worked, and has worked well.

                  You remind me of the poster Tree referred to. E (claimed to be) a retired career firefighter in in department in Kalifornia with some volunteers, who apparently because of bad management and poor expectations from the top were not very effective. And because of that, he had a poor attitude regarding volunteers.

                  So just because your area has an over paid and overblown command staff, and apparently a poorly run automatic mutual aid system, don't tell me the ones that I have worked in don't work and somehow "expand the blotted bureaucracy"
                  If you are all fighting fires with no admin costs, then this does not apply to you. Or should I say as long as none of the Taxpayers involved with auto aid all for one response don't have high cost fire admins either. For fairness. I never realized there were so many FD's only costing taxpayers fuel, equipment and station costs with all free labor.

                  And the FD where I currently live is top heavy but has nothing to do with auto aid.

                  You have free fire admins, so like I said this doesn't apply to you. Can you fathom that?
                  Last edited by Bigjohn24; 09-06-2018, 02:48 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by FyredUp View Post

                    No they don't all pay the same. It is, at least around here based on assessed value of the community on what they pay as part of a consolidation. There is one consolidated FD in our area that almost every contract year has one community threatening to leave and restart their own fire department because of a disproportionate, to every other community in the consolidation, amount that they pay in. It is impossible to charge all the taxpayers the same amount in this type of arrangement if assessments are vastly different. You cannot level the paying fee unless some pay too much for their assessed value or some pay too little. It isn't as simple as you want to make it appear.

                    By the way, I have asked the question in the department where I am training chief about consolidating the closest 3 or 4 departments. Yeah, politics and financials got in the way, not the fire departments. It has been brought up multiple times BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENTS and failed.
                    You don't think all taxpayers should all pay the same for an auto aid all for one fire response? That's not fair to taxpayers or lets some taxpayers get by on the cheap. That's not good. Is it?

                    If you merged, annexed or created a new fire district then all taxpayers would pay the same for the same fire service. Seems fair to me.

                    And if you have asked the question why give me so much crap for discussing it here?

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      LAFE

                      You want to see a failing fire department, look for one that relies on an auto aid agreement with other communities to provide first response. Fail.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Bigjohn24 View Post

                        Yeah it works, to perpetuate fire admins unlike other lawful ways of joining forces.

                        Do all taxpayer groups pay the same for the same all for one auto aid fire service? That's not my experience.

                        Merge firefighters and why not Fire Admins too? Every lawful way of coming together, other than auto-aid (my experience), merges the entire fire agencies, fire admins too. and has all taxpayers paying the same in taxes for a new all for one fire rescue response.

                        I speak for myself. Since when has discussing fire service issues become unwelcome?
                        It goes back to the simple fact that I cannot comment on your situation as I am almost 1800 miles away. Does your administrative structure seem blotted for a population of 10,000. Hell yes, but again, I have no control over that.

                        My current department covers a population of about 18,000 over almost 200 square miles with one paid Fire Chief, myself, doing Fire prevention, some firefighter training and admin, 3 Shift Captains, 3 shift Driver-Operators and 40 volunteers running from 7 stations. We also have a part-time daytime position. And the 2 departments we run mutual aid with have the same type of structure. We are hiring 3 more shift Driver-Operators at this time to staff a second station full-time with one member per shift.

                        We do not run auto aid but we are aggressive in calling for mutual aid. Why? because it just makes sense. And none of the departmets including mine, have the $$ to hire any more positions.

                        There is one district in the parish that does have 3 paid Chief Officers, a paid training officer and 3 paid office staff and 9 station officers/firefighters and a paid BC per shift. But they don't run or receive any auto aid.

                        We do not run formal auto-aid but

                        As I have said several times, none of the departments, with the exception of 1 or 2, that ran with in NY and VT that worked in an auto aid system had a paid Chief , any paid Assistant Chiefs, any paid facility or Fleet Managers or any paid response staff. So exactly how were we "propagating the bureaucracy"?

                        Please explain that to me? Please.
                        Train to fight the fires you fight.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Bigjohn24 View Post
                          LAFE

                          You want to see a failing fire department, look for one that relies on an auto aid agreement with other communities to provide first response. Fail.
                          I disagree. I have been on several departments that were involved in auto-aid systems that were far from failing.

                          And likely we never will.

                          By the way, if you were not aware that almost 75% of all the fire departments in the country are volunteer and most of them receive zero compensation, you need to get out more.

                          (The more he speaks, the more I think he's related to SC)
                          Train to fight the fires you fight.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            You Ok? You seem distraught over two letters.

                            If you rely on other taxpayers by aggressively using their tax funded fire resources through mutual aid you FD is failing.

                            Get out more? Get real. I totally respect Volunteer Firefighters and the job they do for rural locations.

                            The reason they go to auto aid is because they have failed.

                            And you don't see any need for all taxpayers to pay equally for all for one auto aid responses or aggressive mutual aid responses? Whatever that means. Was it always you community getting by on the cheap with auto aid or were your departments taxpayers the one's subsidizing the fire response for other communities?

                            Oh and no paid chief means this discussion does not apply. You have to have admin costs to save admin costs. Were all the taxpayer groups paying the same in taxes for fire rescue with their auto aid deals?
                            Last edited by Bigjohn24; 09-06-2018, 03:29 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Bigjohn24 View Post
                              If you need to have an auto aid agreement to fight fires you have a failure of a fire department, by definition.
                              Well, no.

                              Perhaps you've heard of MABAS in the Chicago area. Each community provides the fire protection they can afford. But they all run together like one department. And the system has been in place for at least 40 years, maybe upwards of fifty.

                              Many communities prefer to have their own fire department. It's not a matter of preserving bureaucracy - it's what the community wants. Many fear that if their fire department is merged with another, they'll lose their station (and they might).

                              If you feel your community has too much bureaucracy for the fire department, you need to address that with whoever governs your fire department, be it city, town, or village councils/boards, fire authority/distric boards, or whomever. Whoever has the taxing authority to fund fire department operations.

                              While you're talking to them, you can get a feel for how they feel about merging with neighboring communities.

                              Opinions my own. Standard disclaimers apply.

                              Everyone goes home. Safety begins with you.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                My issue with that is all the taxpayer groups paying different amounts of Tax Dollars for the same all for one fire response. Some Taxpayer groups subsidizing other taxpayer groups for fire rescue. If that is what you are saying I think that is a bad thing. I also doubt that the community tc for that reason too. taxpayers subsidizing the other fire departments was thoroughly explained to the taxpayers. Just guessing. How many Chiefs in that auto aid deal you mention? One Chief should be enough for one fire response.

                                And I think by definition any fire department that needs another community's fire service for first response has failed out of the gate. Not the fault of the Firefighters, Firefighters do what they can with what they got. Not really fair for a community to under fund fire service and put that on firefighters if you ask me.

                                This auto aid discussion has nothing to do with the top heavy FD protecting me in my retirement. I live on an island in Puget sound, any aid is a slow ferry ride from the main land. Mutual aid works, just barely. No need even trying auto aid. But I wouldn't mind seeing our Island FD merge with a mainland FD to provide fire protection on our island and the mainland.

                                Comment

                                300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

                                Collapse

                                Upper 300x250

                                Collapse

                                Taboola

                                Collapse

                                Leader

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X