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
    If you like this thread, you're gonna love this thread:

    https://forums.firehouse.com/forum/f...-with-ems-fees

    Leave a comment:


  • Too_Old
    replied
    Originally posted by Bigjohn24 View Post

    In Washington State

    Auto aid uses the interlocal cooperation act to simply join fire forces by agreement or so they say. Nothing in State Law directly addresses auto-aid. It is Fire Admins pushing the envelope with local agreements to end run the State Law sanctioned and defined processes for really joining fire rescue services. In Washington State I think auto aid would lose in court because the State does specifically lay out how FD's come together.

    Washington RCW's:

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?Cite=52

    And I was told by one Chief that they get their interlocal agreement authority to join FD's by auto aid under burn permit authority in FD RCW. Now that's funny!!
    In other words there is no such mandate.

    I just quote from the law you pointed me to:


    (1) A fire protection district may merge with another fire protection district located within a reasonable proximity, on such terms and conditions as they agree upon, in the manner provided in this title.


    'May' indicate the possibility of something being done. Not a mandate.

    Is there any legal history in WA courts where auto-aid done via interlocal agreement was found to be in violation of state law ?

    You keep insinuating that there is something unlawful or improper about auto-aid. There is not.

    Your issue is a local tax gripe.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bigjohn24
    replied
    Originally posted by JSJJ388 View Post

    Your system does not improve the response. It's the same response, minus the sense of pride that small communities have in their departments. Yes, different areas pay different rates, based on the local risks. Should the town next to us pay the same rate as we do, even though they have a more dense population and higher for risk? No, of course not. Your system says they should...


    Auto mutual aide follows all state laws here.

    I cant help that your system is so illogical no sane person says that it will work 100% of the time. Your fault, not mine.
    It's not my system, it's State Law.

    However you join the actual fire response together between two or more fire agencies, lawfully or not, the response will be the same. I'm surprised you don't get that. The Changes with following State Law (my system) instead of auto aid is that redundant fire admins are eliminated and the money saved can hire more firefighters. Also by following State law all taxpayers get to vote on the detailed merger plan that has all taxpayers paying the same in taxes for the new all for one fire response.

    Auto aid could be in your State Law, it's not in mine. Just show me your state law allowing auto aid.

    My system is so.......

    ROFLMAO

    My system is following State Law.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bigjohn24
    replied
    Originally posted by FyredUp View Post

    BRILLIANT POST and 100% correct.
    Not even close.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bigjohn24
    replied
    Originally posted by Too_Old View Post
    Where in WA code is the requirement that fire districts have to merge or form a regional fire service authority if they intend to cooperate on a routine basis ?
    In Washington State

    Auto aid uses the interlocal cooperation act to simply join fire forces by agreement or so they say. Nothing in State Law directly addresses auto-aid. It is Fire Admins pushing the envelope with local agreements to end run the State Law sanctioned and defined processes for really joining fire rescue services. In Washington State I think auto aid would lose in court because the State does specifically lay out how FD's come together.

    Washington RCW's:

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?Cite=52

    And I was told by one Chief that they get their interlocal agreement authority to join FD's by auto aid under burn permit authority in FD RCW. Now that's funny!!
    Last edited by Bigjohn24; 09-08-2018, 09:36 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bigjohn24
    replied
    Originally posted by tree68 View Post

    So, I presume you've taken the lead to put this issue before the voters? This is clearly a major problem in your area, and I'm sure the taxpayers will see you as a hero for making things right. How many town/village/city council/board meetings have you attended so far?

    I'm also guessing you live in one of the areas with higher taxes.

    Everyone will be all for it, except for the ones whose taxes will be going up. I'm betting they'll vote against it. And then it won't happen.

    It would work very much the same here. But at this point no one has seen the need to put anything before the voters.

    Heck, we're trying to replace a 60 year old cinder block fire station with a leaky roof, cracked floors, minimal insulation, a bathroom some people won't use, and cracks in the walls you can see daylight through - but it'll be a while before it happens because folks are very sensitive to the tax rate...
    I have taken the lead to let affected taxpayers know and I do this for the larger good for all.

    None of the following is true.

    Where I live now is not even involved in auto aid.

    In Prosser WA area regional fire authority, where I took the lead also, Prosser City Taxpayers paid less than county taxpayers for the same all for one fire response, joining of departments with auto aid instead of following State Law. Remember State law that requires a detailed plan with all taxpayers paying the same taxes and voter approved. The plan for joining together was voter approved. The City Taxpayers increased their property tax a bit and County Taxpayers saw their taxes go down a bit. Basically they met in the middle of their high low taxes from before. Not all for it huh? Wrong! What they weren't for was two communities getting fire service together with one group paying less and the other paying more for same fire service. Something you seem good with.

    Your folks aren't sensitive to tax rate to replace a dump of a fire station. your elected officials don't give a crap about effective fire service and maybe neither do those you serve. That must give you a good feeling as a first responder, no community support. Thank God I don't know what that is like.

    If you have joined forces with other fire depts with auto aid instead of following State Law for FD merger, annexation, create new FD or Regional Fire Authority; You absolutely have a need to go to voters that is being ignored to the detriment of taxpayers.

    Auto-aid---------> Needs interlocal agreement to join FD fire response

    Lawful merger, annex, create new, regional fire authority------> Detailed Plan, Vote of the people, all taxpayers pay same taxes for same fire service. No redundant fire admin costs with only one fire administration.

    I don't see how you can even side with auto aid, at all.

    Leave a comment:


  • tree68
    replied
    Originally posted by Bigjohn24 View Post

    An all for one firefighter response is the same regardless of your system of unfairness or my system of fairness based on following State Law, that has all taxpayers paying the same, after all affected Taxpayers have voted for a detailed merger plan and merges fire admins as well as firefighters.

    If you don't get that there is not much I can do.
    So, I presume you've taken the lead to put this issue before the voters? This is clearly a major problem in your area, and I'm sure the taxpayers will see you as a hero for making things right. How many town/village/city council/board meetings have you attended so far?

    I'm also guessing you live in one of the areas with higher taxes.

    Everyone will be all for it, except for the ones whose taxes will be going up. I'm betting they'll vote against it. And then it won't happen.

    It would work very much the same here. But at this point no one has seen the need to put anything before the voters.

    Heck, we're trying to replace a 60 year old cinder block fire station with a leaky roof, cracked floors, minimal insulation, a bathroom some people won't use, and cracks in the walls you can see daylight through - but it'll be a while before it happens because folks are very sensitive to the tax rate...

    Leave a comment:


  • Too_Old
    replied
    Where in WA code is the requirement that fire districts have to merge or form a regional fire service authority if they intend to cooperate on a routine basis ?

    Leave a comment:


  • FyredUp
    replied
    Originally posted by JSJJ388 View Post

    Your system does not improve the response. It's the same response, minus the sense of pride that small communities have in their departments. Yes, different areas pay different rates, based on the local risks. Should the town next to us pay the same rate as we do, even though they have a more dense population and higher for risk? No, of course not. Your system says they should...


    Auto mutual aide follows all state laws here.

    I cant help that your system is so illogical no sane person says that it will work 100% of the time. Your fault, not mine.
    BRILLIANT POST and 100% correct.

    Leave a comment:


  • JSJJ388
    replied
    Originally posted by Bigjohn24 View Post

    My system is State Law for joining fire forces and improves fire fighter response every bit as well as your ill-conceived auto aid that does not combine fire admins and has different taxpayer groups paying different taxes for the same all for one auto aid deal. Your system sucks.

    An all for one firefighter response is the same regardless of your system of unfairness or my system of fairness based on following State Law, that has all taxpayers paying the same, after all affected Taxpayers have voted for a detailed merger plan and merges fire admins as well as firefighters.

    If you don't get that there is not much I can do.

    Just stick with your life isn't fair answer.

    I tried.
    Your system does not improve the response. It's the same response, minus the sense of pride that small communities have in their departments. Yes, different areas pay different rates, based on the local risks. Should the town next to us pay the same rate as we do, even though they have a more dense population and higher for risk? No, of course not. Your system says they should...


    Auto mutual aide follows all state laws here.

    I cant help that your system is so illogical no sane person says that it will work 100% of the time. Your fault, not mine.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bigjohn24
    replied
    Originally posted by JSJJ388 View Post

    With auto aide, people do pay a pretty fair rate. It's notallthe same, because the areas risks are not all the same. With local departments, the people control the dept. Not so with a regional system.

    your system still does not help a lick with there not being enough people responding. Not one bit.

    if auto aide is so "I'll conceived" why does it work so well?

    Again, your system MIGHT work in some cases, but it WILL NOT work every time.
    My system is State Law for joining fire forces and improves fire fighter response every bit as well as your ill-conceived auto aid that does not combine fire admins and has different taxpayer groups paying different taxes for the same all for one auto aid deal. Your system sucks.

    An all for one firefighter response is the same regardless of your system of unfairness or my system of fairness based on following State Law, that has all taxpayers paying the same, after all affected Taxpayers have voted for a detailed merger plan and merges fire admins as well as firefighters.

    If you don't get that there is not much I can do.

    Just stick with your life isn't fair answer.

    I tried.

    Leave a comment:


  • JSJJ388
    replied
    Originally posted by Bigjohn24 View Post
    Life isn't fair; but taxes paid by taxpayers for the same all for one fire service damn well should be fair.

    My system is following state law for joining fire rescue forces including a detailed plan, a vote of the people, combining fire admins (not just firefighters and with all taxpayers paying the same tax formula for supporting the newly formed fire agency.

    Auto aid only joins firefighter response. Auto aid does not thin out redundant fire admins or assure all taxpayers pay the same for the same all for one auto aid fire response. Auto aid also does not require a detailed plan for combining fire rescue presented for voter approval.

    And you want to argue in favor of auto-aid? Different strokes for different folks I guess.

    And the response of firefighters with my system is no different than firefighter response with ill-conceived auto-aid.
    With auto aide, people do pay a pretty fair rate. It's notallthe same, because the areas risks are not all the same. With local departments, the people control the dept. Not so with a regional system.

    your system still does not help a lick with there not being enough people responding. Not one bit.

    if auto aide is so "I'll conceived" why does it work so well?

    Again, your system MIGHT work in some cases, but it WILL NOT work every time.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bigjohn24
    replied
    Life isn't fair; but taxes paid by taxpayers for the same all for one fire service damn well should be fair.

    My system is following state law for joining fire rescue forces including a detailed plan, a vote of the people, combining fire admins (not just firefighters and with all taxpayers paying the same tax formula for supporting the newly formed fire agency.

    Auto aid only joins firefighter response. Auto aid does not thin out redundant fire admins or assure all taxpayers pay the same for the same all for one auto aid fire response. Auto aid also does not require a detailed plan for combining fire rescue presented for voter approval.

    And you want to argue in favor of auto-aid? Different strokes for different folks I guess.

    And the response of firefighters with my system is no different than firefighter response with ill-conceived auto-aid.

    Leave a comment:


  • JSJJ388
    replied
    Originally posted by Bigjohn24 View Post

    My way of doing it is fair to firefighters, taxpayers, saves fire admin costs and follows State law requiring a detailed plan with voter approval and all taxpayers paying the same tax dollars for the same all for one fire service. Sue Me.

    And if you're community can't muster an effective first response for fire rescue without having multiple FD's all responding; Your community's fire rescue service is a failure. God bless the firefighters responding for a failed FD. Be careful. Your community doesn't deserve you.
    Life isn't fair. Also, your way is not always fair to communities. Having independent departments allows communities a stronger voice in how things are run. This is not true with your system.

    Seeing as how the job still gets done, the departments are not a failure. Just because it is accomplished differently than you think it should be, does not mean it's a failure. The job still gets done.

    Another thing you neglect to realize is that mutual side is not only for manpower. Out here in the sticks, we cant simply connect to a city hydrant and get water. Every drop of water we use comes in via tankers. We do not have a single set hydrant in our district, and only one neighboring district has hydrants. Our mutual side procedures call for first due side to bring a tanker for a structure fire. Without mutual aide, wed likely be out of water quick.

    So again, your system MIGHT work sometimes, but it is far from perfect and far from a universal solution. I still cant grasp why someone has a problem with a system that has a long track record of getting the job done. Just because it's not the way you want it , doesn't mean it's a failure.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bigjohn24
    replied
    Originally posted by JSJJ388 View Post


    As long as the dept keeps people safe, and responds effectively, Id hardly say that its a failure. Now, I havent been in this long, but its pretty clear what the bottom line is. Keep the community safe. If that gets done with an "all for one" dept or a group of automatic aide volly dept, I really dont think the community cares. Just as long as the job gets done.

    This thread reminds me of the "Long driveway" thread. Both ways CAN work. If automatic aide works well and gets the job done, why mess with it. If you have several towns that all agree they would benefit from a collective dept under one admin, go for it. Each community has different needs and will go about things differently.

    You are just upset that not everyone likes your way of doing it!
    My way of doing it is fair to firefighters, taxpayers, saves fire admin costs and follows State law requiring a detailed plan with voter approval and all taxpayers paying the same tax dollars for the same all for one fire service. Sue Me.

    And if you're community can't muster an effective first response for fire rescue without having multiple FD's all responding; Your community's fire rescue service is a failure. God bless the firefighters responding for a failed FD. Be careful. Your community doesn't deserve you.

    Leave a comment:

300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

Collapse

Upper 300x250

Collapse

Taboola

Collapse

Leader

Collapse
Working...
X