Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Poor Decision in Sugar Grove, PA

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

  • ajoandarr
    replied
    Well, since I wouldn't consider Larry (or any other fire chief) a boss, I think he did need to give a reason. I don't know about the department you belong to, but in SGVFD things like this are usually brought up to the at least the trustees for a discussion. Then the group decides what action will take place. It works more like a democracy, not a dictatorship. Larry didn't consult with any one else in the department-just made up his mind without even a minute of thought behind it.

    Leave a comment:


  • PFDTruck18
    replied
    Originally posted by ajoandarr View Post
    When they were told no they were given no reason except that Larry was the chief and said no.
    Amanda Darr
    Um, maybe im missing something. Since when does the boss need to give a reason.

    Leave a comment:


  • Weruj1
    replied
    nice bump !

    Leave a comment:


  • ajoandarr
    replied
    Update

    My husband is one of the firefighters that were kicked out of the Sugar Grove VFD. And two of the others are still very good friends of ours. The other two have moved away. At the time we had only been dating for six months. I would first like to say that I was, and still am, very proud of all five of these firefighters. When they were told no they were given no reason except that Larry was the chief and said no. And yes, they did expect to be punished for disobeying an order. They knew that they had disobeyed an order.

    Since then, Larry is no longer chief. He was voted out the year after the incident happened. Justin, my husband, rejoined four years ago. He was the training officer last year and still is. Also this year he was appointed as the second lieutenant. The daughter of our friends joined last year as a junior and has become an active member this past June. Even though she went to college an hour away last month she still responds with the department.

    This whole situation still upsets me very much. It is still talked about in the department and around town. And most people feel that what happened to these five firefighters was outrageous.

    Amanda Darr

    Leave a comment:


  • GimliOnFire
    replied
    This isn't anything to debate.

    Insubordination in a paramilitary organization.

    Told directly not to use department resources in that manner. And did so anyways.

    You are dismissed.

    Leave a comment:


  • StayBack500FT
    replied
    My perspective...some of the departments in that area are very limited in the number of rigs available to them on a normal day. The day of Andy's (God rest his soul) funeral there were SOOOOO many rigs out of service that many, many fire companies were stretched thin. When our engine returned from standing by in Rocky Grove (we covered a midnight to six shift) we were dispatched on first alarm for a house fire (1/2 before the service)...the nearest coverage engine we could move to our station was from Cochranton (17 miles away in Crawford County). The out-pouring for the service was CERTAINLY justified...but perhaps the Sugar Grove Chief was in a position that he just couldn't take another frontline piece out of service.

    Leave a comment:


  • cowtown
    replied
    Crap! I just spent 5 minutes reading this post before I realized it was almost 4 years old!

    Oh well. Now that I'm here - We had a somewhat similar incident where our Chief refused to allow a truck to attend the funeral of a dept. member who had died while off duty. We would have followed the directive from the Chief, but thankfully we were able to exert some political pressure and get the order reversed.

    This kind of insensitive thinking from admin types doesn't just happen in small departments.

    Leave a comment:


  • MemphisE34a
    replied
    Thats why I say its always better to ask forgivness than permission.

    Leave a comment:


  • jaybird210
    replied
    A quiet day at the console for weruj1 is a busy day for ancient threads!!

    Leave a comment:


  • FWDbuff
    replied
    Obviously, Weruj1 is delirious with booredom today......LOL!

    Leave a comment:


  • CaptainGonzo
    replied
    My opinion expressed on February 3rd, 2001 on this matter hasn't changed a bit!

    Leave a comment:


  • Weruj1
    replied
    an oldie .............but good for debate

    so punishment to harsh ? ..........WWYD ?

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    From what I read in other threads about this subject, the town where the funeral was held in was about an hours drive from Sugar Grove, so the distance traveled may have been anywhere from 30 to 60 miles away from the village of Sugar Grove.

    There's a new fire chief, the assitant chief was one of the parties involved...it sounds like there is a power struggle going on, doesn't it?

    The 5 firefighters in question violated an order from the Chief. Some people have said expulsion from the company is too harsh...but have their been other infractions of the rules and regulations by the individuals involved that we do not know about?

    There is also the question of liability. What would have happened if the truck was involved in an accident while en route to or coming back the funeral? This is another question that has to be answered.

    The Chief made the proper decision. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The "Sugar Grove 5" initiated the confrontation, now they must pay the price.

    ------------------
    And on the eighth day...God created Firefighters!
    Captain Gonzo


    [This message has been edited by Captain Gonzo (edited 02-03-2001).]

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Firemanjc
    Maybe the punishment was to harsh for the others who were following your lead as Asst Chief to take the first due piece. Maybe they should have been suspended, unless they held any officer rank within the department. As for yourself,and any officer in the group of 5, should be dismissed effective immediately. You set an extremely unprofessional example to subordinates in your department especially to any rookie members that you may have had.

    The Chief may have been in office for only a week at the time of the decision, regardless he was put in that position for a reason, whether voted in by your membership or appinted through merit.

    The Fire Service adopted a paramilitary structure for a reason. Discipline and control. An Order is an ORDER, to be followed whether or not we agree. That is how the system works, like it or not.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    May we pray that this is a situation that we are never faced with.

    God bless the families and members of all those involved.

    I think there is soooooo much more involved
    with this matter that we, the outsiders will never know. This makes it is almost impossible for us to make a decision.

    BUT!!! They violated a direct order, right or not, it was a vaild order and issued by the Fire Chief. Maybe there were other avenues they could have/ should have explored. But it sounds like they didn't.

    They took the pumper against the order of the Fire Chief, and for that they will have to pay the piper.

    As for the Fire Chief, he has made his decision(s) and he too will have to pay the piper.

    ------------------

    Leave a comment:

300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

Collapse

Upper 300x250

Collapse

Taboola

Collapse

Leader

Collapse
Working...
X