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

Safer 2018

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

  • Safer 2018

    _APPLICATION PERIOD DATES ANNOUNCED FOR THE FY 2018 STAFFING FOR ADEQUATE FIRE AND
    EMERGENCY RESPONSE (SAFER) GRANTS_
    __________________________________________________ ______________________

    The FY 2018 SAFER application period will open on *Friday, February 15, 2019 at 8:00
    a.m. ET* and will close on *Friday, March 22, 2019 at 5:00 p.m. ET*.
    If God be for us, who can be against us. Jesus said, I am the way the truth and the light.

  • #2
    I have a position on a shift that was eliminated and not budgeted by administration. It has reduced a shift from 4 to 3. I understand that the program is to fund new hires. If I was to apply for one position would this be considered a new hire if the position is permanently eliminated and not budgeted? I?d like to get the shift back to 4 while locking my administration into staffing levels.

    Comment


    • #3
      It depends, if the position had been vacant for 2+ years and you have been only working with 3 on that shift the whole time then they just cut it on paper so to fill it you would be funding a new position because no one currently working there fills it.

      If they laid someone off to cut the shift from 4 to 3 or stopped filling it with OT/part-timer then no because the position was filled until recently because 4 personnel were on that shift regardless of how they were being paid (OT, PT, etc).

      Top one would be the only way to get it back anyway in terms of argument, if they stopped paying for someone to fill that position it pretty much nukes any argument that they'll support the local matching. Can't stop paying on one side and then say you'll pay for it as part of the grant on the other side.
      Brian P. Vickers
      CEO - Vickers Consulting Services, Inc
      FH.com/Firehouse Mag Contributor
      www.helpmewithgrants.com
      www.facebook.com/vcsinc

      Comment


      • #4
        Thanks for the insight. The position was cut and is not filled in any way. It is cut on paper and is not filled by anyone under any circumstance. They cut it for financial reasons and the shift is always at 3. There was no layoff. The position was vacated and they took the opportunity not to hire due to financial difficulty.

        Under this situation I view it as a new hire to get the shift back in line with the standard. I understand the situation is not optimal. I am just looking for a way to make us whole again.

        Comment


        • #5
          How was it vacated and when? That's part of whether or not it's new and the old litmus test like I mentioned above was that it had to be vacant for a minimum of 2 years. So if someone retired in 2017 or 2018 and they just decided to save money and leave it open until they removed it on paper recently then it's not new. 2016, might have a shot, depends on the financial argument and whether or not you can get them to sign off on hiring a 4th with the matching then 100% cost after Year 3.

          For those that haven't dealt with SAFER in the last 2 years you must send in a letter or a copy of the resolution from the powers that be that they acknowledge the staffing level and matching requirements of a SAFER award. Like SAM registrations if that isn't done then you're getting skipped over in the award line during Peer Review.
          Brian P. Vickers
          CEO - Vickers Consulting Services, Inc
          FH.com/Firehouse Mag Contributor
          www.helpmewithgrants.com
          www.facebook.com/vcsinc

          Comment


          • #6
            It has been less than a year so I guess this isn't an option. Maybe I missed it in the guidance, but why doesn't it just say that a position has to be vacant for 2 years to be considered new? I understand why they went back to just hiring "new" firefighters instead of the rehires, as that was simply being abused by many as a way to fund staffing. I know of a few local city departments that received multiple back to back SAFER grants, which was absurd. I think the "new" situation is a little vague in cases like mine. If a position is eliminated and no longer exists at some point it has to be "new" again. Putting a number on how long it has been is slightly arbitrary.

            Comment


            • #7
              Not really, that's why they went away with it. When it was all free money for those years municipal folks were looking at their budgets and would cut staffing or leave positions vacant because they were going after SAFER and figured either they get it and they add the FFs back or they just leave it go and make the department deal with it. Somewhere in the long drawn out legalese sections was something about vacancies, and how sudden drops in staffing levels are flags. That has to be reported in the application's statistics also in the front section about what the levels are now plus what they were last year and year before. So it will show that drop within the last year and you'll have to explain why they didn't fill a vacancy when someone left just a few months ago.

              Really aren't many valid reasons for cutting 1 position, and of course that now begs the question of is that now 1 shift has 3 when the rest have 4? Where's the OT budget? How with the relative size of the overall municipal budget is that position not being filled? If it was in mid-fiscal year that the person left it means the rest of the pay for their position was still in the budget available to pay a replacement. Odds are the current FY Budget was in the works, level-funding would have covered the new hire to cover that position.

              It's free to apply but there are a lot of hurdles to be overcome, and based on experience as much as I'd enjoy the argumentative challenge knowing what you're up against I wouldn't let you hire us to write it knowing it's less than a slim chance of flying. After all 6 months ago they said they didn't have the money to handle the cost of that one position, how hollow is a promise to pay the matching and then keep the position past Year 3 going to sound? It's not required but that's the whole point is to cover the gaps between current growth and delayed revenue increases from the growth. Same as any other grant if the financial argument isn't solid it's not going anywhere.
              Brian P. Vickers
              CEO - Vickers Consulting Services, Inc
              FH.com/Firehouse Mag Contributor
              www.helpmewithgrants.com
              www.facebook.com/vcsinc

              Comment


              • #8
                I appreciate the response and the input. I agree it would certainly be an uphill battle with a good deal to explain. Unfortunately much of what you describe is accurate as it relates to the actions of the local government. The political climate has led to this situation. In my position I was just simply looking at all possible angles to get back to where we should be and by no means want to take advantage of the program. The bottom line is they could have filled the position if they wanted to. Even with everything to support 4 person staffing, they simply cannot be convinced of the necessity, which is unfortunate. I watched as several local departments received 2 to 3 back to back SAFER grants after threatening to lay off numerous firefighters. These were usually received after pressure from local representatives. That abuse had to end.

                Comment

                300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

                Collapse

                300x600 Forums Only

                Collapse

                Taboola

                Collapse

                Upper 300x250

                Collapse

                Lower 970x90

                Collapse

                Lower 728x90

                Collapse

                Lower 300x50

                Collapse
                Working...
                X