This coming Monday night the City Council will vote to sustain or over-ride Mayor Dave Schmidt’s veto of a number of line item expenditures of the recently-passed 2011-12 City budget in order to save $650,000 and reduce the City’s property tax increase built into the new budget.
Among the line-items Schmidt vetoed are the funds to fill one of two vacancies in the Fire Department. Schmidt’s goal was to cut the substantial overtime costs that department has been ringing up without negating that savings by hiring another full-time employee. According to Schmidt, he vetted that situation with Police Chief Mike Zywanski before Schmidt vetoed that fighter position, and no public safety concerns were expressed.
But at this past Monday night’s COW meeting, Park Ridge resident and former Des Plaines fire chief Tom Farinella called the resulting Fire Department staffing “irresponsible.” Farinella, citing a variety of fire protection standards, claims that because Park Ridge needs a minimum of 15 ready-for-duty firefighters and paramedics on every shift, it actually needs 18 available firefighters/paramedics to account for the possibility that as many as 3 might be unavailable at any given time due to illness, injury, vacation or personal matters.
The term “irresponsible” is an easy one to throw around, in part because it truly is descriptive of the way government handles many of its duties – especially the way public officials spend other people’s money. That’s the way we regularly use “irresponsible,” and we’ve got 9 years (out of the past 10) of deficit spending by the City (despite annual tax increases that met or exceeded the rate of inflation) as the most notable evidence to prove that point.
But Mr. Farinella’s use of that term takes on special meaning because he used it in the context of the word “unsafe” – even if he didn’t take the logical next step of actually explaining exactly what he meant by “unsafe.”
Frankly, we’re skeptical of Farinella’s conclusion because, historically, government bureaucrats (and retired bureaucrats like Farinella) have embraced the “peak-demand” approach to staffing. That way, on those rare occasions of peak demand, nobody has to really extend themselves to deal with it; and life gets even better during the vast majority of those off-peak hours when departments are effectively over-staffed. Plus, bureaucrat-managers can cite to bigger staffs to underscore their importance and argue for more compensation.
So what’s not to like about over-staffing – so long as you’re not the taxpayer footing the bill?
We recall the hue and cry a year ago when the City cut four police officers. “Unsafe” was one of the words used back then, too, with a similar degree of vagueness. But a year later, Park Ridge is not in the midst of a crime spree; and, to the best of our knowledge, even the most cautious villagers are not locking up their women, children and cattle after dark to keep the maraurders, pillagers and rustlers at bay.
But if the mayor’s line item veto of the one firefighter position truly creates a significant, definable safety risk to Park Ridge residents or to the firefighters themselves, we need to know it. Which is why we question Farinella’s failure to describe those safety risks in concrete terms instead of his bare, conclusory “unsafe” pronouncement; and we also wonder why Chief Z didn’t state, then and there, whether he agreed or disagreed with Farinella, and why.
After decades of watching these Kabuki-like performances play out at City Hall, we’ll hazard a guess that the point of Farinella’s exercise was in large measure political: we recall seeing him at City Hall a year ago when cuts in Fire Department staffing were being discussed, so this little bit of fear-mongering could have been intended to give aldermen something to hang their veto-override hats on when it comes to that particular line item.
From the sound of things, outgoing Ald. (and Public Safety Committe chair) Frank Wsol is already buying into it. “No one wants to see the public put at risk because we are trying to balance the budget on the back of the Fire Department service,” said Wsol afterward.
Neither do we, alderman (and that’s a nice sound-bite you’ve got there). So why didn’t you ask Mr. Farinella and Chief Z to elucidate their positions when you had the chance Monday night?
UPDATE (4/14/11)
The following is a comment we received from Mr. Farinella:
As I stated during my comments at the April 11th Committee of the Whole Meeting, do to work responsibilities, I cannot attend the April 18th City Council Meeting. I thanked the City Council for the opportunity to address this issue at the April 11th Committee of the Whole Meeting.
During the discussion at the Committee of the Whole Meeting on Monday night, Fire Chief Zywanski, Alderman DiPietro and I specifically referred to National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 1710, Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations By Career Fire Departments.
NFPA 1710 5.2.3.2 Initial Full Alarm Assignment Capability states:
5.2.3.2.1 The fire department shall have the capability to deploy an initial full alarm assignment within an 8-minute response time to 90 percent of the incidents as established in Chapter 4.
5.2.3.2.2 The initial full alarm assignment shall provide for the following (edited for space):
1 Incident Commander
1 firefighter to establish an uninterrupted water supply and water flow application
4 firefighters to establish two hose lines (attack & backup)
2 firefighters to provide support for each hose line, provide hydrant hookup, assist in line lays, utility control (gas & electric) and forcible entry
2 firefighters for each victim search & rescue team
2 firefighters for a minimum of one ventilation team
1 firefighter as an aerial ladder operator, if aerial device is used in operations
2 firefighters to function as an initial rapid intervention crew
NFPA 1710, which is a Nationally recognized standard, clearly states that a MINIMUM of 14-15 firefighters should be responding to an incident. This is the number of firefighters necessary to respond to a typical single-family residential structure fire and be capable of performing all of the necessary responsibilities for the safety of the public and firefighters.
In my 30 year career, 11 as Fire Chief, I have NEVER used the term “irresponsible” loosely. The Park Ridge Fire Department currently has a minimum staffing level of 12; 2-3 below the Nationally recognized standard for initial response to a structure fire. Since the 1970’s, the Fire Service has efficiently used automatic aid and mutual aid to supplement their response to Additional Alarm Assignments. I sincerely believe that each municipality bears the responsibility to adequately respond to an Initial Alarm Assignment, as described above.
Many municipalities decide to supplement their staffing through overtime, in lieu of hiring a full time firefighter. This is an acceptable practice, so long as current staffing is capable of efficiently filling the vacant position(s) and the budget adequately provides for the overtime expenditure. The problem is, you cannot have it both ways! You cannot reduce overtime expenditures and not fill position vacancies. With all due respect to Mayor Schmidt, apparently, this is what he is trying to do. I respectfully request the City Council to override the mayor’s veto to only fill one of the two vacant positions in the fire department.
I trust that the above information sufficiently and responsibly supports my position.
Respectfully submitted,
Tom Farinella
Park Ridge Resident
Retired Fire Chief, Des Plaines Fire Department
_______________________________
PublicWatchdog appreciates Mr. Farinella’s clarification.
As we understand it, compliance with NFPA 1710 is not mandatory but merely recommended. We are unaware of any adverse adminstrative consequences attendant to non-compliance.
Our research also indicates that the NFPA’s adoption of Standard 1710 was driven substantially by the Int’l Association of Fire Fighters, a/k/a the firefighters’ union, whose website touts it as “one of the most active lobbying organizations in Washington; its Political Action Committee, FIREPAC, is among the top one percent of the more than 4,000 federal PACs in the country.” It also touts its “capacity to create and support legislation on behalf of first responders” both in Washington D.C. and before the Canadian Parliament, including “[c]ollective bargaining rights, staffing, line-of-duty deaths, health care, pensions and safety-issues.”
Perhaps that explains why the NFPA 1710 “staffing” requirements have been described by critics as the “firefighters’ full employment act.” While the IAFF’s prominence in adoption of NFPA 1710 doesn’t make those requirements inherently invalid, it should at least call into question whether their purpose is as much for “featherbedding” as for public safety.
More importantly, however, is that although Mr. Farinelli opines “that each municipality bears the responsibility to adequately respond to an Initial Alarm Assignment,” NFPA 1710 expressly allows compliance with its staffing requirements through the use of “mutual aid” (assistance upon request pursuant to certain protocols) and “automatic aid” (immediate joint dispatch and response) arrangements for multiple jurisdictions’ joint and reciprocal deployment of firefighting and/or EMS personnel and equipment, like what we understand Park Ridge already has with neighboring communities.
We reiterate our concern for the safety of the public and our firefighters/EMS personnel. But we are equally concerned with the inherently-flawed, old-style politics that spurred the growth of government to the point where it has become economically unsustainable – unless our goal is to bequeath to our children, grandchildren and great grandchilden double-digit trillions of dollars of systemic, institutionalized debt that cuts across federal, state and local governments.
To read or post comments, click on title.
12 comments so far
You know I don’t despise you faulting Mr. Farinella for not explaining himself but don’t you think we need to listen to those like him who had experiecne at things like “firefighting.”
After all, they know what it’s like.
EDITOR’S NOTE: First of all, we hold Mr. Farinella in high regard as both a firefighter and for his years of service to the local youth baseball program.
That being said, we can’t condone the “rimshot”-like manner in which he dismissed what appears to have been a sound management decision of the mayor and Chief Z as “irresponsible” and “unsafe,” with no explanation other than it’s being his opinion – when the relevant issue is less a fire fighting one and, instead, more of a labor management/staffing one; i.e., how many fire personnel might be unavailable for work on any given day. Just because somebody is an excellent firefighter (or police officer, or teacher, or doctor, or lawyer, etc.) doesn’t make them a good manager, or make them experts in management matters that involve balancing service and cost.
The city council should address this safety issue before they vote on the mayor’s veto of that fireman position. Maybe Mr. Farinella can attend and be questioned about what he meant by unsafe.
fine articulation of why private sector folk get so annoyed with public sector folk — the rest of us are on a moderate-to-skeletal staffing plan and when somebody’s out sick, everyone else runs faster. When it’s the next person’s turn to be out, he gets the same coverage. That’s why it’s called a team. You hustle a bit more. Staffing to the max to account for absent parties and then taking it easy the majority of the time is — or was — so public sector. That’s changing. Of course, there are places where lean and mean has caused crises, such as the hospital-borne illnesses due to chronic understaffing there. The point is, too many staff or too few has to be rigorously checked out, not just assumed, for the greed of management or the sloth of employees.
“Staffing to the max to account for absent parties and then taking it easy the majority of the time is — or was — so public sector”.
OK….so we want the firemen to back up his claims but making a blanket statement like this is no problem??? 8:01 PM….please tell me how it is that you know that “taking it easy” is or was the norm in police and fire departments around the country or here in PR.
I am all for discussions about appropriate staffing and there will be varying opinions, as there are on many issues. Your statement is not fact based and just more of the anti pubic worker storyline that is soooooo popular these days. By the way, I work in the private sector and am not in a union.
8:01 p.m. again here — I’m inclined to put firefighters and police in the same category as nurses; the consequences of too few workers is potentially far worse than some waste. I was thinking more of other public sector workers who have brought this on themselves. I should not have thrown my baggage on top of this passing flatcar. My apologies to firefighters and other demonstrably useful folk who put themselves in harm’s way for us. But that doesn’t excuse the sullen hordes of other workers who have it astonishingly good by private sector standards and still complain and goldbrick. (And by the way, I feel the same about private sector schlumps who are on deck due to nepotism, favoritism or other isms. Everybody should demonstrate Swiss Army knife versatility and value every day they get paid.
EDITOR’S NOTE: 8:01/6:11, we agree that “the consequences of too few workers is potentially far worse than some waste.” Unfortunately, too few workers rarely, if ever, seems to be the problem. And applying a simplistic “can’t have too few…wouldn’t be prudent” standard puts you down that slippery slope of what’s ever “enough.” Heck, Monday night Ald. Ryan seemed to be questioning our capacity to fight a “Towering Inferno” at Lutheran General.
Focusing just on firefighters and EMS personnel, the solution sure seems to be mutual aid and automatic aid agreements with all of our nearby neighboring communities (Niles, Des Plaines, Norridge, Rosemont, Morton Grove, etc.). And it might be time to re-think the idea that every ambulance call also gets a fire engine escort.
8:01:
You are playing the same ole’ game. It’s the old two step!! Step one is let’s apologize to the police and firemen, even though your comment in the context of this thread was crystal clear. Step two is to double down on the rest of the goldbrickers but you offer no proof!! The strategy is that if you say it often enough it becomes true. To repeat what I said earlier….Your statement is not fact based and just more of the anti public worker storyline that is soooooo popular these days.
By the way, in terms of being useful, I would say that public works and plow drivers were pretty freakin’ useful this winter, even considering you think they have it soooooo good compared to the private sector. Give me a break!!!
EDITOR’S NOTE: Yep, those snow plow drivers sure were “pretty freakin’ useful” on all those days it snows more than a few inches…say, maybe, 30 days a year, tops? So would your own 4WD Ford F150 fitted with a snow plow, but we don’t see all that many of those cruising Park Ridge.
It’s difficult to fairly debate an issue, when Public Watchdog insists on having the last word. However, in response to Public Watchdog’s uninformed opinion on the NFPA, I submit Wikipedia’s objective description of the NFPA to your readers.
National Fire Protection Association
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) is a U.S. organization (albeit with some international members) charged with creating and maintaining minimum standards and requirements for fire prevention and suppression activities, training, and equipment, as well as other life-safety codes and standards. This includes everything from building codes to the personal protective equipment utilized by firefighters while extinguishing a blaze.
History
The NFPA was formed in 1896 by a group of insurance firm representatives with the stated purpose of standardizing the new and burgeoning market of fire sprinkler systems. The scope of the NFPA’s influence grew from sprinklers to include building electrical systems (another new and fast-growing technology), and then all aspects of building design and construction.
Its original membership consisted of Mark Saucier. There was little representation from the industries the NFPA sought to regulate.
This changed in 1904 to allow other industries and individuals to participate actively in the development of the standards promulgated by the NFPA. The first fire department to be represented in the NFPA was the New York City Fire Department in 1905. Today, the NFPA includes representatives from many fire departments, insurance companies, manufacturing associations, unions, trade organizations, even average people.
The NFPA today
Headquartered in Quincy, Massachusetts, U.S.A., the NFPA oversees the development and maintenance of over 300 codes and standards. A cadre of over 6000 volunteers representing the fire service, insurance, business, industry, government, and consumers develops these documents. Many state, local, and national governments incorporate the standards and codes developed by the Association into their own law either verbatim, or with only minor modifications. Even when not written into law, the Association’s standards and codes are typically accepted as a professional standard, and are recognized by many courts as such. This widespread acceptance is a testament to the broad representation and input received on all the NFPA’s projects.
I stand by my opinion that each municipality has the responsibility to provide Initial Full Alarm Assignment Capability. With my 30 years experience in the fire service, I know that automatic aid and mutual aid companies may not always be available, due to the primary responsibility of responding to emergencies within their own jurisdiction and they cannot always be relied upon to respond within an 8 minute response time to 90% of the incidents, as the standard recommends.
The Public Watchdog suggests the staffing solution of firefighters and EMS personnel “seems to be mutual aid and automatic aid agreements with our neighboring communities.” Fact is, Park Ridge already has those agreements in place!
The Public Watchdog also suggests, “It might be time to re-think the idea that every ambulance call gets a fire engine escort.” Once again, the Public Watchdog is uninformed! A fire engine does not “escort” the ambulance on every call. A fire engine is dispatched to assist the ambulance to vehicle accidents (multiple victim and fire possibility) and to “life threatening” emergencies, such as heart attacks, strokes, unconscious patients etc., when additional personnel are required in order to treat the patient with necessary and appropriate medical care.
Respectfully submitted,
Tom Farinella
EDITOR’S NOTE: Sorry, Mr. Farinella, but it’s our blog so we get the last word. We are, however, willing to give you ample opportunity to express your views in your own words (without editing), so we think that’s about as “fair” as blogging can be.
As for our “uninformed opinions” you complain about, to what exactly are you referring?
Is it our assertion that NFPA’s adoption of Standard 1710 in 2001 “was driven substantially” by the IAFF (firefighters’ union) for economic benefits as much as for public safety? If so, we quote from a July/August 2001 article on the IAFF website titled, appropriately, “Politics puts Bread on your Table”: “Another matter that will require heavy involvement in the political process is implementation of the new NFPA 1710 standard, which was recently issued after years of work by IAFF and our allies.”[Emphasis added]. That article goes on to tout how the IAFF lobbies local officials [on issues like adoption of NFPA 1710] because such issues “directly affect [firefighters’] salary, benefits, and working conditions.”
Is it our characterization of NFPA 1710 as being the “firefighters’ full employment act”? That term was coined by Ray Crouch Sr., Univ. of Tennessee, in his paper: “What’s all the Confusion about NFPA 1710,” in which he notes that “NFPA 1710 may well be the most controversial standard that has been promulgated in recent history” – in part because its tying of response times and staffing together “will be used as a club by unions, fire chiefs and others to pound out more firefighters” which “[i]n some cases…will not fix any problems, but will certainly cost a lot more money.”
Or is it our support of “automatic aid” and “mutual aid” arrangements, two ways NFPA 1710 expressly permits something less than its recommended stand-alone staffing levels? In opposing those two alternatives, you seem to be cherry-picking the portions of NFPA 1710 that would require Park Ridge to employ more fire personnel, while at the same time ignoring the portions that would reduce personnel.
But if it’s our position on “fire engine escorts” for ambulances, isn’t your argument that a fire engine does not “escort” the ambulance but, instead, is “dispatched to assist the ambulance” just semantics? Whether escorting or assisting, the bottom line is that a fire truck seems to show up at every ambulance call – with no evidence that the fire engine provides any equipment for treating “heart attacks, strokes, [and] unconscious patients” that the ambulance does not have. So what’s the point?
At the time of its adoption in 2001, NFPA 1710 was opposed by the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the United States Conference of Mayors, the International City/County Management Association, and numerous other national and regional groups. And to the best of our knowledge it is not a legally mandated standard for fire departments here in Illinois.
For all these reasons, we must take issue with your calling us “uninformed.”
I have read this blog for a long time, and like most people, I agree with some of the opinions expressed by the editor and disagree with others. That is to be expected. But, this is the first time I have felt the need to make a comment, after reading some of this misinformation that the editor is repeatedly asserting in this blog entry. When it is all said and done, each voter has a right to his/her opinion, but they should have all the facts to make their decision.
Mr. Farinella did a good job of describing the role of the fire engine on an ambulance call, yet you still say “what’s the point?” Here is the point. When you are at a family dinner on Sunday and a loved one collapses, you call 911. When the firefighter/paramedics arrive, they begin a series of actions that need to be performed perfectly, in sequence and within minutes or, more likely, seconds, or your loved one will die. That is not an exaggeration, that is a fact, in a true emergency. The following is what needs to be done by the firefighter/paramedics after you call 911. One person needs to be responsible for vital signs, and when there are none, in the case of choking, cardiac arrest, respiratory distress, etc., that person needs to create an airway by carefully placing a tube down the patient’s throat or even slicing open the throat to breathe for the patient. The second person needs to assess circulation, and act as the patient’s heart by pumping on the patient’s chest. The third person needs to establish an intravenous line in the patient’s arm, leg or neck and measure and administer life saving medications. The fourth person is talking to the family members, friends or searching around the house for medications, or medical alerts to get a medical history and find out the patient’s history as well as any allergies so that no drugs are administered that could do further harm to the patient. The fifth person is placing electrodes on the patient’s body to assess heart rhythms and, if needed, shock the patient, as well as opening medicines, running to the ambulance, calling the hospital to get medical direction from the doctor, and any other task that needs to be accomplished. Oh, and I almost forgot – all of this needs to be done in about a minute for your loved one to have a chance to survive, since it takes anywhere from 3-5 minutes for the firefighters to arrive at your house if you are lucky and they are not on another call. So, that is why you need 5 people (two on the ambulance and three on the engine).
Your next error – your incorrect opinion that there is “no evidence that the fire engine provides any equipment for treating “heart attacks, strokes, [and] unconscious patients” that the ambulance does not have.” You could have learned a valuable lesson by visiting one of your fire houses to look around and ask questions. Park Ridge has the benefit of having firefighter/paramedic engines, so the fire engine does, in fact, carry this life saving equipment. All the firefighters are cross-trained because some days they are assigned to the ambulance, and some days they are assigned to the fire engine. So, when the fire engine gets there at the same time as the ambulance, the equipment on the engine serves as a valuable backup in case something is missing or not working on the ambulance. Sadly, this happens very often, due to the lack of funding to replace equipment and also the hard conditions in which this equipment is often used. The more important reason that the engines are carrying this equipment is also the reason is it necessary for the engine to be dispatched on the serious ambulance calls. Due to lower staffing as well as the increasing reliance by people on ambulance services, you don’t always have the luxury of getting the closest ambulance. If you collapse at Dominicks on Cumberland, you could very often be getting the ambulance from the station on Oakton, since the ambulance from the station down the street is already out at another call. So, that is why the engines are always dispatched to the calls in addition to the ambulance. In this example, you will have three firefighter/paramedics arrive within a minute from the closest station on an engine equipped with almost every single piece of life saving equipment that is on an ambulance, except for the stretcher. They will be able to treat you and stabilize you in the 5-8 minutes it takes the other ambulance to get to you.
Finally, I would like to address your issue of relying on mutual aid. Mr. Farinella is, once again, correct that these mutual aid policies have been in place in Park Ridge for years already. Mutual aid serves a valuable purpose, but it cannot be counted on for the most vital initial response when help is needed the most. Whether it be a fire, a car accident, or a medical emergency, the time that life and property is saved is in the first few minutes. Mutual aid is good for having backup firefighters take over a hoseline for the initial crews or for the other fire department to standby in Park Ridge’s stations to respond to any other emergencies that are going on while Park Ridge’s crews are committed to the original emergency. But, when the child is trapped on the second floor of a house fire, or grandma is choking at Thanksgiving dinner, or your wife is pinned into the dashboard after her car flipped over, you don’t want to be waiting 8-10 minutes for help to come from Niles or Norridge or Des Plaines. I’m sure you will take issue with these once in a lifetime emergencies, and say that they rarely happen, but that is why you have a fire department. For the once in a lifetime emergencies.
So, while I appreciate your civic pride in creating and maintaining this blog, and I respect your right to have an opinion, I also realize that you can’t be expected to know everything about everything. And, while you might take issue with the fact that Mr. Farinella used the word, in this argument, at times, you are uninformed.
EDITOR’S NOTE: “What “misinformation” – facts, rather than opinion – are we “repeatedly asserting”?
Your various anecdotes appear to prove nothing more than that, at any single point in time, Park Ridge can have insufficient fire (or police, or public works, etc) personnel for the tasks at hand – as suggested by Ald. Ryan’s “towering inferno” questions about the PRFD’s ability to fight high-floor fires at Lutheran General Hospital – that even strict compliance with the full staffing recommendations of NFPA 1710 will not prevent.
And if you don’t like “mutual aid,” take it up with NFPA as that’s a form of staffing compliance accepted by NFPA 1710 – which itself is not required under Illinois law.
EDITOR’S NOTE: “What “misinformation” – facts, rather than opinion – are we “repeatedly asserting”?
I have lost a lot of respect for this blog and its editor’s. It’s very clear that you truly have no clue about what a Fire Engine even carries or what it is used for, My 5 year old could tell you that it carries emergency medical equipment. Anon on 04.16.11 11:37 pm did a good job of explaining exactly why a fire engine responds with an ambulance and still you play coy. I don’t want the safety of my family compromised because we are relying of other cities to respond. It is the cities responsibility to provide those services in a safe and expeditious manner.
You hide behind “our opinion” but your opinion should be based on factual information. When it isn’t, you simply just sound like another clueless clown who sits behind a desk playing WOW and running a blog.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We’re crushed, but we’ll just have to learn to live without your respect.
You might want to ask your 5 year old to help you re-read our Editor’s Note, which said: “[A] fire truck seems to show up at every ambulance call – with no evidence that the fire engine provides any equipment for treating ‘heart attacks, strokes, [and] unconscious patients’ that the ambulance does not have.” [Emphasis added] Or try moving your lips when you re-read it.
As for your beef about Park Ridge’s “relying of [sic] other cities to respond,” take it to the NFPA because relying (at least in part) on other communities – i.e., “automatic aid” and “mutual aid” – complies with NFPA 1710, even though compliance is not mandatory because NFPA 1710 is not binding statewide in Illinois. That’s the “factual information” on which our opinion is based.
Oh, and one last bit of “factual information”: that venerable NFPA 1710 (at Section 4.1.2.1.2) prescribes response time compliance of 90%, meaning that it allows for a 1 in 10 chance that “the safety of [your] family [will be] compromised” by delayed response. Sweet dreams.
I had my 5 year old read it and he said “Dad, this guy doesn’t know that there is a difference between a Fire Truck and a Fire Engine” as displayed by your original comment:“[A] fire truck seems to show up at every ambulance call – with no evidence that the fire engine provides any equipment for treating ‘heart attacks, strokes, [and] unconscious patients’ that the ambulance does not have.” TRY MOVING YOUR LIPS WHILE READING YOUR OWN WRITING. My 5 year old, did mention that the Engine carries 3 trained paramedics to assist in such a medical emergency, which is the entire POINT about proper staffing and an engine responding with the ambulance. For someone who wants to discount the validity of NFPA, you sir, sure like to selectively mention points of reference from this recommended standard. I do sleep safe at night because we have well trained dedicated fire and police personnel that do an honorable job with limited resources. I won’t feel so secure if we continue to make cuts to them and rely on other towns to protect us. I’m sure you’ll have some less then witty comeback, along with another NFPA reference. Perhaps next time you will do your research before making such statements in the future.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Other than showing off what a precocious 5 year old you have, your point is what exactly?
That we don’t know the difference between a “fire truck” and a “fire engine”? If so, guilty as charged because we have always understood those terms to be interchangeable.
That it requires 5 trained paramedics (2 in the ambulance, 3 in the fire truck/engine) to handle each EMS call? If so, guilty as charged, as we could find no mention of that kind of staffing requirement in NFPA 1710.
That Park Ridge has fine fire and police personnel? We agree (with a few notable exceptions whose conduct has cost the City’s taxpayers some significant expense in attorneys’ fees and settlements), and we have never asserted otherwise.
That we’re not being consistent in dealing with NFPA 1710? That’s just plain wrong for reasons too numerous to re-state but obvious from this post and all “Editor’s Notes” to the various comments.
Watchdog,
Thanks for the information. Now I know both sides of the issue.
It seems that you have upset some of the firefighters or their fanboys by suggesting that the taxpayers should have a say in the staffing level of public agencies. Kudos for speaking the truth!
EDITOR’S NOTE: Thanks, but we caution against complacency because this is not a black-and-white issue, especially when public safety is involved. We spent a LOT of time researching this matter, the history of NFPA’s adoption of NFPA 1710 (including its support by the firefighters’ union and its opposition by various governmental groups), its provisions, and their effect – and while we are not “uninformed” (despite the opinion of those who disagree with our position) we do not feel that we are over-informed, either.
Your point about the taxpayers and local governments having a say in the staffing level of their fire departments appears to be a significant reason why NFPA 1710 permitted certain flexibility instead of requiring a strict and absolute head count; and why, notwithstanding that flexibility, the State of Illinois and many Illinois municipalities have not formally adopted NFPA 1710.
Maybe if we wern’t saddeled with six figure pensions like mr farinella’s we could afford more fireman.
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>