Rockbridge Emergency

Main discussion area is here. Reply to a message to continue a discussion thread, or create your own new Topics.
User avatar
Juggler
Posts: 634
Joined: 2007 Jun 11 03:51

Acronyms

Postby Juggler » 2008 Jul 23 01:36

Hong Kong wrote:CT ... OEMS ... LLSC ... LFD
Are we going overboard on acronyms here?
:joker: Or maybe it's private & you don't want the public to understand? :joker:

Truckie

Missing Box and the Hong Kong Flu

Postby Truckie » 2008 Jul 23 01:40

Hong Kong wrote:How does a Fire Dept go about obtaining a CT Box, when you have to recieve a letter from OEMS to do so... Maybe now we all know where the missing CT Box from LLSC went... I guess it would be easy to pull it off when you have members from LFD going to LLSC hanging out and LLSC unit being parked at LFD station!!! Maybe the OEMS should check into that..... But Im just saying!!!!


Hong Kong Phooey... take your trolling tail elsewhere.

The CT box thing was way before the LFD went Medic level. Consolidate systems and this "parked where by who" crap wouldn't even be an issue... as it's not at this point anyhow.

The LFD has it's own boxes. All is accounted for and legal. Get a life.... I'm just sayin'~!!!

By the way, OEMS and the State Police did investigate the missing box. Did they find it at the LFD? You obviously know that answer... how about wasting someone else's time.

And how about you giving that box back... we won't tell on ya.

On a serious note, that box went missing on the LLSC volunteer time... of which, they have only one medic and she is a "roll-call-only" member. She wasn't even around when it went missing. Seems EMT-Bs or others "lost" that box.

Truckie

Re: Acronyms

Postby Truckie » 2008 Jul 23 01:58

Juggler wrote:
Hong Kong wrote:CT ... OEMS ... LLSC ... LFD
Are we going overboard on acronyms here?
:joker: Or maybe it's private & you don't want the public to understand? :joker:


Sorry Juggler, our fingers get tired.

AIC:
Attendant In Charge
The person responsible for all patient care and procedures.

"CT" Box; Cardiac Tech Box:
An IV (Intravenous *lol) fluid and drug box to be utilized exclusively by Medic Level personnel.

CSEMSC:
Central Shenandoah Emergency Medical Services Council
The District Agency governing Protocol and EMS Operations for Lexington et al.
EMS agencies within a said district report to the District Council. District Councils report to VDH / OEMS.

EMT-B:
Emergency Medical Technician - Basic
The base level EMT certification. Required to ride AIC with a patient.

EMT-E:
Emergency Medical Technician - Enhanced
A mid-level EMT that can administer IVs and a restricted level of patient care drugs and procedures.

EMT-I
Emergency Medical Technician - Intermediate
An upper-level EMT that can administer IVs and a full range of patient care drugs and procedures (Medic Level).

EMT-P:
Emergency Medical Technician - Paramedic
The highest-level EMT that can administer IVs and a full range of patient care drugs and procedures (Medic Level).

Fire Chief:
The head over all operations and administrations of a fire department. The fire chief is responsible for the mitigation of situations and incidents beneath the domain of the fire department. The fire chief has total control and direction of all personnel beneath his command and all authority and control of emergency incidents.

Fire Marshal:
The head of enforcement of fire codes, the investigation of origin and cause of a fire or other incident, and as directed the head of public fire education. The fire marshal has no incident mitigation responsibility and his incident authority only extends to the scope of his practice.

LFD:
Lexington Fire / EMS Department

LLSC:
Lexington Lifesaving and First Aid Crew
Lexington's volunteer EMS unit.

VDH / OEMS:
Virginia Department of Health / Office of Emergency Medical Services.
The state level authority governing all EMS regulations and operational procedures.


Anything else we've used that requires clarification Juggler? If so, I'll edit this post and maintain it all in one place. We certainly want "you all" to understand. This thread is written for the "public" understanding.
Last edited by Truckie on 2008 Jul 23 20:59, edited 3 times in total.

Hong Kong

Re: Lexington-Rockbridge Emergency Services

Postby Hong Kong » 2008 Jul 23 02:17

Just one last word for the night, why are you making an A** of yourself? Just would like to know. I find your comments back to my last post to funny and amusing. Thanks for the comments.

About the acronyms, I just figured after eight pages the public would be fimiliar with all the acronyms. I will not use them anymore so the "public" can understand my comments.
Last edited by Hong Kong on 2008 Jul 23 02:27, edited 1 time in total.

Truckie

back at cha

Postby Truckie » 2008 Jul 23 02:25

Hong Kong wrote:Just one last word for the night, why are you making an A** of yourself? Just would like to know. I find your comments back to my last post to funny and amusing. Thanks for the comments.

In what way am I making an A** of myself?

Oh, I see that you edited in a small snub for Juggler after I asked you "in what way?" Maybe you were talking to Juggler. If so, sorry I butted in... but, doubtful you were speaking to Juggler 'cause he'll hunt you down and Bitch Slap your A**.

If you were talking at me, you're welcome for the 'too' funny amusement... my intention to be sure.

Truckie

Hong Kong Phooey, Here's a Lesson For Ya

Postby Truckie » 2008 Jul 23 03:10

Hong Kong wrote:How does a Fire Dept go about obtaining a CT Box, when you have to recieve a letter from OEMS to do so... Maybe now we all know where the missing CT Box from LLSC went... I guess it would be easy to pull it off when you have members from LFD going to LLSC hanging out and LLSC unit being parked at LFD station!!! Maybe the OEMS should check into that..... But Im just saying!!!!


Just FYI, because it's fairly obvious that you actually have no understanding of "how" an agency goes "about obtaining a CT Box."

First, you request Agency EMS licensure.
If the requesting agency is private, the CSEMS Council invoices an 'x' number of empty boxes to your agency; you have to buy it and/or them.

In a volunteer unit's case, CSEMSC buys the boxes on a grant and places it/them into circulation within the "system."

The agency receives licensure.

If an agency needs four CT Boxes, then four new ones are placed into the system.

Does this help your understanding of "how" a fire department goes about obtaining a CT Box? Probably not but, this will help Juggler's understanding.

{eta}
You too have insinuated that someone on the LFD is a felon by your accusation of the LFD stealing a CT Box. I will advise you as I have fire2fight, keep your identity very secret (as I'm sure that both of you will). Each of you just may have to put your money where your (dis)respective mouths went.
Last edited by Truckie on 2008 Jul 24 03:13, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
fangz1956
Posts: 1124
Joined: 2007 Jul 07 10:16

Re: Lexington-Rockbridge Emergency Services

Postby fangz1956 » 2008 Jul 23 07:27

fire2fight wrote:
You have not told the public why two of the ALS providers of the Lexington Fire Department carry loaded weapons on their sides when answering calls, both fire and EMS. Is it not a violation of EMS regulations to carry weapons on EMS vehicles unless specific permission has been granted. Tell the public why it is necessary for these individuals to carry weapons.
I haven't seen this question answered yet and am highly interested in the response to it. If this is true, then it appears to be a direct violation of the Code of Virginia.

I'm waiting.

:wink:
Ever looked at someone and thought "the wheel is turning but the hamster is dead"?

User avatar
Concerned_Citizen
Posts: 49
Joined: 2008 May 30 14:57

Re: Lexington-Rockbridge Emergency Services

Postby Concerned_Citizen » 2008 Jul 23 10:10

Fangz,
There is no statute prohibiting firearms carry on any emergency vehicle. fire2fight is simply creating an issue because he (again if you are a he), doesn't understand the value of amendment 2A, and why there are those that decide to carry everyday. Also, it's not isolated to the ALS providers, he just poking at them because he doesn't know the real situation.

Prohibiting firearms carry on a state government sanctioned vehicle is unconstitutional, and therefore if an individual is allowed to possess a firearm he/she is allowed to open carry. Furthermore, if the individual obtains a concealed handgun permit the individual may carry it concealed (to include an emergency vehicle). I thought Truckie had pretty much summed it up in an earlier post.
Μολὼν λαβέ

countyresident

Re: Lexington-Rockbridge Emergency Services

Postby countyresident » 2008 Jul 23 11:13

I will admit that it has taken meet a great deal of time to read all of the posts and follow along in the paper. After trying to disgest all of this I will offer some thoughts.
First and foremost this is an issue that should have never gone to court in any way shape or fashion. I fully understand the position of the City and at the same time agree in principal with what some members of the LFD have said. It is very apparent that there is a great deal of distrust between the City and the fire department, as I recall that has not always been true. Money should not be the issue, the service to the community should be first in everyone's mind. With that in mind I am disgusted that grown men and women act the way you are over this issue.
Second, I have never seen where the city has said that the money would be used for anything other than the fire department, I suspect that the city is trying to rein in out-of-control spending that exists much like in the first aid. Money does not grow on trees and as members of the FD you need to remember that your wishes need to be balanced against your actual needs....... there is a big difference. That because you want something does not mean that it is a neccesity, understand that sometimes people will say no........ apparently you do not realize that the nation is in tough economic times, and that you must be responsible with taxpayer monies, to include donations.
Third, members of the Lexington FD come on and get a life, the city provides you with a budget in excess of $165K a year and they pay for your fuel and utilities. Think about this, how would you like it if you were treated the same as a county department and given approximately $50K a year and told that was all you get. You had to pay for your fuel, I suspect that a lot of the idle driving around town would stop and you would not leave the engines running while you went into Applebees, Malone's, Ruby Tuesday's, or Salerno's to eat a meal. Remeber that you are using taxpaper money to do this, I am sure that that fire station has a kitchen, go buy your food and eat at the station. Do you use taxpayer money to purchase these meals? If so, it needs to STOP!!!!!!!!!!
Fourth, you spend time bad mouthing the city, council members, the first aid, and former chiefs; WHAT YOU REALLY NEED TO DO IS TAKE A HARD LOOK IN THE MIRROR AND YOU WILL SEE WHO IS AT FAULT. Your arrorgance makes me sick... You are spoiled brats who do not appreciate how good you have it compared to the county agencies. You make it sound as if the LFD is not at fault in any way shape or form, that is BS.
If you would go back and take time to read the fire/ems study, it recommended a central figure for fire and ems. Work with the powers to be to make it happen if that is what is in the best interest of the community. You don't move forward by filing lawsuites against your local governement. GET REAL!!!!!!!!!!

User avatar
fangz1956
Posts: 1124
Joined: 2007 Jul 07 10:16

Re: Lexington-Rockbridge Emergency Services

Postby fangz1956 » 2008 Jul 23 11:56

The authority granted in this section shall not be construed to authorize a fire marshal or his assistants to wear or carry firearms.


2A or not, tell me how you are exempt from this part of the Code of Virginia since you are a part of a FIRE DEPARTMENT and fall under the supervision in some fashion of a FIRE MARSHAL. Personally, I find it rather foolhardy to carry a gun on an EMS call...................or maybe it's just some macho ego that needs to fed and displayed.
Ever looked at someone and thought "the wheel is turning but the hamster is dead"?

User avatar
Wise One
Posts: 1817
Joined: 2007 Nov 02 09:33

Re: Lexington-Rockbridge Emergency Services

Postby Wise One » 2008 Jul 23 12:23

fangz1956 wrote:
The authority granted in this section shall not be construed to authorize a fire marshal or his assistants to wear or carry firearms.
... tell me how you are exempt from this part of the Code of Virginia

Very interesting, and this seems a sensible provision designed to reduce the chance that fire personnel might overstep their fire enforcement authority.

I note that this provision withholding authorization may be incomplete. Unless firearms are explicitly prohibited elsewhere in law or regulation, "failure to authorize" does not quite rise to the level of a "prohibition against."
"If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like Donald Trump."

Truckie

For countyresident {PART 1}

Postby Truckie » 2008 Jul 23 14:17

{PART 1 of 2}
Hello countyresident. Thank you for your post.

countyresident wrote:I will admit that it has taken meet a great deal of time to read all of the posts and follow along in the paper. After trying to disgest all of this I will offer some thoughts.

Sir / Madam,
With all due respect, you evidently have not carefully read “all of the posts.” If that were the case, I don’t see how you’ve reached several of your conclusions. Also, you’ve raised questions that have already been addressed, albeit not all encompassed within one post.

countyresident wrote:First and foremost this is an issue that should have never gone to court in any way shape or fashion. I fully understand the position of the City and at the same time agree in principal with what some members of the LFD have said. It is very apparent that there is a great deal of distrust between the City and the fire department, as I recall that has not always been true. Money should not be the issue, the service to the community should be first in everyone's mind. With that in mind I am disgusted that grown men and women act the way you are over this issue.

Thank you for your understanding of both sides of this issue. Although, I must say, upon my reading your post, it doesn't appear that you live up to your claim of "seeing both sides" or at the least your understanding of the LFD side seems amiss.

To reiterate, the City and LFD relationship has been good over the years, yes. One of the primary causes of this “good relationship” is that the City did what it wanted with / for the fire department, while the LFD held private coffers enabling it to do the rest.

You are correct, this should have never gone to court. Recall, it was the City that took such actions. Noteable, the City demands and actions are ILLEGAL too boot. Post the City refusal to negotiate, and the LFD tried, the LFD has been forced to follow the City lead. Hopefully and as is being predicted, everyone will see the beneficial end… beneficial for the public, the LFD, the County departments and benefits for fire departments nation wide. The details cannot be discussed at this juncture, but believe that this Fed case may just straighten out a lot of “things;” not all of them FD or money related either.

Money is not “the issue” as far as the LFD is concerned. We’re not so sure about the City motive however. Judge Moon even posed that question to the City; his question passed less City answer. Money simply happens to be the overt focus of this controversy.

Again, if you’ve understood what has been said by the LFD throughout this thread, “service to the community” is the LFD paramount concern. The LFD would give all of it up for certain guarantees. Most of the LFD proposals are directly for the protection of our community. The City would not meet those guarantees, hence, here we find ourselves.

countyresident wrote:Second, I have never seen where the city has said that the money would be used for anything other than the fire department, I suspect that the city is trying to rein in out-of-control spending that exists much like in the first aid.

Have you ever seen where the City has said that the money “would be” used exclusively for the fire department? The LFD hasn’t. This is one of the “guarantees” that the City would not agree to.

Again, a reiteration of this thread, the City testified in Federal Court that it had no concerns or accusations of LFD mismanagement of its private funds. The City admitted that it had those issues with the LLSC.

countyresident wrote:Money does not grow on trees and as members of the FD you need to remember that your wishes need to be balanced against your actual needs....... there is a big difference. That because you want something does not mean that it is a neccesity, understand that sometimes people will say no........ apparently you do not realize that the nation is in tough economic times, and that you must be responsible with taxpayer monies, to include donations.

I assure you countyresident, the LFD is well aware that money does not grow on trees. We understand that “no” will come from the City from time to time. Our concern is when the City has total control over all of the “nos,” they will become frequent and prohibitive of the public safety.

Again, the LFD is being –nothing outside of responsible- with its funds. The City admitted likewise to a Federal Judge. So one must ask, what is the City motive? Another question, do you have contradictions of the LFD claim and/or the City admission?

countyresident wrote:Third, members of the Lexington FD come on and get a life, the city provides you with a budget in excess of $165K a year and they pay for your fuel and utilities. Think about this, how would you like it if you were treated the same as a county department and given approximately $50K a year and told that was all you get. You had to pay for your fuel, I suspect that a lot of the idle driving around town would stop and you would not leave the engines running while you went into Applebees, Malone's, Ruby Tuesday's, or Salerno's to eat a meal. Remeber that you are using taxpaper money to do this, I am sure that that fire station has a kitchen, go buy your food and eat at the station. Do you use taxpayer money to purchase these meals? If so, it needs to STOP!!!!!!!!!!

The LFD is grateful for the City budgeting funds toward its operation. Do you think that 165 Gs covers all of our expenses? Do you think that the City and County are getting quite a deal for the funds they put into the LFD? If you think not, have the system go paid and then take a look at the costs.

Please stop with the comparison of the City / County department thing. Take a fast look at what the City protects and offers vs. any county department. The County and the City are getting a fat deal on the backs of volunteers, ALL of the area’s volunteers. “Others” are the ones that may need your advice of “come on and get a life.”

Again, you’ve not read this thread if you can make the accusation that anyone other than the individual pays for food. I disagree with you, I think the City should pay for on-duty VOLUNTEERS to have a meal. However, I know that there are those thinking like you; I would not even push for such a move.

I don’t know to what “idle driving around” you’re speaking. There are many aspects to “driving around.” Let’s take a look at a few of them.
We have to train Operators. “Driving” is a HUGE responsibility and an acquired skill. We can teach a monkey to drive the apparatus straight down a roadway. However, teaching one to drive in the city environment is quite extensive training.

Having the public able to see its firefighters and equipment is a general comfort for them and a PR gift for us. The public does not need to always and only see its equipment and personnel parked behind large glass doors or answering an alarm.
Last edited by Truckie on 2008 Jul 24 02:43, edited 7 times in total.

Truckie

For countyresident {PART 2}

Postby Truckie » 2008 Jul 23 14:18

{Part 2 of 2}
As for leaving the apparatus at idle while inside “somewhere.” Allow me to educate you of few, and critical, motives for such action.
There is equipment carried inside the cab that is environmentally sensitive.
You obviously fail to understand that a diesel engine receives most of its wear, and burns a lot of fuel during start-up. A diesel engine uses little fuel at idle and is much more “happy” when left idling as opposed to being shut-down and re-fired.
The electrical systems on this type of equipment are extensive. Shut down and re-energize are very hard on them.
A staffed emergency vehicle, especially a diesel, should not be shut down unless in quarters, and there are other circumstances of course. If the truck is already up and running, it’s likely to remain in that state. While on-the-street, the staff is the sole part of the equation that has to drop what they're doing if an alarm is received; at idle, the apparatus and its systems remain ready for duty.

countyresident wrote:Fourth, you spend time bad mouthing the city, council members, the first aid, and former chiefs; WHAT YOU REALLY NEED TO DO IS TAKE A HARD LOOK IN THE MIRROR AND YOU WILL SEE WHO IS AT FAULT. Your arrorgance makes me sick... You are spoiled brats who do not appreciate how good you have it compared to the county agencies. You make it sound as if the LFD is not at fault in any way shape or form, that is BS.

The LFD readily admits its faults and its sole and critical motivation is to correct them. This thread is not intended to “bad mouth” anyone but, geared to expose all truths, both good and bad. What has apparently become uncomfortable for some is that the "truths" no longer remain hidden.

Seems some have become very uncomfortable with their -new- exposure. One should ask those people "why," and not be abetting their hidden agendas and actions. What do they have to hide? If "nothing" is their answer, then why all the discomfort and smear? We wish this thread to inform the public and put an end to the hiding.

We desire to promote a healing process and to propel “our” system, as a whole, into this millennium. Things have been “business as usual” around our parts for far too long. The time has passed to make real and toward changes. There are many that wish to hold the system back and remain in obscurity for personal motives. What is your motive to defend countyresident? One has to ask what your motive is to name call and point fingers?

countyresident wrote:If you would go back and take time to read the fire/ems study, it recommended a central figure for fire and ems. Work with the powers to be to make it happen if that is what is in the best interest of the community. You don't move forward by filing lawsuites against your local governement. GET REAL!!!!!!!!!!

The LFD is the SOLE entity working toward and demanding a “central figure.” We hear that the City is very interested in such a position. However and at this point, it seems that the City cannot publicly admit to its desire.

If working with the “powers” was making anything happen, the LFD would be both feet into such a venture. For two, now moving into three years, the LFD has been trying to “work with the powers.” The powers are the ones not interested in suggestions and are blocking progression. Again, one must ask, what personal motives and toes are being stepped upon? Why don’t you, countyresident, ask the “powers” instead of degrading the LFD?

The LFD agrees, the best thing that could happen to our system since carrying water on fire trucks is for the City and County to come together and hire a single fire chief. A progressive and motivated chief who can and will grab the reins and fix this system; he/she must be given that authority. But alas, the mere suggestion of such a bold and progressive move seems to be stepping on too many personal motives and toes.

Ahem and again, the City filed a law suit against an independent corporation, which happened to be its fire department. You and a minority of others continue to claim that the LFD is the one that needs a dose of “get real?” How about you “getting real?” You, our county brethren, the public and others uncounted will benefit from this Federal suit. The majority of the issue will not even end up relating to the LFD… just sit back and be patient, the benefits of this action are soon to be realized by each of “us.”
Last edited by Truckie on 2008 Jul 24 02:44, edited 4 times in total.

Truckie

fangz and Wise

Postby Truckie » 2008 Jul 23 14:52

Wise One wrote:
fangz1956 wrote:
The authority granted in this section shall not be construed to authorize a fire marshal or his assistants to wear or carry firearms.
... tell me how you are exempt from this part of the Code of Virginia

Very interesting, and this seems a sensible provision designed to reduce the chance that fire personnel might overstep their fire enforcement authority.

I note that this provision withholding authorization may be incomplete. Unless firearms are explicitly prohibited elsewhere in law or regulation, "failure to authorize" does not quite rise to the level of a "prohibition against."

Okay, let me try this in brief. And Wise is correct
Wise One wrote:"failure to authorize" does not quite rise to the level of a "prohibition against."


fangz, you have taken legislation out of context. The section you cite grants authority as to the establishment and duties of a "fire marshal."

The "Fire Marshal" comes in many flavors. The entity will determine which flavor it uses.

Some Marshals only do safety inspections and code compliance inspections. These Marshals generally do not have powers of arrest or of citation.

Then we come to the LEO fire marshal. The LE Fire Marshal is trained as a "fire marshal." He/she is further trained and conducts him/herself as a law enforcement officer. The LE fire marshal has powers of arrest, citation and is equipped just like any other cop on the beat.

Fangz, if you'll note, the Statute you're citing (27-34.2), both governing entities are mentioned within. "The Department of Fire Programs (DFP)" administers the fire marshal program, education and certification. "The Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS)" administers the law enforcement program, education and certification. For personnel to be an "LEO Fire Marshal," the programs and criteria of the individual governing bodies must be completed.

The part of the statute you are concerned with is a disclaimer. That disclaimer is simply clarifying that, just because an entity establishes a "fire marshal" under and using that code section, that marshal is not automatically a law enforcement officer and entitled to such privilege and/or duties. For a marshal to carry a firearm (etc.), he/she must meet additional and other criteria covered under the LEO standards and codes administered by the DCJS.

To put this in local terms for fangz. The Roanoke City FD has a fire marshal. Theirs is solely an inspection, education, preliminary investigation position. If the City FM has any "enforcement" issues, he must contact the police to come take such actions. Set a fire or violate code in the City, its FM will gather evidence and turn it over to law enforcement officials for further investigation and action.

Roanoke County, however, has LEO fire marshals. These marshals have full police powers. For example, when they investigate a fire or a code violation, they have full authority and responsibility to investigate criminal matters and make the arrest. You set a fire in Roanoke County or violate fire code and get caught, the same guy that investigated you will be the very same one to put on your cuffs and take you before the courts.

Again, none of this applies to f2f accusations... which are isolated and hollow at best; a grandstanding statement by him/her. And his/her theater stirred your pot fangz, which was f2f's intention I'm sure. As with all firearm issues (non-issues), f2f wanted to instil fear into the unknowing masses. Please do not allow f2f's tactic work in your case.

I'm fairly sure that some of the area personnel have answered calls donning their defensive firearm... and I know for a fact that such instances are not exclusive to the LFD as f2f would have you believe. There are a whole lot of county boys and girls running our roads and lanes. If I were f2f, I don't think that I'd be patting them down anytime soon... might just blow a hole (pun intended) in his soap box.

You are the volunteer and get a call for someone dying. Is there time to run home to stow your firearm? If tis you or your loved one dying, would you prefer that medic to take 15 minutes away from your response to appease f2f? Is it responsible to just ditch one's firearm somewhere? Also, there are volunteers that carry a firearm as part of their professional responsibility. If they answer an alarm carrying their weapon, is this circumstance different from anyone else that may be carrying one?

Does this help?
Last edited by Truckie on 2008 Jul 23 22:55, edited 1 time in total.

Truckie

Already addressed

Postby Truckie » 2008 Jul 23 18:16

fangz1956 wrote:
The authority granted in this section shall not be construed to authorize a fire marshal or his assistants to wear or carry firearms.
2A or not, tell me how you are exempt from this part of the Code of Virginia since you are a part of a FIRE DEPARTMENT and fall under the supervision in some fashion of a FIRE MARSHAL. Personally, I find it rather foolhardy to carry a gun on an EMS call...................or maybe it's just some macho ego that needs to fed and displayed.

fangz,

I think that I've already addressed how such instances -might- transpire and/or occur. If this is happening, it's an infrequent event. This has nothing to do with "some macho ego that needs to fed and displayed" thing. As a matter of fact, I've not seen LFD personnel carrying firearms on calls... a great indicator that nothing is being "displayed."

However, I really like your style, even though we have not met. I want you to be clear about all that you ask. I wish to clarify what I perceive to be an additional misunderstanding.

A "fire marshal" has no command function within a fire department. A fire marshal may or may not carry FD "rank." The FM's responsibilities are vast, important and serious. However, no fire/EMS personnel will
fangz wrote:fall under the supervision in some fashion of a FIRE MARSHAL
unless they are deputies/officers under the fire marshal.

The fire chief is the command position of a FD. A fire chief and a fire marshal are not the same thing and have vastly different scopes of responsibility; although often equal power and authority.

Does... this help?

Truckie

The Fire Chief

Postby Truckie » 2008 Jul 23 21:04

Just for an FYI and for fun. And to educate anyone who cares. The Fire Chief is an important and powerful person under the right set of circumstances.

Code of Virginia
§ 27-15.1. Authority of chief, director or other officer in charge when answering alarm or operating at an emergency incident; penalty for refusal to obey orders.

While any fire/EMS department or fire/EMS company is in the process of answering an alarm or operating at an emergency incident where there is imminent danger or the actual occurrence of fire or explosion or the uncontrolled release of hazardous materials which threaten life or property and returning to the station, the chief, director, or other officer in charge of such fire/EMS department or company at that time shall have the authority to: (i) maintain order at such emergency incident or its vicinity, (ii) direct the actions of the fire fighters or emergency medical services personnel at the incident, (iii) notwithstanding the provisions of §§ 46.2-888 through 46.2-891, keep bystanders or other persons at a safe distance from the incident and emergency equipment, (iv) facilitate the speedy movement and operation of emergency equipment and fire fighters or emergency medical services personnel, (v) cause an investigation to be made into the origin and cause of the incident, and (vi) until the arrival of a police officer, direct and control traffic in person or by deputy and facilitate the movement of traffic. The fire chief, director, or other officer in charge shall display his fire fighter's or emergency medical services personnel's badge, or other proper means of identification. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, this authority shall extend to the activation of traffic control signals designed to facilitate the safe egress and ingress of emergency equipment at a fire/EMS station. Any person or persons refusing to obey the orders of the chief, director, or his deputies or other officer in charge at that time shall be guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor. The chief, director, or other officer in charge shall have the power to make arrests for violation of the provisions of this section. The authority granted under the provisions of this section may not be exercised to inhibit or obstruct members of law-enforcement agencies or rescue squads from performing their normal duties when operating at such emergency incident, nor to conflict with or diminish the lawful authority, duties and responsibilities of forest wardens, including but not limited to the provisions of Chapter 11 of Title 10.1. Personnel from the news media, such as the press, radio and television, when gathering the news may enter at their own risk into the incident area only when the officer in charge has deemed the area safe and only into those areas of the incident that do not, in the opinion of the officer in charge, interfere with the fire/EMS department or fire fighters or emergency medical services personnel dealing with such emergencies, in which case the chief or other officer in charge may order such person from the scene of the emergency incident.

(1970, c. 187; 1977, c. 326; 1984, c. 644; 2001, c. 142; 2008, c. 410.)

User avatar
fangz1956
Posts: 1124
Joined: 2007 Jul 07 10:16

Re: Lexington-Rockbridge Emergency Services

Postby fangz1956 » 2008 Jul 24 08:39

Truckie,
Thanks for the informative feedback. I've been wading through the Code Of Virginia and that is no easy task in the middle of a sleep-deprived work stretch. I find it even more difficult to find the information I seek in OEMS regs. Perhaps by this weekend and after some serious sleep, I will succeed in finding what I am looking for. When I do, I'll post it and ask for feedback.

Now then, this little piece is in defense of the writings of "countyresident". I do agree with a lot of what this person wrote. You guys have been more than willing to bring this issue to the attention of the public and have generally done so in a professional manner........................until the dissenters appeared. When that happened, this thread took on the air of "bully on the block", "barroom brawl", "shootout at the OK Corral." People who disagree with you fellas on this issue are getting verbally blungeoned. That is NOT professional in any way nor is it conducive to healthy debate and the sharing of ideas and information. People have a right to bring to light the things they observe. The defensiveness displayed here tends to give a ring of guilt to the whole affair. I am not speaking of guilt on the part of the City, County, or any of their officials. I am talking about the guilt of the LFD. There is an old saying that goes "When you point a finger, be prepared to have three pointing back at yourself".

I, for one, would like to see a full disclosure on both sides of this issue................not just all of the blame being laid at the door of the City. What are the skeletons in the closet of the LFD?


:wink:
Ever looked at someone and thought "the wheel is turning but the hamster is dead"?

Truckie

Hi fangz

Postby Truckie » 2008 Jul 24 10:14

fangz,
You're welcome... and please, continue to ask away.

I wondered when someone was going to say that we got too aggressive with county, f2f and Hong Kong. However fangz, it does not take one too close to see that they are Trolling. My tone only reflected their tone. They said things such as, "chicken s--t, get a life, get real" etc.

If you were as close to this as we are, it might be easier for you to recognize the words used against us, the probable players involved and their underlying motives. I'm sorry that I stooped to that level and felt the need to return their aggression; although, I didn't go to their lengths. You've read my other works and I would hope that you have sensed my non-personal approach to debate... it is obvious to me and others that -their- debate is off the cuff personal. And... as can be suspected by you and others, we are passionate about our cause. Such will contribute to aggressively defending BS accusations.

Bring on someone with actual questions, actual intent to get involved, the drive to get informed and/or provide help. Have them less the personal motives and attempt to slander and libel, and you won't see that tone from us. One doesn't have to agree with us. However, I do expect them to present with the same respect that they desire in return.

Aside, we were warned that those guys were coming to the board... another aspect of this that you aren't aware. Also, did you, along with us, find it interesting that each of them shown up at about the same time? Doubtful that was a coincidental occurrence.

As for the LFD and skeletons? There are some, I'm sure... however, and I honestly believe this, there aren't any from this current Command. There are inherited skeletons, but none they've hung. The LFD has problems fangz. Anytime you throw 40 volunteers, most of them young, not all of them there for the same reasons - together, there are going to be "issues." The LFD has not hidden the fact that it is imperfect... and more over, they acknowledge the problems and are trying to get them to the surface and corrected... it's a long haul.

I don't know what to say about the City and your claim of LFD skeletons concerning it. This thread is the result of frustrations four years in the making. The LFD did not errupt from this box swinging; it has been working to correct and move the system since this Command took over.

The LFD was talking with the City and it "thought" that the City was, at the least, listening. "Things" were going along fairly well between the two entities until the City illegally stole money and tried to legislate the LFD into pauper oblivion. The City illegally did so to the LLSC and it did not fight. The City did not find such an easy mark a few blocks away. I am sorry if some are offended that the LFD did not roll over and be the City's obedient lil pup as expected, and then demanded ... and then, sued in court. The City counted on the firemen/women being a bunch of ignorants... and they may be right, I don't know. But, I do know one thing, the LFD ==wasn't=== quite as ignorant as the City had hoped.

Thanks fangz, as always, I look forward to hearing from you,
Truck
Last edited by Truckie on 2008 Jul 24 10:38, edited 1 time in total.

countyresident

Re: Lexington-Rockbridge Emergency Services

Postby countyresident » 2008 Jul 24 10:31

As I said in my earlier post, I believe that the FD needs to take a hard look at themselves. Truckie the point I am making about the driving around and letting trucks idle while you eat is as follows. With the current cost of fuel and localities struggling to figure out how to finance fuel cost, it is common sense that the FD does not need to go out and let the trucks idle while you are eating, driving training is OK, that is a necessity I understand. You are missing the point that while you are out eating (something that can be done at the station) you are "wasting" fuel on non-emergency activities.
The cost of the fuel is an operational expense and the county has to pay the city money through a joint services agreement that was established years ago, if you go back and look at the county budget you will see where the county has paid the city in excess of $100K the past two years for fire protection. The county pays based on some formula that has been worked out, what I am saying is that this is county taxpayer money and you are wasting it because you want to take a truck and go out and eat. Training I agree with, eating however, is wasteful spending of taxpayer money while you fill your bellies and egos I do not support. In no way can you convince me that this is proper use of taxpayer monies.
As you have said the FD has made mistakes, just to do try to justify your mistakes, step up and acknowledge the mistakes in public and then put policies and procedures in place to ensure that they never happen again. That would be the professional approach.

User avatar
Concerned_Citizen
Posts: 49
Joined: 2008 May 30 14:57

Re: Lexington-Rockbridge Emergency Services

Postby Concerned_Citizen » 2008 Jul 24 11:07

Countyresident,
It is okay that you have different feeling about the LFD using their vehicles to go out and have a meal. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. We and countless other agencies across the country view it as strengthening a brotherhood, and doing things as the group not an individual. There comes a point in the fire service that you have to trust your crew with your life. But what better way to do it when you eat, sleep, and work together. You'll notice that when you see the engine out in public it is generally out in a state of readiness. All aboard have their gear, and are ready in a moment to answer the call for help. If you're on another department that does not do that, that's your decision. We have nightly duty crews and they train together, eat together, play together, and most importantly it helps them do the job better. The men and women staffing that LFD vehicle are on call for a shift.

As I've said you are perfectly entitled to your opinion, and you and your department may not choose to do that. But I do know other agencies in the county that do the same thing, and I think it's a good morale booster for the crews doing this job. There are agencies that go out to eat with others in the same fashion. I feel that is one method to build a positive relationship between agencies. You might not do it with your night shift (as I've said, if you do this job), but that's okay. We're not squandering someone's money by going to eat with the engine as our vehicle, it does help the community see that we're there. You wouldn't ask the LPD or RCSO to eat at their station and turn their cars off? As Truckie said we do have some sensitive equipment on our engines that require climate control. We choose to leave them on to regulate temperature, and to save wear and tear on the drive train.
Μολὼν λαβέ


Return to “MAIN FORUM”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest