Elk Creek Fire Pension Discussion, Split from Wetdown Ceremony

GreatGran wrote: Thank you Engineer for the clarification. And why they shouldn't be called volunteers. They aren't. Everyone is documenting the time they have provided for their pension. If you want to cut costs get rid of the pension. It is a huge drain on resources. Be a volunteer like we were.

I am not going to elaborate on all the issues. I will give you another one that just drives me nuts. I get that the firefighters need to drive the vehicles around the community to get familiar with driving large vehicles. What is disturbing is that they are taken to the local stores, not to buy supplies for the fire district but for their own personal use and for picnics along the way. Comraderie is nice but do it on your own time instead of clocking it as time spent working on behalf of ECFD.

And get a PIO who knows how to handle himself in public.

Then I guess you better tell that to the approximate 70% of those volunteers throughout the U.S. as most states have some sort of variance of the 1978 Pension Law. For those volunteers that have provided time, why shouldn't they get some sort of reward? You would expect a pension from an employer, wouldn't you? As it is in Colorado, the maximum that the State matches to is $300.00. The maximum for the special district that I am involved with is $500.00 per month. The State's matching funds are $27,000.00 in addition to the $67,000.00 the District provides for its retirees. Our annual operating budget is $12,000,000. In the overall scope of things, that is not a lot of financial drain on an operating budget.

I have asked you for examples of malfeasance on the part of ECFD, but you can't or won't "elaborate." You also seem to have an axe to grind with the PIO. I'll ask again for examples.

Just because the rest of the state or for that matter the rest of the world provides a pension doesn't mean that ECFD is required to. Before asking for money for equipment, stop wasting what you already have and do away with pensions and other waste. We did it for free. It is possible.

The Chief overextended his reach when he first came on board in the Lower North Fork Fire when it wasn't even in his district. In fact he and the other firefighters didn't know how to access the LNFF. He may have plenty of experience in his field but he needs to know the chain of command when fighting fires and whose district it is. It should have been LNFF command without him usurping the role. He is responsible for his own fire district.

As for the PIO, in the future I expect that if the person is going to call himself PIO that he conduct himself in such manner rather than being obnoxious and rude in spite of how others might respond to him. To identify himself as a PIO and then resort to trash talk and then try to say it is just his own personal opinion when he has held himself out as a PIO is despicable. He is an embarrasment to the department. I am not going to find all the quotes he made. If you are interested you can look them up yourself.

Now tell me engineer are you representing the ECFD in your posts here? If you are then identify yourself.

GreatGran wrote: Just because the rest of the state or for that matter the rest of the world provides a pension doesn't mean that ECFD is required to. Before asking for money for equipment, stop wasting what you already have and do away with pensions and other waste. We did it for free. It is possible.

The Chief overextended his reach when he first came on board in the Lower North Fork Fire when it wasn't even in his district. In fact he and the other firefighters didn't know how to access the LNFF. He may have plenty of experience in his field but he needs to know the chain of command when fighting fires and whose district it is. It should have been LNFF command without him usurping the role. He is responsible for his own fire district.

As for the PIO, in the future I expect that if the person is going to call himself PIO that he conduct himself in such manner rather than being obnoxious and rude in spite of how others might respond to him. To identify himself as a PIO and then resort to trash talk and then try to say it is just his own personal opinion when he has held himself out as a PIO is despicable. He is an embarrasment to the department. I am not going to find all the quotes he made. If you are interested you can look them up yourself.

Now tell me engineer are you representing the ECFD in your posts here? If you are then identify yourself.

Who pays for the pensions?

Which Chief are you referencing above when talking about the LNFF?

You have been in constant opposition to Elk Creek. Can you identify yourself so we understand if your intimate knowledge of Elk Creek has any merit?

The taxpayers pay for the pensions.

McLaughlin, he is the only new Chief I know who came on board.

Tough apples RR. Not violating TOS. I am a private citizen who has lived and volunteered for decades. Thanks for playing!

GreatGran wrote: Just because the rest of the state or for that matter the rest of the world provides a pension doesn't mean that ECFD is required to. Before asking for money for equipment, stop wasting what you already have and do away with pensions and other waste. We did it for free. It is possible.

The Chief overextended his reach when he first came on board in the Lower North Fork Fire when it wasn't even in his district. In fact he and the other firefighters didn't know how to access the LNFF. He may have plenty of experience in his field but he needs to know the chain of command when fighting fires and whose district it is. It should have been LNFF command without him usurping the role. He is responsible for his own fire district.

As for the PIO, in the future I expect that if the person is going to call himself PIO that he conduct himself in such manner rather than being obnoxious and rude in spite of how others might respond to him. To identify himself as a PIO and then resort to trash talk and then try to say it is just his own personal opinion when he has held himself out as a PIO is despicable. He is an embarrasment to the department. I am not going to find all the quotes he made. If you are interested you can look them up yourself.

Now tell me engineer are you representing the ECFD in your posts here? If you are then identify yourself.

Agreed. ECFD does not have to pay pensions. So why would anyone want to stay 10-20 years these days for free? After all, you have to put in the time and effort, attend the required training and certification courses. I get that you have some sort of pride about days gone by, but gone are the days of the t-shirt and hat club, along with beer kegs in the stations. I have never understood why you would need to parade a department t-shirt in public.

As far as the Chief over-extending himself at the Lower North Fire, I can't speak as to what his actions or thoughts were. Maybe, he thought the fire was closer to Elk Creek than it was. There was a lot of confusion in the first 24 hours with evacuations, people dying, etc. As it was, there wasn't a formal ICP Until the next evening when it was formally set up at Conifer High. Things were so chaotic, that I didn't even get a resource order for two days. My initial dispatch was as a strike team. I guess he could have stood by and waited, then faced the scrutiny that Bob Harvey has. He may be responsible for the District, but as a Fire Chief, he is responsible to all counties throughout Colorado, as well as the nation (firefighting now falls under Homeland Security).

Regarding the PIO, I am interested, and I have tried to find hid defamatory quotes, but have been unable to find them. That is why I asked you for help. You call his actions "despicable," yet your posts are condescending to everyone else that challenges your views.

The answer to your final question is no. I do not represent ECFD. If you want my contact information, you can find it in the Community tab of this website.

Reverend Revelant wrote:

GreatGran wrote: Just because the rest of the state or for that matter the rest of the world provides a pension doesn't mean that ECFD is required to. Before asking for money for equipment, stop wasting what you already have and do away with pensions and other waste. We did it for free. It is possible.

The Chief overextended his reach when he first came on board in the Lower North Fork Fire when it wasn't even in his district. In fact he and the other firefighters didn't know how to access the LNFF. He may have plenty of experience in his field but he needs to know the chain of command when fighting fires and whose district it is. It should have been LNFF command without him usurping the role. He is responsible for his own fire district.

As for the PIO, in the future I expect that if the person is going to call himself PIO that he conduct himself in such manner rather than being obnoxious and rude in spite of how others might respond to him. To identify himself as a PIO and then resort to trash talk and then try to say it is just his own personal opinion when he has held himself out as a PIO is despicable. He is an embarrasment to the department. I am not going to find all the quotes he made. If you are interested you can look them up yourself.

Now tell me engineer are you representing the ECFD in your posts here? If you are then identify yourself.

Who pays for the pensions?

Which Chief are you referencing above when talking about the LNFF?

You have been in constant opposition to Elk Creek. Can you identify yourself so we understand if your intimate knowledge of Elk Creek has any merit?

Rev-GG is right-to a very minor point. As the District receives tax revenues for its budget, that's how the retired volunteers receive their pensions. The State may or may not match the pension fund to a certain maximum, based on actuarial studies of the District. As far as the paid personnel, I believe the District pays into the employees pension's, but the employees are required to pay into his or her pension (457).

Thanks engineer. I don't know where the community tab is. As long as you aren't representing ECFD then I don't need a name. Just wanted to know whether to give your comments any credibility since you act so authoritatively.

Sorry but you are wrong. The chief is responsible for his own jurisdiction. He does not intercede in any others unless he has permission. I'd like to see him pull that stunt in NY City. Probably why the Fire Chief has a boat load of problems. And yes you can't speak to what his thoughts were. You got that right.

And where is the condescencion you speak of? It seems to me that you have done nothing but bait. Have a great evening!

You have a link for that information? Thanks.

Engineer2207 wrote:
Rev-GG is right-to a very minor point. As the District receives tax revenues for its budget, that's how the retired volunteers receive their pensions. The State may or may not match the pension fund to a certain maximum, based on actuarial studies of the District. As far as the paid personnel, I believe the District pays into the employees pension's, but the employees are required to pay into his or her pension (457).

GreatGran wrote: Thanks engineer. I don't know where the community tab is. As long as you aren't representing ECFD then I don't need a name. Just wanted to know whether to give your comments any credibility since you act so authoritatively.

Sorry but you are wrong. The chief is responsible for his own jurisdiction. He does not intercede in any others unless he has permission. I'd like to see him pull that stunt in NY City. Probably why the Fire Chief has a boat load of problems. And yes you can't speak to what his thoughts were. You got that right.

And where is the condescencion you speak of? It seems to me that you have done nothing but bait. Have a great evening!

The community tab is at the top of the page. And I'm not worried if you think I'm credible.

I never said that the Chief wasn't responsible for his jurisdiction. There's nothing wrong with being proactive when a fire is threatening said jurisdiction. I seriously doubt that he would do that in NYC. Let's keep it apples-to-apples. You don't know what Chief McLaughlin's thought's were either, so I guess we're both wrong. What are the problems that you speak of? I'm asking again in earnest.

When I say condescending, I say that as I have asked you multiple times to provide factual arguments instead of conjecture, yet you haven't provided any. Calling the PIO's actions despicable without proof is an example of you being condescending. It is also not baiting when all I am asking for is a credible argument.

Final note. In reference to your other post, here is the information that you requested.

http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/DO ... 1594523153

GreatGran wrote: The taxpayers pay for the pensions.

McLaughlin, he is the only new Chief I know who came on board.

Tough apples RR. Not violating TOS. I am a private citizen who has lived and volunteered for decades. Thanks for playing!

But you want Engineer to violate the TOS.

Fire Chief Never Received Lower North Fork Burn Plan
7NEWS Investigating Issues First Responders Faced Beyond The Fire

Bottom line, "If I’d had the unit map that showed me where I was trying to get into, if I’d had the communication plans for it so we would'’ve had a common channel that they could’ve talked to us on, if we had the larger area map that showed us where it was in relation to the neighborhoods, then yes; those pieces would'’ve made that response quite a bit more effective," said McLaughlin.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/fi ... -burn-plan

Read the whole article.