I love the brass of Blake. Sorry I couldn't attend

1) If the Town always keeps six man crews on duty and we need seven to operate the ladder truck and both engine trucks as the article says, why do we have a ladder truck at all?
2) If we need a ladder truck for certain large fire situations, why can't we have a partial volunteer unit duty that can participate in operating some equipment when there is the relatively rare large fire?
3) And or it seems to me that this situation that screams out for municipal sharing of services. Cranford sent its ladder truck which is exactly what should happen. Since we only need one more fireman at the scene to operate the ladder, why couldn’t there be an inter-municipal arrangement whereby that one last fireman in a nearby fire station who is on duty can jump in a car and go to the scene? I assume the ladder truck can be driven to the scene with a crew of six but just not operated. Very little time would be lost and bingo, can operate the ladder. That is a much better solution than to have seven firemen on duty all the time for the very occasional large fire. There just is not enough money in the budget for that.

From article: "ISO recommended 8.7 firefighters on a duty crew for a town... Westfield presently has six firefighters on a duty crew, down from a level of nine... During the Ferraro’s fire, the ladder truck sat in the firehouse since a seven-man crew is needed to operate the ladder truck and both engine trucks... Cranford sent the first ladder truck to the scene."

So we need a minimum of 3 more firefighters on a duty crew. Not being familiar with the term "duty crew" I'm going to assume this means 3 additional firefighters at any given 8 hour shift x three 8 hour shifts per day = 9 additional firefighters needed. I'm going to round that to 10 to keep the numbers simple. I'm also going to assume the salary/benefits for a firefighter to be $100,000 per firefighter per year - I have no idea what the true number is. 10 firefighters x $100,000 each = $1,000,000. Now, divide that by 10,900 households in Westfield. $1,000,000 / 10,900 = $91.74 per household per year. Now, let's divide that by 365 days in a year... ANSWER: 25 CENTS PER DAY! FOR SOMETHING LIKE 25-CENTS MORE PER HOUSEHOLD PER DAY, WE CAN PROBABLY GET 10 (YES, TEN) MORE FIREFIGHTERS ON DUTY 24/7 IN WESTFIELD. Isn't that a no-brainer? Why would our town politicians and taxpayers not want to do this? I suspect there may be one or two families out of 10,900 who are going through such hard times that they cannot spare 25-cents more per day but for the 10,898 or so others, why wouldn't anyone want this???!!!

To NR5: The problem with that type of math and logic is that every expenditure the Town considers can be boiled down the way you did to a few cents a day per family. Advertisers do this all the time to get us to spend more. It is always used to justify just a little bit more spending. Isn’t there a commercial that says you can feed a whole village in Africa for 29 cents a day or something like that?

I think the focus should be on the extra $1,000,000 total amount using your math that the extra firemen on duty would cost. The question should be is it necessary? Can we do more with less? If an extra $1,000,000 for spending is up for grabs, can it be put to an even better use? How about spending on a new roof for one of our schools or street repair? We can not operate a school without a roof and there is no way around fixing roads. I feel these are the questions that should be raised first.

To NR5: Good points. But I must persist by saying that of course adequate fire protection is essential and arguably one of the few legitimate things that government should do. That said, I was not suggesting being less safe but being adequately safe through means other than paying for one to three more firefighters 365 days a year when that number is really only needed a limited number of times a year. My suggestions were 1) municipal sharing of some on-call firefighters from other departments who can get in a car and drive to the scene, 2) some volunteer fire fighter units just to add manpower to operate the equipment or 3) arrange for some off-duty Westfield fire fighters to be on-call for when needed. For this last group, pay them bonus pay if they are called.

I have the utmost respect and regard for the fire fighters in our Town. However, it would not be the first time we heard a head of any union state that some additional manpower is absolutely needed or terrible things are going to happen. That is their job. And I am sure that it is true that more better but the question is can we be served adequately short of adding more expense?

As usual, the Council members remained silent and allowed Mr. Gildea to divert attention from their inaction. After I pointed out the ISO report which Mr.Gildea previously had embraced,and after I noted that the number of firemen was 37 when the ISO study was made, Mr. Gildea dismissed the report as a tool of the insurance companies. Mr. Gildea then evaded the question by profuse praise for the heroes of the two departments he would mark impotent.
Mr. Gildea will not answer the question as to what recognized standard he used to lower the number of firemen.The mayor and council will not answer the question as to the standard they use when they assure us that there is no impact on public safety.
Please make yourselves heard other than here and demand answers.
A.John Blake

The problem with "borrowing" a man from another town is as follows...what happens if that town has an incident that ties up their dept? Do you expect other towns to supply us and we not supply them? So do we need to put another man on to cover other towns? I don't even want to get into the fact that this would be someone who does not train with Westfield, and unless you are military, FD or PD, you wouldn't understand the dangers of that.
Volunteers....who do you think is going to volunteer? where will you find these people...Look at mountainside...40min to respond. Why don't the elected officials volunteer to give up there pay, at least that wouldn't put any live at risk.
The ISO rating issue is a big issue. If you drop 2 spots, that could be an increase of $200 per household for insurance...so while the politicians are pointing you in the direction of the FD, the insurance companies are taking money from your back pocket. Bottom line, 6 man crews are not safe, for the citizens and the Firefighters.

Let's cut the bash-the-council chorus that has arisen over this issue. Safety and fiscal responsibility need to be balanced and it appears the council did just that with the information they had.

That said, these matters need to be revisited regularly, and we should not blindly accept what our administrator says. We also need to recognize the union's basic function: to advocate for its members and grow its ranks. So I'm not about to take what its president has to say at face value either.

If manpower is truly the union's main concern, then they should embrace the volunteer auxiliary suggestion. Better yet, why doesn't there appear to be a system where the other union firefighters are on call for larger emergencies? Also (more a question than a critique because I don't know fire trucks) if seven are needed to run two engines and a ladder, and the ladder was needed for this fire, why not leave an engine and take the ladder? Why not focus on the other side of the coin: what improvements can be made in the response? Answering those questions is just as important to ensuring our safety.

Lastly, the $100k estimate for a single firefighter is incorrect. The number is too low and omits overtime, stockpiled PTO, pension costs, room & board, training and equipment. Read a union contract and you'll see what I mean. Are those willing to be sacrificed in the name of safety? If not, then let's ratchet down the rhetoric on the union side and work together instead.

To RHB,
You are doing what the Mayor insists on doing,you are putting our safety on a labor bargaining table. The Council should be bashed for lowering the number of firemen without obtaining independent advice from an expert in firefighting as to the needs of Westfield. The Town lowered the number in 2006 and ended up being cited by OSHA for unsafe practices in 2007. It restored the number. In 2010 they lowered the number again to the 2006 level and are presently being investigated by OSHA for the same safety violations.
This is not a Labor problem. This is a safety issue. Let the Council hire an INDEPENDENT expert to tell us how many firemen we need. Once we get that information,then we can face the costs.
A.John Blake

To NR5: My point about spending on roofs and roads versus having six or nine firemen is that there is no choice with spending on some things. If you need I, you need it. While for others things, there are degrees of good enough which involve tradeoffs. This is the firefighter case, some say six is intolerable, nine is better and in fact 18 would even better. PROBLEM: we have a budget crisis.

To LLROWESTFIELD: In discussions like this you get people like you who throw out the fear mongering. It happens with all public service discussions. Please stop. I will not have to worry about my house in Westfield burning down if I can not afford to live here anymore.

To d.b.: Great, finally someone has something constructive to add. I was wondering when someone would acknowledge that I was not advocating being unsafe, but exploring alternatives to good enough safety. If the biggest problem with the concept of a designated on-call fire fighter arrangement with surrounding fire departments is the unlikely chance that all of us are facing a situation where we all need the extra man, that may very well be a reasonable trade off of risk/return. The other option is spending on several extra men on duty with 100% probability. As for training, I was under the impression we were talking about one extra person to operate the ladder. Are there so many different types of ladder trucks out there that specialized training is required? Is the alternative of leaving the ladder truck in the firehouse during a fire better? I do not think so. If this is the second biggest problem, now we are getting somewhere. As for volunteers, I do not know who would volunteer. You never know unless you ask.

To RHB: Thank you

When you see all the various questions asked and the suggestions offered, isn't it obvious that none of us is expert on the subject and we need guidance. The Council is in the same boat but rather than admit a lack of information on the subject, they just circle the wagons around their "Managerial Prerogative" and continue to plow foward in united ignorance.
Why shouldn't everyone who writes in to this site appear at a Council meeting or write a letter to the editor of the Patch and the Leader and tell the council to stop fumbling blindly with your safety and present an INDEPENDENT expert at a public meeting to explain any study he has done and his results. That way we can have real facts to argue.
A.John Blake

Westfield has a volunteer system in place. In order to be hired you have to volunteer for 2 years then take a test. The issue that arises is when you have a fire like the one on Elm Street last week. Will they show up.... How long can they stay? If they have work in the morning, they may not even bother after midnight. What if the fire is during work hours?

Here is a crude breakdown of a fire response.... The first due engine pulls up and the officer and men on the back pull the first line and assess the situation. The driver sets up the engine and gets ready to pump. The second due engine pulls up to the hydrant and lays a line to the first engine to bring it a water supply.The men then grab a second line off the first engine and proceed into the fire as a second attack line. At this point you have a minimum of four men inside the structure...so you should have four men outside the structure ready to continue the advance when the first set of men run out of air. The ladder crew is used for a few different operations... They do ventilation and search and rescue... The initial attack crews can only advance so far into a fire before the combination of heat and possible steam is overwhelming. The ladder crew cuts holes in the roof to vent the heat and make the attack crews advance safe and possible. They also set up ladders at different areas of egress in case someone needs to bail out.

On top of all this, you need a line ready to protect the egress of the first 2 lines, and you need what is called a FAST, or RIC ...this is a crew of 2 men, their only job is to rescue downed firefighters. This was put into place because when a mayday is received over the radio, most firefighters instinct is to stop what they are doing and go help their brothers. The RIC team lets the firefighters continue the attack, knowing that their brothers have a well trained crew going after them.
Last and probably most overlooked is the skill set it takes to do any of these jobs. The ability to go forward into a fire when you can't see a thing in front of you. The knowledge to drive, pump and have ready everything your crew needs. The decision an officer has to make weather to send more men in or pull men out. Sometimes the only thing that pushes you forward is the knowledge that the guy next to you, or the guy outside backing you up is as well trained as you are. This knowledge comes from training, living, laughing and crying with these same men. You can't just throw a random guy into that equation.
I hope this gives some people an idea of what goes on at a fire scene. Times are tough, but its seems politicians put their arms around FD and PD when they need to get elected, but point at them when they need a scapegoat.

Since I started looking into this problem, I have learned a number of things.For those that seem to think there is time at a fire to wait for volunteers and men from other cities, think about the fact that a fire grows upon itself at a rate of 100 times itself per minute that it is not being suppressed. When a fire occurs, speed in response is critical.Time is an enemy.
Also,don't think these firemen are sitting around doing nothing between fires.The majority of their responses is to non-fire emergencies.
I applaud all volunteers but if a fire strikes my home, I want professionals there as soon as possible and in sufficient numbers to be effective. The number of firemen should be based on expert opinion using nationally recognized standards for firefighting not on an accountant's estimate of where the Council can save money.
A.John Blake

I nominate A. John Blake and d.b. for co-mayorship of Westfield. Seriously, you are both doing a great job!!!! Thanks for all of your research and comments. I hope people in a position to make changes (and taxpayer/voters) are reading all of your great comments. Please keep it up!!!

To d.b.: Great facts and insights into what all goes into fighting a fire. This is very helpful for me. But you have to be talking about a big fire for Westfield with a building fully engulfed. How often does that happen relative to the cost? (Please spare me the it only has to happen once to be worth it argument – I got it.) The fire at Ferraros would probably be considered one, but you described about 12 fire fighters in your scenario (four in, four out, two(?) on the ladder and two FAST/RIC). We never have that many fire fighters on duty so back up from other municipalities has to what has occurred in the past. So how big of difference are we really talking about? I know time is of the essence but really. In the article that started all this it was said that seven fire fighters were required to operate the two engines and the ladder?

The problem Mr. Sauerwein, is that you cannot start the debate with preconceptions of what is too much. Start the debate with as many facts as you can get and then decide maximums and minimums. Let's also remember people out sick, on vacation, and injured. You can't work with a minimum number as the norm because illness etc. will put you below the minimum .
A.John Blake

The number is a little higher than 12. With a minimum of 3 people on an engine and 4 on the ladder, with 2 engines and a ladder thats 10 men and thats before the 4 out and the RIC team, or safety officer, accountability officer or incident commander. My point was to educate people on the SOP at a fire scene.
Fires are unpredictable and can happen at any time, Westfield has had 2 big ones in the last month. I believe the other was on mountain ave.
A big thing to remember, for every big fire ,there are probably 20 small incidents a month. The only thing that prevents those small incidents from turning into full blown structure fires is the response time of a fully manned paid dept. These men will continue to do their jobs and try to make Westfield safe even when manpower is endangering their lives. We should not take advantage of that.

To AJ Blake:
I appreciate speed and experience is important in fighting fires but please stop with the fear mongering. I am tired of hearing that if that is all you got. Good facts about the reality of what can be done with less is what adds to the discussion. Westfield has been living with a six-man crew for a while, and the world has not come to an end. What we are talking about is similar to insurance. How much coverage is the right coverage for the risk viewed through the lens of very tight budget constraints. Trade offs under this circumstance have to expected. There just may not be the funds to pay for perfection. We may, I say may, have to settle for less.

To AJ Blake:
Good advice, and I have no preconceptions about this. I do not know where you got that impression.

What I definitely have preconceptions about is the word or concept of “only” as in there is only one solution to the problem. Whenever I hear that said or implied I can usually think to myself a number of other solutions to the problem. One cannot come up with other solutions if one does not try to think of them.

I am getting convinced that a six-man crew may not be enough to fight many of the bigger fires we experience in Westfield but I am totally not convinced that that the only solution is to pay three more full time firefighters full pay 365 days a year and their lifetime pensions. It would be a no brainer if money was not an object but the reality is that it is.

To d.b.: Where I was going on the firefighter count was that I now fire departments routinely rely on other fire departments to fight certain fires. With a full time quick response crew on hand to get to fires as quicky as we all know must happen, how big a deal is it for others to arrive to provide the necessary backup when needed? Also, if we only need to add on more fire fighter to operate the ladder truck, at least initially, what other solutions are there to produce that one last person reliably? That is the question. And I do not accept that the “only” answer is another one to three full time fire fighters on duty. I would develop a list of possible solutions. Adding full time fire fighters on duty would certainly be on the list but there should be other solutions on an honest list.

Mr. Sauerwein,
I am not indulging in fear mongering but suggestions that we allow time to pass while a volunteer drives from home or business to the firehouse and then to the fire ignores a basic fact about fire.
I will join you in your belief that six men is an insufficient number.I will also admit that three more might not be necessary. Neither of us has the expertise to say how many firemen is optimum or what is a safe number. Neither does the Council have this expertise. What we all should insist is that there be some public presentation by an independent expert who could tell us what is best, what is safe and what is unacceptable. After the presentation, we should discuss finances. If more money is needed, then we should look to priorities to determine how and where we spend Town money.If there is no waste anywhere, then it might be necessary to raise taxes. This should be a last resort but like everything else should not be ruled out until we have all the information necessary.
It is foolhardy to have a fire department with the number of firemen so low as to be ineffectual and dangerous to themselves.

As far as I'm concerned, if the individuals who currently work in our fire department are telling us they need more people (or equipment) in order to be able to provide proper service, you know what, call me naive but I trust their professional opinion. I've never been a firefighter but they, not the politicians or others, are the people whose opinions I'm going to value on this topic. We're talking about what amounts to a few extra CENTS (not even a full dollar!) per day per household. Maybe 25-cents or 35-cents or 50-cents per day! That's it. That's all that is needed to beef up our troops to where they need to be. No one is saying to add $100 zillion to the fire department budget. In the grand scheme of things, this is like fighting with the manager at Shoprite about the price of a container of milk having gone up from $2.39 to $2.45. Well, prices go up. Pay the additional 6-cents and move on. Or else, just don't buy the milk. If the town needs to raise taxes another $100 or $200 per year per household to pay for adequate fire protection there is no reason why anyone in Westfield should not be able to pay such a nominal amount per year extra. And, if $100 to $200 more per year is too much for a particular household, then that household should cut something out of THEIR household budget. I understand the "do more with less" philosophy but - not with fire protection.

What is the cost associated with the loss of revenue from Ferraros business being lost? How many people are out of jobs who worked their? Thank god no one was badly burned or killed. Fires will happen. Sequential coordinated operations at a fire need to be done in the first 5 minutes of the fire for the best possible outcome. Plain and simple you need a staffed ladder truck at the scene in the early stages of the fire or your just wasting your time. Manpower levels are not up to the union to negotiate its management’s right. Management can view NFPA 1710 (a nationally recognized standard)which describes how many Firefighters are needed on the scene in the first 8 minutes. It’s a shell game save taxes on a short staffed FD. Pay a higher homeowner’s insurance rate. Either way you pay. The latter you can die though.

To Mr. Blake: Your comments to my post lead me to continue to question whether safety is your real issue here. You critique when I don't agree with hiring more, yet refuse to consider the other aspects of the post, other than to denigrate the suggestion of a volunteer and to denigrate the many men and women who do volunteer and do show up to put their lives on the line for no pay, pension or benefit. Forces consisting of ALL volunteers work astoundingly well in other communities, why not at least discuss the concept of supplementing with them here? You don't want a volunteer fighting a fire at your house - well, I don't want a union sympathizer spending my tax dollars. Also no willingness to look into whether the response was as efficient as it could have been; I guess safety has nothing to do with that either. If safety is not to be addressed at the labor bargaining table, then I will expect our firefighters not to use that as a justification for a raise next time contract talks come around. Here is the reality: safety is the only reason we tolerate the generous pay and benefits our firefighters and police receive - they deserve it for putting their lives on the line for us. You can't divorce the two. But you also can't pay with money you don't have.

To NR9: I'd prefer to keep my extra $200, thanks. But, if you feel that strongly, I'll be happy to send you a bill for my extra taxes for this and any other cause that we all should want to pay for.

A final thought. I do, Mr. Blake, agree that we should be reviewing this situation as well as how we are doing all of the town's business on a regular basis. I also agree that an independent expert can be a very effective way to do so, particularly for something as specialized as this. But we need to be quite careful what "expert" we put our stock in. I deal with experts all the time in my law practice and the only thing I'm certain of is that for the right price, you can find an expert to tell you just about anything. Along those same lines, I deal with insurance companies and OSHA as well, and have learned that they are not experts in much of anything. I've never seen the OSHA reports regarding our firefighting that you reference; what exactly did they say?

To RHB!
I have no problem using volunteers in fighting fires. I am led to believe that speed in response is very important. We need an effective early response. If that can be guaranteed by volunteers as it is with a paid force, I am open to such a plan.I understand volunteers to be available when possible, not available when needed.
I have nothing to do with unions. I do not think the safety of my home or person is a labor question. I also do not want some fireman to have to choose between saving himself or saving my home.He should not be put in that position.His safety must be considered so he can concentrate on the fire and not worry about himself.
As an attorney I also know the problem you point out concerning experts. The Council must be able to prove that the expert chosen is independent and not hired to support anyone's position. The expert would have to be open to some questioning on credentials ,instructions and conclusions.
A.John Blake

I'd rather have a professional come - who is the career... not some dude with a sleeveless tshirt at my door with firefighter tattoos asking me whats the problem that all they like to do is ride the fire engine. You get a better educated deal.

To A.John Blake: Your view of the use of volunteers seems envision to a 100% volunteer situation. I was not suggesting that. What I was suggesting was a hybrid situation. We have six full time professionals on duty all of the time. Six fire fighters should be enough manpower to move three fire equipments to the scene of a fire as quickly as if there were nine on duty. We have been told that six is not enough to operate all of this equipment. That is where the volunteers come into play. For the role they would be asked to perform, they should not need to go to the firehouse but can go directly to the scene with their home based gear. As often as not, they may even be closer to a fire scene than the firehouse and can actually be at the scene before the fire equipment arrives. If reliability is an issue, that would have to be addressed and corrected if it can. If the reliability of a volunteer solution cannot be ensured, that would be a problem. But what if it can be assured? I think we need a little more openness to alternative solutions.

To A.John Blake: Also, you keep advocating for an expert to come in and advise the council. This is usually not a bad idea with the big caveat that any expert will tend to advocate “more is better solutions” when it concerns safety because everyone knows you can never have too much of that Also this approach protects their butts and they could care less about how much it costs. So while I think the council should hear what an expert has to say behind closed doors, I would not be surprised that their advice calls for overkill solutions. Once any expert solutions are heard they tend to become the easy justification for more – it could be not only nine full time fighters on duty but even more. As usual, some will say you cannot put a price on safety. I say yes you have to when there are limited dollars. Sometimes you have to live with safe enough.

Mr. I am open to any suggestion be it hybrid or not.I am most in favor of complete openness, not the limited openness you seem to advocate. Having told the populace that it is safe with six firemen, I think the Council has suffered a blow to its credibility. I want no part of an expert hired by the Council to report to the Council behind closed doors and then allow the Council to report to us what they think we should know. I want an independent expert who will study Westfield's needs and report to the public in the open with the understanding he must be subject to questioning by the public.
You do yourself a disservice when you prejudge all experts.By your interest in the subject, you should be present at any report by an expert.You ask him.That is the purpose of openness.
You don't go to a doctor and tell him the monetary limits on his diagnosis.Don't do it with a fire expert.
A.John Blake

To A.John Blake: What I am worried about with any expert concerning safety issues is agendas. Experts have generally worked in the field they are now experts in and they often bring with them attitudes that recommends what is optimal or worse, try to get for their brethren the best of equipment and maximum staff to support the optimal results. When it comes to safety people go nutty. I would assume that the advice we would receive would call for a crazy amount of more of everything. Then the genie would be out of the bottle since many people feel there should be no price placed on safety. I think it would be better to have this kind of advice given privately. I have trust that council members have houses and families in Westfield they care about too. I could care less about publicly shaming the council for past tough decisions that may have had to make due to the reality of the budget situation.
Alternatively or even better yet, I would like to hear expert advice on how we can best supplement the firefighting force of six full time firefighters we are currently paying for other that having additional full time people on duty. That could be money wisely spent and should be totally public.

Mayor Skibitsky and the Town Council should seek input from an independent expert in the field of fire safety. However, based on other "safety" issues that have been brought to the attention of the Mayor, you will most likely end up with the Mayor's own opinion without any expert documentation to back his opinion up, or, of course, silence from the council.

It is foolish to think that Mayor Skibitsky would risk the possibility of the Town being told they are understaffed in the fire department. Should an independent expert render such a conclusion as a result of an analysis of the fire department's manpower, the "I told you so's" would be justified in questioning every one of Mayor Skibitsky's non-expert opinions. Some of those opinions have resulted in decisions made by the Mayor and Town Council on issues best reserved for the experts..

I, as a resident and taxpayer, would welcome an independent analysis of the fire department's manpower. That way, this issue could be put to rest. I do not want to have to rely on the Mayor or Town Administrator Jim Gildea, both non-experts in fire safety, to make a decision on what the appropriate staffing level at the fire department should be.

Mr. Sauerwein,
I would hate to be a doctor to whom you turned for advice.The doctor would be immediately suspected by you of milking your illness and trying to make you as healthy as possible to boot. He couldn't win.
You prejudge the experts, assume the public will go "safety" crazy and then paternalistically decide that the Council knows best what is good for us.I do not think it is improper to question the credibility of the Council since they already have made decisions in the field of fire safety while completely ignorant of the standards of fire safety.Why would you assume that the Council knows what it is doing when it is devoid of facts, opinions or standards.
You want to hire an expert and limit his study and opinion to the best way to supplement six firemen without knowing if six is proper.You have already prejudged the matter based on obviously the same amount of facts and expertise as the Council. You don't want an inquiry, you want an affirmation. You want a result oriented opinion that will comply with your idea on how much should be spent on fire safety. With this I strongly disagree.
A.John Blake

To A.John Blake: Ha! That is funny. You are correct that I am a skeptic. I may take the advice but will always be on the look out for the agenda such as when the orthopedic surgeon that only wants to operate. I hate that word “only.” But I do know the public goes safety crazy. Think about the absolute safety that most people support in striving for in airplane travel to the extent of willingness to give up Fourth Amendment rights without question. Nowhere else in society do we strive and spend for such absolute safety. When it comes to fire safety, a public that hears some agenda based advice which calls for protection could easily go beyond adequate to optimum beyond what I would want but yet I have to pay for it.
You say I have prejudged the situation, but I think you have as well. It is clear you think the current level is inadequate and a clever way to get staffing increased is to get some expert to say we are living in danger. Regular voting citizens hearing this would flip out and run out of the room screaming. I do not have enough knowledge to have an opinion about the adequacy of staffing levels or alternative ways to correct shortfalls. I do have an opinion about the view that others who think we are understaffed who feel the “only” solution is to add one to three full time fire fighters. That I do have an opinion about.

Richard Sauerwein. Since you are not a firemen which neither am i, you know nothing about staffing levels of the fire department and what is safe for them. Westfield residents have plenty of money if the taxes need to be raised a few dollars and im sure you do to. Judging by the traffic in this town most children only need one parent to work so all they do is shop and by 300$ pairs of jeans, lets not be rediculous. Westfield residents can certanly come up with this money.

Mr. Sauerwein,
At least we both agree that neither of us has sufficient knowledge to say if six is sufficient or insufficient. We both know the Council certainly has no greater knowledge than we. I do believe the public knows when it is being scammed. Look at the reaction of the public to the parking deck fiasco. You are right to wary of experts with agenda just as I am wary of politicians with an agenda.They exist and we must protect ourselves from both.
Please bring your jaundiced eye to any Council meeting and listen to the evasions and deflections concerning the basis of the Council's decision on the number of firemen. You will have every right to be jaundiced. Ask them to hire an independent expert and then come to that and satisfy yourself that he/she has no agenda.That is what I mean about openness.I don't want this paternalism practiced by the Council that they know what's best and we shouldn't ask questions..
You are correct that I have decided that six firemen is an insufficient number. I have inquired of others I trust outside of Westfield and am convinced the Council is wrong. The only way I know to make us more safe is to open the matter to the public and let them hear all sides. The majority isn't always brilliant, but it usually does a good job.
A.John Blake

To A.John Blake: I think we agree on something, however, I noticed that you decided there was “only” one way to get to an acceptable decision. We differ here. It would seem from the comments of others who purport to know, the with two large fires where the ladder truck sat in the firehouse as a paperweight and common sense that six fire fighters per shift is not enough. I just do not want to jump right to three more full time firefighters per shift which would actually mean eight to ten full time mouths to feed without a healthy examination and debate about alternatives. If the council is truly not in agreement that there is a problem, then perhaps the public outcry that would come from the probable advice from an expert who will say we need more fire fighters may be necessary. If this happens, hello to eight to ten more full time firefighters and it will cost each family in Town more than $.25 a day for the rest of the lives of the new people. That would be bad if there were adequate acceptable alternatives that could have been found.

Mr.Sauerwein,
The only way to know if there are adequate acceptable alternatives is to have an open presentation by an independent expert. I know you hate the word "only" but I am not about to give credence to the Council when it is their abdication of their "prerogative" that has led to the problem. I do not feel safe with a "doctor" who asks me how much medicine I can afford before he tells me what is wrong.
I want all the facts including questions such as you pose concerning costs, alternatives etc. etc. After we find out what we need or want, we can decide if we can afford it.
A,John Blake

To A.John Blake: The rational decision making you describe after such a presentation sounds good in theory – not so good in actual practice. But, as I have said, if the council does not acknowledge that there is any kind of problem with the current crew level and will not discuss their rationale for this view, that may be the best approach. I am not there yet.
Your analogy to a personal medical situation continues to not be on point because that is a one on one situation where I can decide for myself my treatment. A closer analogy to this situation is a case where a doctor makes a presentation to a crowd about my problem and the crowd decides I need more treatment than I think I need or can afford, yet, the majority rules for my own good and I have to pay for it.

Did anyones taxes go down when the FD went from 40 to 32 members?