Fire Contract Impasse Could Affect Township Residents

---

A contract dispute that could affect fire protection services for about 30,000 township residents has devolved into an impasse for members of the East Franklin Volunteer Fire Company and the Fire District 3 Board of Commissioners.

The contract, which expired on March 31, must be renewed by June 30 or current operations at EFVFC, located on Pine Grove Avenue, must halt, and all trucks, turnout gear and other equipment must be returned to the Fire District, which owns it.

If that were to happen, according to a May 31 press release from the Commissioners, options including hiring part-time paid firefighters will be explored.

That would put at risk the residents in the fire department’s roughly 5-square-mile primary coverage area, according to EFVFC Chief Daniel Krushinski. Krushinski said the Commission could not hire the same number of paid fire fighters as now volunteer with the current department.

Fire District 3 also includes Community Volunteer Fire Department, which has already signed the new contract.

At the crux of the issue are new stipulations the Commissioners have included in the latest proposed contract, to which the EFVFC membership objects.

Those stipulations include removing a provision giving fire chiefs input into proposed policy changes, installing new video and audio recording devices in department vehicles and apparatus, and ending reimbursement for fire fighters’ personal property damaged or lost while responding to calls.

Another reason for the impasse could be a personal dispute between Krushinski and Commission Chairman Sherrod Middleton, according to a May 20 letter from the EFVFC’s attorney, Suzanne Marasco, to George Morris, the Commission’s attorney.

“We believe that this impasse is largely due to Commissioner Middleton’s personal gripe with and
feelings toward Chief Krushinski,” Marasco wrote. “You should be aware that he was overheard following the Fire District’s meeting stating that he wants to ‘do away with anyone’ that is involved with or associated with Chief Krushinski. He also stated (though his actions clearly demonstrate) that he is seeking to remove Chief Krushinski as well.”

“It is crystal clear that Commissioner Middleton’s intentions are retaliatory and in direct response to the Chief’s difference of opinion and efforts to keep his members protected,” she wrote.

Neither Middleton nor Board Clerk Janet Natal responded to written inquiries for this report.

In Franklin, the volunteer fire companies own the buildings in which they are housed. The equipment is owned by the various Fire Districts, which pay the fire companies rent to house the apparatus and gear and other supplies.

The fire companies and Fire District Commissions contract to provide fire fighting services for sections of the township. The Fire Districts also pay for members’ life insurance and other financial considerations.

Krushinski said the department is willing to negotiate with the Commissioners, but they have been rebuffed.

He said fire departments have given input into proposed policies for two decades. Four of the five Commissioners, he said, never served as fire fighters.

“How can they write policies without input from the fire fighters?” he said.

One piece of personal property that fire fighters need on calls is their cell phone, Krushinski said. That’s because the phones carry an app that maps out directions to fire scenes and provides locations of fire hydrants, among other things.

“If a guy needs glasses to drive and has to take them off to go into a burning building, and somehow they get broken by accident, why should the fire fighters have to pay for them?” he said.

Krushinski said the cameras would allow a Commissioner to call up a camera or listening device and monitor the broadcast without the fire fighter’s knowledge.

Addressing the issue in her May 15 letter, Marasco wrote, “We both know that one of the reasons why your clients want the unfettered right to enact policy is to put rear facing cameras in all of the apparatus which would record private conversations of the occupants during ordinary non-fire related driving. Last year we explained very clearly and in detail why this is unacceptable.”

The District Commission issued a press release on May 31, seeking to give its side of teh dispute.

“‘The Board hopes that the company will sign the contract which will allow them to continue to provide fire and rescue services, but if it does not, the District must work to ensure that such services remain available through other means’,” Board Chairman Sherrod Middleton said in the release.   “’We are fortunate and thankful that the volunteers of Community Fire House remain committed to serving the people in District 3′.”

“A contract dispute arose earlier this year when the District proposed a new contract eliminating prior one-sided language that hampered the District’s ability to implement new policies,” the release reads.  “The prior language essentially created veto power for the fire companies over new or amended policies which prevent us from providing the necessary services to the people in our District.”

Regarding the camera dispute, the release says that like police cars, fire fighting apparatus should be equipped with cameras.

“‘The taxpayers spent millions of dollars on apparatus for the District’,” Middleton said in the release.  “We want to ensure that the vehicles are being driven correctly and safely and consistent with traffic laws. The camera system, which replaces a prior camera system, would help guarantee that when the District has allowed someone to drive a million dollar fire truck, that the person is doing it properly.  Should an accident occur, the video also helps protect the District from frivolous lawsuits.”

Finally, the Commission’s press released said, “The new contract strips out certain language which prevented the District from making its own rules and limited oversight.  The Board is elected by the voters to oversee the District and the prior contract hampered the Commissioners’ ability to uphold their duty to the taxpayers.”

In their own press release, issued later on May 31, members of the department said that District Commissioners “who have been elected to provide leadership and oversight in the District must take into consideration the need to be informed by the men and women who actually respond to the emergencies in our District.  So, it should be normal that when they want to implement a new policy that they take into consideration feedback from the people who respond to the emergencies, refusing to do so leads to disputes that only prolong reaching an agreement that is best for our citizens.”

The release said that if the Commissioners have proof that fire apparatus is being driven recklessly or otherwise abused, “then that would be a reason to make changes in how responses are recorded. Furthermore, the cameras that the Commissioners wanted to install would be always recording in the apparatus/vehicles, recording forward-facing, rear-facing, and audio, violating the privacy of our membership – not just when responding to calls for service, so at any point and time for no reason a Fire Commissioner can be sitting in his/her backyard and just sign in and watch and listen to anyone’s conversation. EFFD’s Assistant Chief is a police officer and is protected under Daniel’s Law – and the Chief’s Vehicle should not be recorded.”

“We are willing to continue negotiations and come to an agreement that continues to provide safety and stability in how we respond to emergency incidents,” the release states.

Your Thoughts

comments