Posted by mac0cm4 on October 30, 2007 at 1:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Is anyone really surprised?

Posted by beespencer on October 30, 2007 at 4:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

No surprise at all. Election is one week from today

Posted by ssm on October 30, 2007 at 6:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Way to validate FF concerns, Mayor.

Posted by gencon1 on October 30, 2007 at 7:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Why didn't the union give it to all of the firefighters? Why don't you show us a copy of the survey. The way you ask a question can assure the answer you want. It smells bad to do this right before an election.

Posted by gencon1 on October 30, 2007 at 7:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I am not writing this because I am a Riley supporter, but Mr. gregorie has a lifetime career as a government employee. His answer to everything is bigger government and that scares me.

Posted by nty05 on October 30, 2007 at 7:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Read carefully- they are computing statistics based on responses from about a quarter of the entire fire department! 70% this, and 73% that- those numbers are not even statistically significant based on their sample size. You cannot draw any conclusions because the survey does not even represent the population of the fire department. And, like gencon1 stated, the validity of the survey may be skewed based on the wording of the questions. The results they found may actually reflect the sentiments of the fire department, but you certainly cannot conclude that based on this extremely small survey.

Posted by ssm on October 30, 2007 at 7:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This survey wasn't done "right before an election." It was conducted following the events of June 18. Election year or not, the results would be the same. That it's an election year just gives the Mayor a way to put a spin on valid concerns. And why did he wait to speak to FF as a whole at the Gailliard until just 3 weeks before election? You can't stand in front of groups of FF and claim to want their input into "their" department, then blow it off when you get it as political. Why hasn't the city surveyed the fire fighters. Don't they have a Public Safety Committee?

Posted by RTC on October 30, 2007 at 9:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I really wish all that had received the survey had turned it in. Eventhough 101 surveys do not represent the entire department, it would have had a lot more impact if all had replied.
Why 101 surveys? What an odd number to send out.
Is this some kind of a spin on the movie, 101 Dalmatians?

Posted by WalkMan on October 30, 2007 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It would have been nice if everyone given the survey made sure to respond. I would have also liked to have seen a survey throughout the entire department. I doubt the percentages would have changed much. As it stands Riley discredits it as a minority of firefighters. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Posted by grayhead on October 30, 2007 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ntyo5 - I agree. There are about 220 firefighters, only 101 choose to belong to the union, therefore only they received the survey done by the union. Only 55 of the 101 responded. But the article reads like the majority of the entire department has the concerns. Actually, the "70%" response is only 17.2% of the department. Hardly a ripple. It's like saying Clinton received a mandate in '96, when actually he received less than 50% of the votes and less than 50% of registered voters turned out. The union (and it appears the P&C) have an agenda here, so take that into account when reviewing this article.

Posted by nickiegarbeil on October 30, 2007 at 10:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You are correct, SSM...it just HAPPENS to be a tragedy just before an election...nothing ironic or underhanded on the part of the Union on that, in my opinion...

Maybe if there is interest in furthering their survey the Union would possibly offer it to the rest of the department?

ALL: Offering it to the Union members is within their realm...I would assume it is so as not to step on toes and be accused of undermining the administration...These types of surveys are given all over the country by Unions in every field after something if this nature...They are doing what they should in my opinion, and the truth is that the majority of the surveys STILL show there is a lack of confidence...if the City is discouraged, maybe the MAYOR shouldn't come out in the media and call his firefighters LIARS!!!

As a citizen, I would personally acknowledge that survey as a gauge in determining whether or not that survey should go on to the rest of the department...I would say that since there is a majority voicing their concerns and discontent, that, in my opinion, shows interest and maybe it should be given to the rest of them...

Grayhead, I didn't see where they made that story sound like a majority of the department...I read it just the way it reads...majority of the Union members...

Once again, the Mayor refuses to listen to concerns within the fire department...He doesn't want to politicize this tragedy, however, HE made the youtube videos about the tragedy and when public outcry was raging, he had them pulled! Hmmmm...who is the politician afterall? I didn't see Dudley Gregorie, Omar Brown, or Mark Knapp doing anything of the sort...

Read this article for what it is...A UNION survey, which is WELL within their rights to perform. Either way, it should pique interest in the community to wish to determine the rest of the departments wishes and concerns...Step up Citizens...ASK the FFs yourselves...They and the MAYOR work for YOU!

Posted by vesta on October 30, 2007 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

gencom1, nty05, and grayhead: Let us not forget that the firefighters are not allowed, according to the chief's own memo, to discuss anything about the SSS fire, admin, etc. outside of the fire department. The union has given the ffs the freedom to voice their concerns. That in itself should be shocking to you. This is America, remember? One of our rights under the Bill of Rights is FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Yet these brave, heroic men cannot voice their opinions without fear of retribution. I don't see an "agenda" here....I just see a group (the union) trying to give the ffs their constitutional right to FREEDOM OF SPEECH. The ffs had this freedom for at least two weeks after the fire and strongly voiced their concerns about (1) lack of training (2) lack of adequate equipment and (3) poor leadership. Riley's own, independent panel pointed out all of these things at least two months after the fire. Let the ffs who can speak, speak out loud and clear! This should have been on the front page and in the local news broadcasts.

Posted by cfdiaffman on October 30, 2007 at 11:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It is clear that some of you posting on this blog would support Riley and Thomas no matter what and if more of our firefighters were killed today under their incompetent leadership you could care less. I took the survey and the questions were fair. As for being political, that little weasel Joe Riley made this political when he stood in front of my 9 burned, dead brothers at the memorial service and praised Thomas for 30 minutes trying to make him some kind of God. The man that lead my 9 brothers to their end on June 18th, 2007. It made me sick.

Posted by fyrmnjim on October 30, 2007 at noon (Suggest removal)

cfdiaffman, There seems to be an endless supply of Joe Riley kool-aid down there.

Posted by nty05 on October 30, 2007 at 12:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No, cfdiaffman, I was not posting to support Riley, Thomas, or anyone else. I was pointing out that this survey was a very poor representation of data, and that people should always look further than the numbers that are presented. This is very similar to the teachers' association in Charleston County- they love to generate all of this great data about teacher satisfaction and what percentage of teachers are satisfied with the Superintendent. Yet, you have to look real hard to see that they only surveyed about a quarter of the teachers in the school district. In essence, their data is useless.

cfdiaffman, I find it sad that you would assume that just because someone is questioning the validity of those numbers means that they could "care less" about the safety of anyone and is therefore a Riley supporter. Please be more careful about the assumptions you jump to in the future!

And, vesta, any and all of the firefighters could have completed that survey! But, if the only way the firefighters can speak is through the union, as you suggest, why are they only representing less than half of the department? And, if the firefighters truly want to speak out and this is their only vehicle, why did only half of the union members complete the survey?

Posted by charleytowngirl on October 30, 2007 at 1:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am in strong support of the firefighters that desire better leadership, better training and educational opportunities and better safety practices. I am also in strong support of new leadership for the City of Charleston.

However, I am strongly disappointed that out of 102 men, only 55 chose to respond to the survey. This would have been a perfect opportunity for ALL of the men to express their opinion and show the chief and mayor that the firefighters have a serious lack of confidence in them.

But then again, what good would it have done for them to use the opportunity to speak out? They have been called liars by the mayor and the chief refuses to admit that serious mistakes were made that night. They are both living in their own little Disney World.

Can you blame them for not bothering to respond to the survey?

Posted by WalkMan on October 30, 2007 at 2:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My opinion is not included in this survey. I sure wish it could be.

Posted by nickiegarbeil on October 30, 2007 at 4:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

nty05,

While you may have a difficult time understanding the internal strife going on in the CFD, I think it is important for you to understand the city's temperament with regards to the Union. Much of this information came out in earlier days shortly after the fire..As I am sure you are aware, the State of SC is a "right to work" state...meaning the Unions in any capacity are largely ignored...very little influence, regardless of the issues importance...

I think it is fair to assume...and be it known that it is an assumption on my part...that some in this state feel it is pointless to join a Union if they can't do anything to protect the people's jobs...I speak in general terms, and not about the IAFF specifically...

Unfortunately, it can't be further from the truth...especially in times like these...the Union spoke out about safety issues to the Mayor years ago...they were ignored...He has consistently ignored the Fire Department for years and especially hates their Union because they marched on his home many years ago...shortly after he took office...

I would place a bet that if you ask the men who are NOT in the Union, the majority would simply express that it is because they have no true voice in this City...simple as that...

Posted by nickiegarbeil on October 30, 2007 at 4:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

GenCon1,

I can certainly understand you fear of big government, but I didn't get that impression from Gregorie when I spoke with him...Much the opposite actually...

His concern was the lack of current transparency in this City government...the lack of actual democracy involved..If you haven't examined it closely one might miss the fact that City Council has no real vote...they are primarily, with the exception of one(Henry Fishburne)rubber stamps...He created his government, and brags to that fact...he has taken all power away from Council and HE makes the decisions...It doesn't get much more "big government" than that..

Respectfully...

Posted by ssm on October 30, 2007 at 7:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A copy of the survey is on the Local's website:

www.local61.com

Posted by ffwife on October 30, 2007 at 9:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

check out how many "rusty rangers" are in the union. I don't know if you'll find any at all. In fact, I believe that is common knowledge in the department that if you want to make rank higher than a captain, you cannot be a member of the union.

This might explain why only about half of the men are in the union. And those that are, know they are taking the chance of making life a little harder on themselves, but feel like the union certainly has a place and can offer some assistance.

Posted by nickiegarbeil on October 30, 2007 at 9:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Good point FFwife!!!

Posted by vesta on October 30, 2007 at 9:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To those IAFF-61 firefighters who responded to the union's survey, thank you for taking the time to answer the questions and let us know what you think. To the IAFF-61, thank you for giving the CFD ffs the opportunity to respond and voice their opinions which are valuable to us.

Posted by rjahopp on October 30, 2007 at 10:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Re: “Is anyone really surprised?” You betcha …

gencon1 has not been heard from in a while and his common sense perspective seems well thought out.

Observations:

Many religiously point at NFPA Standards for the fire department yet the survey sponsors do not seemed to follow standards of ethical conduct for Survey Research such as the Council of American Survey Research Organizations (CASRO) - Code of Standards and Ethics for Survey Research.

For example:

1) “Firefighters were allowed to anonymously respond to the survey.” FACT: Respondents were instructed NOT to identify themselves (“We do not want anyone to identify themselves.”).

Anonymous surveys have zero (zilch) significance since (1) there is no way to certify that any respondent is a member of the intended survey audience and (2) there is no guarantee that a single individual or small group of individuals did not fill out all 55 returned survey sheets.

Valid surveys require all respondents to be identified by the surveyor and it is the surveyor’s responsibility to protect the confidentiality of the identity of the respondents, unless a respondent releases the surveyor from that responsibility.

2) Survey credibility/reliability: FACT: 55 surveys were tallied for the report. FACT: The questions regarding being “retaliated against,” being “respected by my peers,” and about Mayor Riley’s comments on the status of the panel’s recommendations each enumerates “56” responses?

3) Survey bias: A proper survey is neutral in its questioning and has control questions to detect bias. FACT: The wording of the survey questions shows obvious, strong anti-management bias with no bias control questions.

4) Being quite familiar with employee surveys given in the national corporate world, this survey could more than likely show similar anti-management results if it were taken in the private, corporate business sector – Coca Cola, Bank of America, Ford Motor Co., etc.

*************************************************

The survey delves into questions about the SSS fire. Firemen participating in the survey seem to be in breach of the City/CFD directive not to discuss the events at the Sofa Super Store on 6-18-07. Responding to survey questions specifically related to 6-18-07 may be interpreted as discussing the SSS incident.

*************************************************

The Charleston Firefighters Association’s surveying firemen who participated in battling the SSS fire begs the question of interfering with an on-going investigation.

*************************************************

Fireman that have little faith in their leaders, training, equipment, hiring and promotion system, staffing, and image in the region might seek relief and seriously consider a career change.

Posted by vesta on October 30, 2007 at 11:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

rjahopp: firemen who have little faith in their leaders, training and equipment, hiring and promotion system, staffing and image in the region MIGHT seek relief and seriously consider a career change IF they had been properly trained so that they could go some place else. That, of course, would not be an option for the nine men who lost their lives.

Posted by WalkMan on October 31, 2007 at 1:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

HOPP
Nice to have you back. Though we had lost you.
FACT: No piece of property is worth the life of one firefighter. FACT: No firefighter should be committed to the interior of a metal truss construction of there is any INDICATION of exposure to fire. FACT: Chief Thomas has told firemen that we are not doing our jobs if we can be seen outside at a fire. FACT: Chief Thomas unnecessarily put firefighters lives at risk with his firefighting tactics. FACT: Chief Thomas has enthusiastically endorsed a roport that has said he was inept at his job as IC. FACT: Firefighting experts from around the country have shown condemnation and outrage at Chief Thomas and the events of June 18, 2007. (Note: I haven't found a single expert that has approved or supported Chief Thomas's management of the fire.) FACT: Mayor Riley has blindly and publicly put his support behind Chief Thomas.
OPINION: Chief Thomas and Mayor Riley need to be replaced.

Posted by vesta on October 31, 2007 at 11:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I just posted some thoughts to FFH, and wanted to post some of those ideas here. In my opinion, the words of Mayor Riley about Chief Thomas being an excellent fire chief, the best in the nation and a great man are hollow words from a godparent who did a disservice to his godson.

In the position he is in, the mayor, when Chief Thomas was appointed, SHOULD have made certain his own godson was adequately trained as a chief, had a fire department that, in fact, would have been rated as a top notch department by their other peers, made certain Chief Thomas' men respected him because he was a good leader. Instead, he has set up his godson to be justly ridiculed by his own fire fighters, to be disrespected by fire fighters and chiefs across the nation, to have his godson's fire station the subject of bad publicity across the nation. Mayor Riley had the opportunity to provide his own godson with excellent training, excellent equipment and, therefore, could have made his godson a chief who was respected by a great many people.

Apparently Mayor Joseph P. Riley, Jr. does about as good of a job as a godparent as he does as a mayor.

Posted by nickiegarbeil on October 31, 2007 at 2:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think that those suggesting the firefighters change careers should be contacted by each and every firefighter contemplating that change and asked to foot the bill of re-educating the men in a career field of THEIR choice...I would bet most of them would become firefighters again, yet THIS TIME, those suggesting their career change can pay out of THEIR pockets to train them properly!

Stupidity, pure unadulterated stupidity!

I will further go on to say that I have read that survey and there is NOTHING....NOTHING...in it to suggest there is an interference with any ongoing investigations! I think it is highly irresponsible for anyone to suggest such a thing...For an ANONYMOUS survey to be given by the local Union representatives to THEIR OWN MEMBERS is not unethical...there are questions as to whether or not there is a threat to firefighter jobs for speaking out...which shows the common sense behind an anonymous survey...ALSO...no one was REQUIRED to fill it out or send it in...The Union is well within THEIR LEGAL RIGHTS to obtain, and administer a survey of THEIR OWN MEMBERS...for those people to suggest wrongdoing, it is evident at least to me, that their motivation is merely to derail the truth from getting out and the citizens to be made aware of the internal issues...I find that apprehensible...another level of transparency NOT happening within the system...

I am SICK TO DEATH of listening to those people come in to these comment sections demanding for the rest of us to wait for answers and then when the answers come rolling in, they are the ones screaming the loudest that the truth is either tainted or misrepresented in some way...WE KNOW THE TRUTH...it appears that YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

I say to those folks, HANDLE IT AND HELP US FIX IT! And if that means Rusty goes, then HE GOES!

Enough already!

Posted by nickiegarbeil on October 31, 2007 at 3:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

UGH! Apprehensible=reprehensible...DUH!

Posted by charleytowngirl on October 31, 2007 at 3:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

FACT:

Some commenters on this board could care less about the remaining firefighters with the CFD or the 9 men who lost their lives that tragic night.

I wish those that do not care would stop trying to spin every story that comes out.

Posted by rjahopp on October 31, 2007 at 3:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

WalkMan,

Thanks. I stepped back to reassess those that seemed to me to have valid, serious interests in ascertaining the real facts.

re: "FACT: No piece of property is worth the life of one firefighter." No question about this, unless they are accepting the risk while acting in a life saving role. Firemen do dedicate their careers to protecting lives and property.

re: "FACT: No firefighter should be committed to the interior of a metal truss construction if there is any INDICATION of exposure to fire." This is a judgment call made by the CFD. Some "experts" have opinioned that many (if not most) FD's may have reacted the same way on 6-18-07. The role of the truss roof re the loss of life, if it was a factor, may only be understood after completion of the NIOSH/NIST investigations.

re: "FACT: Chief Thomas has told firemen that we are not doing our jobs if we can be seen outside at a fire." That is "macho, bravado" talk – it should not to be taken literally. There appear to be dozens of firefighters outside at the SSS battling the blaze.

re: "FACT: Chief Thomas unnecessarily put firefighters lives at risk with his firefighting tactics." This seems to be an "opinion" as opposed to a fact. Many "experts" have opinioned that "aggressive firefighting tactics" as employed by the CFD are not uncommon in the firefighting industry. Chief Routley complemented Chas. firemen for their firefighting skills.

re: "FACT: Chief Thomas has enthusiastically endorsed a report that has said he was inept at his job as IC." This also seems to be an “opinion” rather than a fact. Phase 1 of the PIAERT made recommendations on how the CFD could develop "best practices" to become a leading edge FD and obtain CPSE accreditation. Prior to their study, the expert panel said it was not their job to make personnel judgments. PIAERT Phase II is to provide an assessment of the SSS activity in light of the results of the NIOSH/NIST, etc. investigations.

re: "FACT: Firefighting experts from around the country have shown condemnation and outrage at Chief Thomas and the events of June 18, 2007." Those "expert" comments are from sources who obviously were not at the SSS, do not have and seemingly have not attempted to learn known facts, do not have the benefit of knowing the results of the formal investigations, and appear to be second guessing the CFD's efforts. Many "experts" and fire chiefs have said they could not approve/support or condemn the CFD since they do not know the details of the fire ground events of 6-18-07.

re: "FACT: Mayor Riley has blindly and publicly put his support behind Chief Thomas." This too seems more “opinion” than fact. Riley appears to be a fairly astute and experienced Mayor and his record does not indicate that he is a person who manages "blindly."

Posted by nickiegarbeil on October 31, 2007 at 4:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Vesta...I know it's been a few years since we had the chance to vote in a Presidential election(4 to be exact)...but I don't recall having to put my name on my ballot anywhere..Do you???

I think the suggestion by a post-er above that the credibility of the survey is off the mark a bit...Anonymous surveys and voting is done all the time...

The attempts to spin go on and on and on...

Posted by vesta on October 31, 2007 at 6:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Nickie:

FACT: I totally concur with you.

lol

Posted by nickiegarbeil on October 31, 2007 at 6:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

LOL....All the spinning should be making them dizzy!!!

Posted by charleytowngirl on October 31, 2007 at 8:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I believe the mayor said in an interview recently that the men could speak about this fire. Any attempt to quiet them without a court order is a violation of their freedom of speech. Last I heard, Chief Thomas had not attained anything beyond a high school education, so he certainly can't be a judge that can issue a gag order. His memo didn't cut it. These men have a right to complete a survey if they choose to do so.

It amazes me that some people just still don't get it. NINE men are dead. How many more will it take before you get it? The chief and the mayor need to go. The mayor is still trying to cover for the mistakes made by the leadership of the fire department and his cronies come on the message board and try to spin it to make it look like WE don't know what's really going on. Puh-lease!

I have a family member in the department and I worry for his safety. It is a blessing that he was not in the building that night.

RJ, you say you are a "family member of a Charleston 9 survivor". I'm really curious as to how your family views your constant attempts to try to spin every story and every comment made about this fire.

I'm glad you aren't representing my family. I worry for the safety of my family member. The two reports released by the Routley committee and the OSHA violations have told me more than I need to know about why 9 men died.

Posted by vesta on October 31, 2007 at 10:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

CTGirl: Yes, the Routley and OSHA reports were severe by anyone's standards (except the mayor's and the chief's). The NIOSH report will be unbelievable if it follows other LODD reports. NIOSH is very detailed. There was a 17 page report on the death of the Altoona, PA fireman who was killed during a training exercise. NIOSH takes a little longer to release reports because they are so detailed. I think Jay posted the link on FFH to the report on that PA LODD.

Please tell your family member that we are all working hard to try to change things in this department. When people say that fire fighting is a dangerous profession, they should be referring to the fire, not the working conditions, and lack of training, the equipment and the leadership that creates that danger.

Your firefighter, and all of his brothers and sisters are in our continued thoughts and prayers.

Posted by charleytowngirl on November 1, 2007 at 4:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you, Vesta. They are all constantly in my prayers as well.