The farther out in space we go, the more alike we look. That's simple science but you don't have to take my word for it; you can ask anyone who was ever assigned to the International Space Station (ISS) and had a chance to look out a window.
Speaking of which, one of the more painful memories of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center was the imagery NASA shared from Frank Culbertson, aboard the ISS, and technically the only American not on the planet that day where the plumes of smoke and ash from Lower Manhattan were clearly visible from his perch in space. From that distance, it truly was impossible to tell any of us from any others of us
I mention the 9/11 attacks because they are a tragedy and calamity on a scale and scope that no matter your age, origin, or circumstances you can understand. It's a very demonstrable example of the courage that emergency responders everywhere and anywhere show on a daily basis often on multiple instances in a single day.
It takes a special kind of person to run toward danger. I don't know about you, but I knew, even as a kid growing up I'd never be a firefighter. But they would always be some of my heroes
I wanted to note all of that, and that I'm a taxpayer residing in the City Consolidated District (CCD) and am doubly fortunate to have the best of both worlds of fire protection, with the paid department and, if needed, volunteer heroes as well.
So I'm conflicted about the special election scheduled for Wednesday, 1 February to repeal an ordinance just approved last month by our City Council with four Democrats in favor and three Republicans opposed to mandating automatic aid between the paid fire department of the Consolidated City District (CCD) and the five volunteer fire companies.
I note the party affiliation of the vote since apparently public safety and prudent governance at some point became a partisan issue. Somehow, I missed the memo.
Having read news accounts and watched the City Council meeting on the city's website, the automatic aid ordinance, or “auto-aid,” required the paid fire department to respond to all structure fires in any of the city’s volunteer districts.
Our City Manager, John Salomone, and the five volunteer chiefs had already agreed on auto-aid in October and it formally began on 1 November. Their goal, as I understand it, is to improve fire responses in volunteer districts with paid fire crews already on duty and for volunteers to supplement the paid fire department in the CCD. I think we can all agree this is more admirable and prudent.
The Council ordinance codified what had been agreed to by the volunteer chiefs and the City Manager. So I'm not sure I understand or appreciate what, to me, seemed to be a sudden withdrawal on November 2, by the volunteer chiefs from the agreement they had negotiated with the City Manager after learning about the proposed City Council ordinance that formalized the agreement (Auto-aid was put in place and remains active).
All of us pay for fire protection/public safety and are well-served by the resources we have here in Norwich. The volunteer fire department heroes are a wonderful asset to helping their local community and saving all of us money.
Some of us, no names please but I am looking at a portrait of our current City Council, see the ordinance as an insult to the volunteers, hence their support for the special election but must be written somewhere in invisible ink because I can't find it.
Instead, I read the ordinance (and its companion on the purchase of fire-fighting apparatus), as an attempt to implement some (though by no means all) of the February 2021 recommendations of the McGrath Consulting Group and to answer their 'core question' that drove their review, "What is best for the individual needing the service?'
Years ago, someone described Norwich as eleven villages in search of a city. Decades of wrangling about paid versus volunteer fire services has become this third rail of Norwich politics, but it’s a synthetic drama with imaginary heroes and villains and no basis in reality. It continues to create casualties and costs all of us who pay taxes more than we should have to pay or can afford.
The question on 1 February is: "What is best for the individual needing the service?"
Only you can answer that.
-bill kenny
No comments:
Post a Comment