From simon.quirke at ihug.co.nz Mon Nov 7 08:41:54 2011 From: simon.quirke at ihug.co.nz (Simon Quirke) Date: Mon Nov 7 08:42:10 2011 Subject: [VollyNet] area In-Reply-To: References: <71B810742DC98742AED017465A504032373C3EC8FA@IRLMAILBOX.int.irl.cri.nz>, <8B3AA9EA-2405-4872-AA97-EDE135731D76@sutorius.org>, <4EB0B377.3000808@hintz.org> <000001cc9929$ce675890$6b3609b0$@co.nz>, <4EB18EC0.6010001@hintz.org> <000001cc9992$2a1e5e50$7e5b1af0$@co.nz>, , <4EB1A881.6050504@hintz.org> <4EB1AC66.3050104@hintz.org>, , <4EB1CBE4.8040301@hintz.org>, <003501cc99ba$8a6fa0c0$9f4ee240$@xnet.co.nz>, <1320311504.1972.8.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P> Message-ID: <78ce76660902eacd0b1d0ee775f514ed@vodafone.co.nz> Tristan, I can get you that. Contact me on my fire.org.nz email. Simon On Sun, 6 Nov 2011 18:50:24 +1300, Tristan Saunders wrote: > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > anyone got the areas map that was put out with the introduction of the 26 > areas..? > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise From kiwis1 at slingshot.co.nz Wed Nov 9 16:39:06 2011 From: kiwis1 at slingshot.co.nz (Stephen) Date: Wed Nov 9 16:39:13 2011 Subject: [VollyNet] News:- FS not prosecuted after Taranaki fire Message-ID: <023501cc9e91$228af3c0$67a0db40$@co.nz> http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/news/5931750/Fire-probe-prompts-c hanges From tds_4 at hotmail.com Thu Nov 10 08:48:28 2011 From: tds_4 at hotmail.com (Tristan Saunders) Date: Thu Nov 10 08:48:41 2011 Subject: [VollyNet] Oban In-Reply-To: <78ce76660902eacd0b1d0ee775f514ed@vodafone.co.nz> References: <71B810742DC98742AED017465A504032373C3EC8FA@IRLMAILBOX.int.irl.cri.nz>, , <8B3AA9EA-2405-4872-AA97-EDE135731D76@sutorius.org>, , <4EB0B377.3000808@hintz.org> <000001cc9929$ce675890$6b3609b0$@co.nz>,,<4EB18EC0.6010001@hintz.org> <000001cc9992$2a1e5e50$7e5b1af0$@co.nz>, , , , <4EB1A881.6050504@hintz.org> <4EB1AC66.3050104@hintz.org>, , , , <4EB1CBE4.8040301@hintz.org>, , <003501cc99ba$8a6fa0c0$9f4ee240$@xnet.co.nz>, , <1320311504.1972.8.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P>, , <78ce76660902eacd0b1d0ee775f514ed@vodafone.co.nz> Message-ID: Anyone on here from or know someone from Oban? From Paul.Butler at rbnz.govt.nz Thu Nov 10 09:16:13 2011 From: Paul.Butler at rbnz.govt.nz (Paul Butler) Date: Thu Nov 10 09:18:31 2011 Subject: [VollyNet] Oban In-Reply-To: References: <71B810742DC98742AED017465A504032373C3EC8FA@IRLMAILBOX.int.irl.cri.nz>, , <8B3AA9EA-2405-4872-AA97-EDE135731D76@sutorius.org>, , <4EB0B377.3000808@hintz.org> <000001cc9929$ce675890$6b3609b0$@co.nz>, , <4EB18EC0.6010001@hintz.org> <000001cc9992$2a1e5e50$7e5b1af0$@co.nz>, , , , <4EB1A881.6050504@hintz.org> <4EB1AC66.3050104@hintz.org>, , , , <4EB1CBE4.8040301@hintz.org>, , <003501cc99ba$8a6fa0c0$9f4ee240$@xnet.co.nz>, , <1320311504.1972.8.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P>, , <78ce76660902eacd0b1d0ee775f514ed@vodafone.co.nz> Message-ID: Nope. But just saw an awesome vid of their Guy Fawkes fireworks display and 30 mins worth of fireworks went off in a minute. BOOM! http://wins.failblog.org/2011/11/07/epic-win-photos-accidental-win/ -----Original Message----- From: vollynet-bounces@vollynet.org.nz [mailto:vollynet-bounces@vollynet.org.nz] On Behalf Of Tristan Saunders Sent: Thursday, 10 November 2011 8:48 a.m. To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz Subject: [VollyNet] Oban VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anyone on here from or know someone from Oban? ---------------------------------------------------------------- MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise ****************************************************************************** "This message (and any files transmitted with it) are confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender immediately and delete this message from your system. This message does not necessarily reflect the views of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand. If the recipient has any concerns about the content of this message they should seek alternative confirmation from the Reserve Bank of New Zealand." ****************************************************************************** From ed at hintz.org Thu Nov 10 10:55:27 2011 From: ed at hintz.org (Edmund Hintz) Date: Thu Nov 10 10:55:40 2011 Subject: [VollyNet] Oban In-Reply-To: References: <71B810742DC98742AED017465A504032373C3EC8FA@IRLMAILBOX.int.irl.cri.nz>, , <8B3AA9EA-2405-4872-AA97-EDE135731D76@sutorius.org>, , <4EB0B377.3000808@hintz.org> <000001cc9929$ce675890$6b3609b0$@co.nz>, , <4EB18EC0.6010001@hintz.org> <000001cc9992$2a1e5e50$7e5b1af0$@co.nz>, , , , <4EB1A881.6050504@hintz.org> <4EB1AC66.3050104@hintz.org>, , , , <4EB1CBE4.8040301@hintz.org>, , <003501cc99ba$8a6fa0c0$9f4ee240$@xnet.co.nz>, , <1320311504.1972.8.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P>, , <78ce76660902eacd0b1d0ee775f514ed@vodafone.co.nz> Message-ID: <4EBAF6CF.40002@hintz.org> On 11/10/11 9:16 AM, Paul Butler wrote: > Nope. But just saw an awesome vid of their Guy Fawkes fireworks display and 30 mins worth of fireworks went off in a minute. BOOM! > http://wins.failblog.org/2011/11/07/epic-win-photos-accidental-win/ F**KIN EPIC. -- Regards, Ed Hintz ed@hintz.org From mac.mcgarry at codc.govt.nz Thu Nov 10 11:16:49 2011 From: mac.mcgarry at codc.govt.nz (Mac McGarry) Date: Thu Nov 10 11:17:02 2011 Subject: [VollyNet] Oban In-Reply-To: References: <71B810742DC98742AED017465A504032373C3EC8FA@IRLMAILBOX.int.irl.cri.nz>, , <8B3AA9EA-2405-4872-AA97-EDE135731D76@sutorius.org>, , <4EB0B377.3000808@hintz.org> <000001cc9929$ce675890$6b3609b0$@co.nz>,,<4EB18EC0.6010001@hintz.org> <000001cc9992$2a1e5e50$7e5b1af0$@co.nz>, , , , <4EB1A881.6050504@hintz.org> <4EB1AC66.3050104@hintz.org>, , , , <4EB1CBE4.8040301@hintz.org>, , <003501cc99ba$8a6fa0c0$9f4ee240$@xnet.co.nz>, , <1320311504.1972.8.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P>, , <78ce76660902eacd0b1d0ee775f514ed@vodafone.co.nz> Message-ID: Oban, Scotland or Oban, Stewart Island?? -----Original Message----- From: vollynet-bounces@vollynet.org.nz [mailto:vollynet-bounces@vollynet.org.nz] On Behalf Of Tristan Saunders Sent: Thursday, 10 November 2011 8:48 a.m. To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz Subject: [VollyNet] Oban VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anyone on here from or know someone from Oban? ---------------------------------------------------------------- MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise From tds_4 at hotmail.com Thu Nov 10 11:22:21 2011 From: tds_4 at hotmail.com (Tristan Saunders) Date: Thu Nov 10 11:22:34 2011 Subject: [VollyNet] Oban In-Reply-To: References: <71B810742DC98742AED017465A504032373C3EC8FA@IRLMAILBOX.int.irl.cri.nz>, , , , <8B3AA9EA-2405-4872-AA97-EDE135731D76@sutorius.org>, , , , <4EB0B377.3000808@hintz.org>, <000001cc9929$ce675890$6b3609b0$@co.nz>, , <4EB18EC0.6010001@hintz.org>, <000001cc9992$2a1e5e50$7e5b1af0$@co.nz>, , , , , , , , <4EB1A881.6050504@hintz.org> <4EB1AC66.3050104@hintz.org>, , , , , , , , <4EB1CBE4.8040301@hintz.org>, , , , <003501cc99ba$8a6fa0c0$9f4ee240$@xnet.co.nz>, , , , <1320311504.1972.8.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P>, , , , <78ce76660902eacd0b1d0ee775f514ed@vodafone.co.nz>, , Message-ID: yeah I was wondering if I needed to clarify subject to Pauls reply, but considered that people would link the lack of geographical specificity to the sense of locality. Oban, Stewart Island > From: mac.mcgarry@codc.govt.nz > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > Subject: RE: [VollyNet] Oban > Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 22:16:49 +0000 > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Oban, Scotland or Oban, Stewart Island?? > > -----Original Message----- > From: vollynet-bounces@vollynet.org.nz [mailto:vollynet-bounces@vollynet.org.nz] On Behalf Of Tristan Saunders > Sent: Thursday, 10 November 2011 8:48 a.m. > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > Subject: [VollyNet] Oban > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Anyone on here from or know someone from Oban? ---------------------------------------------------------------- > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise From paulandrochelle at xtra.co.nz Fri Nov 11 09:30:30 2011 From: paulandrochelle at xtra.co.nz (Paul and Rochelle) Date: Fri Nov 11 09:30:49 2011 Subject: [VollyNet] (no subject) Message-ID: <7199DAA5CF2B427A85F8F123C5CB9F93@PaulandRochelle> http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/news/5947647/Fire-bosses-should-be-accountable From ben at diversity.net.nz Fri Nov 11 09:33:37 2011 From: ben at diversity.net.nz (Ben Kepes) Date: Fri Nov 11 09:33:54 2011 Subject: [VollyNet] (no subject) In-Reply-To: <7199DAA5CF2B427A85F8F123C5CB9F93@PaulandRochelle> References: <7199DAA5CF2B427A85F8F123C5CB9F93@PaulandRochelle> Message-ID: Here we go again, the union gets to beat up both vollies AND the management in one press release nice work guys, really classy.... Ben Kepes - Diversity Limited E ben@diversity.net.nz | P +64 3 3146006 | M 021 2384136 skype ben_kepes | twitter @benkepes web www.diversity.net.nz On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Paul and Rochelle < paulandrochelle@xtra.co.nz> wrote: > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/news/5947647/Fire-bosses-should-be-accountable > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > From realtswain at clear.net.nz Fri Nov 11 09:47:29 2011 From: realtswain at clear.net.nz (Tony S) Date: Fri Nov 11 09:47:38 2011 Subject: [VollyNet] (no subject) In-Reply-To: References: <7199DAA5CF2B427A85F8F123C5CB9F93@PaulandRochelle> Message-ID: <000001cc9fe9$f64b0610$e2e11230$@net.nz> My thoughts are that there is a bit of an bullet proof attitude thing here. Why was the paid crew inside when all the others were outside at the time? Tony -----Original Message----- From: vollynet-bounces@vollynet.org.nz [mailto:vollynet-bounces@vollynet.org.nz] On Behalf Of Ben Kepes Sent: Friday, 11 November 2011 9:34 a.m. To: VollyNet Subject: Re: [VollyNet] (no subject) VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz ---------------------------------------------------------------- Here we go again, the union gets to beat up both vollies AND the management in one press release nice work guys, really classy.... Ben Kepes - Diversity Limited E ben@diversity.net.nz | P +64 3 3146006 | M 021 2384136 skype ben_kepes | twitter @benkepes web www.diversity.net.nz On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Paul and Rochelle < paulandrochelle@xtra.co.nz> wrote: > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ For > information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/news/5947647/Fire-bosses-sh > ould-be-accountable > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of personal > opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > ---------------------------------------------------------------- MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise From ben at diversity.net.nz Fri Nov 11 09:49:26 2011 From: ben at diversity.net.nz (Ben Kepes) Date: Fri Nov 11 09:49:44 2011 Subject: [VollyNet] (no subject) In-Reply-To: <000001cc9fe9$f64b0610$e2e11230$@net.nz> References: <7199DAA5CF2B427A85F8F123C5CB9F93@PaulandRochelle> <000001cc9fe9$f64b0610$e2e11230$@net.nz> Message-ID: no no tony, you have it wrong when paid staff make a mistake it's the management and vollies fault when vollies make a mistake they're turkeys sigh b Ben Kepes - Diversity Limited E ben@diversity.net.nz | P +64 3 3146006 | M 021 2384136 skype ben_kepes | twitter @benkepes web www.diversity.net.nz On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Tony S wrote: > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > My thoughts are that there is a bit of an bullet proof attitude thing here. > Why was the paid crew inside when all the others were outside at the time? > Tony > > -----Original Message----- > From: vollynet-bounces@vollynet.org.nz > [mailto:vollynet-bounces@vollynet.org.nz] On Behalf Of Ben Kepes > Sent: Friday, 11 November 2011 9:34 a.m. > To: VollyNet > Subject: Re: [VollyNet] (no subject) > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ For > information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Here we go again, the union gets to beat up both vollies AND the management > in one press release > > nice work guys, really classy.... > > Ben Kepes - Diversity Limited > E ben@diversity.net.nz | P +64 3 3146006 | M 021 2384136 > skype ben_kepes | twitter @benkepes web > www.diversity.net.nz > > > > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Paul and Rochelle < > paulandrochelle@xtra.co.nz> wrote: > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ For > > information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/news/5947647/Fire-bosses-sh > > ould-be-accountable > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of personal > > opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of personal opinion > only unless specifically stated otherwise > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > From realtswain at clear.net.nz Fri Nov 11 09:52:30 2011 From: realtswain at clear.net.nz (Tony S) Date: Fri Nov 11 09:52:39 2011 Subject: [VollyNet] (no subject) In-Reply-To: References: <7199DAA5CF2B427A85F8F123C5CB9F93@PaulandRochelle> <000001cc9fe9$f64b0610$e2e11230$@net.nz> Message-ID: <000101cc9fea$a9f19fd0$fdd4df70$@net.nz> Oh how silly of me. -----Original Message----- From: vollynet-bounces@vollynet.org.nz [mailto:vollynet-bounces@vollynet.org.nz] On Behalf Of Ben Kepes Sent: Friday, 11 November 2011 9:49 a.m. To: VollyNet Subject: Re: [VollyNet] (no subject) VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz ---------------------------------------------------------------- no no tony, you have it wrong when paid staff make a mistake it's the management and vollies fault when vollies make a mistake they're turkeys sigh b Ben Kepes - Diversity Limited E ben@diversity.net.nz | P +64 3 3146006 | M 021 2384136 skype ben_kepes | twitter @benkepes web www.diversity.net.nz On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Tony S wrote: > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ For > information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > My thoughts are that there is a bit of an bullet proof attitude thing here. > Why was the paid crew inside when all the others were outside at the time? > Tony > > -----Original Message----- > From: vollynet-bounces@vollynet.org.nz > [mailto:vollynet-bounces@vollynet.org.nz] On Behalf Of Ben Kepes > Sent: Friday, 11 November 2011 9:34 a.m. > To: VollyNet > Subject: Re: [VollyNet] (no subject) > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ For > information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Here we go again, the union gets to beat up both vollies AND the > management in one press release > > nice work guys, really classy.... > > Ben Kepes - Diversity Limited > E ben@diversity.net.nz | P +64 3 3146006 | M 021 2384136 > skype ben_kepes | twitter @benkepes > web www.diversity.net.nz > > > > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Paul and Rochelle < > paulandrochelle@xtra.co.nz> wrote: > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ For > > information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/news/5947647/Fire-bosses- > > sh > > ould-be-accountable > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of personal > > opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of personal > opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of personal > opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > ---------------------------------------------------------------- MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise From 4kings at nettel.net.nz Fri Nov 11 10:06:36 2011 From: 4kings at nettel.net.nz (4kings@nettel.net.nz) Date: Fri Nov 11 10:06:48 2011 Subject: [VollyNet] (no subject) References: <7199DAA5CF2B427A85F8F123C5CB9F93@PaulandRochelle> <000001cc9fe9$f64b0610$e2e11230$@net.nz> <000101cc9fea$a9f19fd0$fdd4df70$@net.nz> Message-ID: <20111110210722.91E618C591@smtp-out1.slb.compass.net.nz> Come on Ben and others, the comments weren't made by the Union. They were made by the guy who nearly died in there, Sam Julian. Derek Best merely asks why the DOL chose not to prosecute? To say its a Union bashing vollies thing is rather irresponsible.And if it was you who was the badly burnt victim would you not be asking the same questions? Cheers Ian On Fri, November 11, 2011 9:52 am, Tony S wrote: > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Oh how silly of me. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: vollynet-bounces@vollynet.org.nz > [mailto:vollynet-bounces@vollynet.org.nz] On Behalf Of Ben Kepes > Sent: Friday, 11 November 2011 9:49 a.m. > To: VollyNet > Subject: Re: [VollyNet] (no subject) > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ For > information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > no no tony, you have it wrong > > when paid staff make a mistake it's the management and vollies fault when > vollies make a mistake they're turkeys > > sigh > > b > > > Ben Kepes - Diversity Limited > E ben@diversity.net.nz | P +64 3 3146006 | M 021 2384136 > skype ben_kepes | twitter @benkepes web > www.diversity.net.nz > > > > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Tony S wrote: > > >> VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ For >> information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> My thoughts are that there is a bit of an bullet proof attitude thing >> > here. >> Why was the paid crew inside when all the others were outside at the >> time? Tony >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: vollynet-bounces@vollynet.org.nz >> [mailto:vollynet-bounces@vollynet.org.nz] On Behalf Of Ben Kepes >> Sent: Friday, 11 November 2011 9:34 a.m. >> To: VollyNet >> Subject: Re: [VollyNet] (no subject) >> >> >> VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ For >> information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> Here we go again, the union gets to beat up both vollies AND the >> management in one press release >> >> nice work guys, really classy.... >> >> Ben Kepes - Diversity Limited >> E ben@diversity.net.nz | P +64 3 3146006 | M 021 2384136 >> skype ben_kepes | twitter @benkepes web >> www.diversity.net.nz >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Paul and Rochelle < >> paulandrochelle@xtra.co.nz> wrote: >> >>> VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ For >>> information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/news/5947647/Fire-bosses- >>> sh ould-be-accountable >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>> MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles >>> >>> >>> ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of personal >>> opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise >>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles >> >> >> ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of personal >> opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles >> >> >> ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of personal >> opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of personal opinion > only unless specifically stated otherwise > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > From rob at canvart.co.nz Fri Nov 11 10:06:30 2011 From: rob at canvart.co.nz (Rob Scott) Date: Fri Nov 11 10:06:49 2011 Subject: [VollyNet] (no subject) In-Reply-To: <000101cc9fea$a9f19fd0$fdd4df70$@net.nz> References: <7199DAA5CF2B427A85F8F123C5CB9F93@PaulandRochelle> <000001cc9fe9$f64b0610$e2e11230$@net.nz> <000101cc9fea$a9f19fd0$fdd4df70$@net.nz> Message-ID: My blood is boiling, I am so sick of this 'professional' vs volunteer BS and the light that that union as%#%^ is painting the vollys in....... It has been said many many many times, and will be said many more we are ALL professional firefighters. Those two paragraphs in that article should be removed! GRRRRR On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Tony S wrote: > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Oh how silly of me. > > -----Original Message----- > From: vollynet-bounces@vollynet.org.nz > [mailto:vollynet-bounces@vollynet.org.nz] On Behalf Of Ben Kepes > Sent: Friday, 11 November 2011 9:49 a.m. > To: VollyNet > Subject: Re: [VollyNet] (no subject) > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ For > information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > no no tony, you have it wrong > > when paid staff make a mistake it's the management and vollies fault when > vollies make a mistake they're turkeys > > sigh > > b > > > Ben Kepes - Diversity Limited > E ben@diversity.net.nz | P +64 3 3146006 | M 021 2384136 > skype ben_kepes | twitter @benkepes web > www.diversity.net.nz > > > > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Tony S wrote: > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ For > > information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > My thoughts are that there is a bit of an bullet proof attitude thing > here. > > Why was the paid crew inside when all the others were outside at the > time? > > Tony > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: vollynet-bounces@vollynet.org.nz > > [mailto:vollynet-bounces@vollynet.org.nz] On Behalf Of Ben Kepes > > Sent: Friday, 11 November 2011 9:34 a.m. > > To: VollyNet > > Subject: Re: [VollyNet] (no subject) > > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ For > > information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Here we go again, the union gets to beat up both vollies AND the > > management in one press release > > > > nice work guys, really classy.... > > > > Ben Kepes - Diversity Limited > > E ben@diversity.net.nz | P +64 3 3146006 | M 021 2384136 > > skype ben_kepes | twitter @benkepes > > web www.diversity.net.nz > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Paul and Rochelle < > > paulandrochelle@xtra.co.nz> wrote: > > > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ For > > > information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/news/5947647/Fire-bosses- > > > sh > > > ould-be-accountable > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of personal > > > opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of personal > > opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of personal > > opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of personal opinion > only unless specifically stated otherwise > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > From simon.quirke at ihug.co.nz Fri Nov 11 10:16:11 2011 From: simon.quirke at ihug.co.nz (Simon Quirke) Date: Fri Nov 11 10:16:43 2011 Subject: [VollyNet] (no subject) In-Reply-To: References: <7199DAA5CF2B427A85F8F123C5CB9F93@PaulandRochelle> <000001cc9fe9$f64b0610$e2e11230$@net.nz> Message-ID: <2179aeeff3db4788ae77d9f55b47eac2@vodafone.co.nz> The report makes interesting reading and is, in some places, at odds with the info supplied to the writer of this article. The crew that was injured decided to leave the delivery they were assigned to and to move to another delivery. They passed this decision by the acting AAM, and so moved "under direct supervision from a paid fire officer". So this particular beat-up is unwarranted. Having said that, the biggest issue was that crew having its water shut off at the volunteer pump just when they were ready to make the fire attack. Search for "Lepperton" on FireNet and have a read of the Operational Review and the Level 2 Serious Harm reports. From ed at hintz.org Fri Nov 11 10:21:01 2011 From: ed at hintz.org (Edmund Hintz) Date: Fri Nov 11 10:21:19 2011 Subject: [VollyNet] (no subject) In-Reply-To: <7199DAA5CF2B427A85F8F123C5CB9F93@PaulandRochelle> References: <7199DAA5CF2B427A85F8F123C5CB9F93@PaulandRochelle> Message-ID: <4EBC403D.7090602@hintz.org> On 11/11/11 9:30 AM, Paul and Rochelle wrote: > http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/news/5947647/Fire-bosses-should-be-accountable Riiiight. 'Cause, you know, that crew and their OIC didn't have any choice in the matter whatsoever. They just *had* to do what the Volly OIC told them, all the time a-fearin' for their safety. "Professionals" should bloody well have at least as much respect for the intent behind bureaucratic wankage like Safe Person Concept to avoid this. Srsly, f**k off. I will *never* put my crew in a unacceptably dangerous situation, and I don't give a rats ass if it's Mike F**king Hall standing there ordering me to do it, he can kiss my dirty hippy communist ass (tho I do hope he'd have the good sense to not go ordering the fireground OIC to put FFs at unreasonable risk in the first place). It's up to the truck OIC (Volly or otherwise) to recognize risks to their crews and mitigate them. There may be some volly fail here, but the real fail is the "Professional" SO that allowed their crew into a life threatening situation. End of story. -- Regards, Ed Hintz ed@hintz.org From a.a.hartley at gmail.com Fri Nov 11 10:36:33 2011 From: a.a.hartley at gmail.com (Anaru Hartley) Date: Fri Nov 11 10:37:00 2011 Subject: [VollyNet] (no subject) In-Reply-To: <20111110210722.91E618C591@smtp-out1.slb.compass.net.nz> References: <7199DAA5CF2B427A85F8F123C5CB9F93@PaulandRochelle> <000001cc9fe9$f64b0610$e2e11230$@net.nz> <000101cc9fea$a9f19fd0$fdd4df70$@net.nz> <20111110210722.91E618C591@smtp-out1.slb.compass.net.nz> Message-ID: <4ebc43ec.2806b40a.3d55.ffff94ee@mx.google.com> 1.) The union are being their usual retarded selves trying to put pressure on the NZFS, sure the questions might be valid but at the end of the day what are they really trying to achieve that's practical? Nothing - just pressure. Which is good, that is what unions do. 2.) The career firefighters involved sound like a couple of little whimps, sure they got burnt but come on, shit happens, fortunately it doesn't happen very often, it's just the nature of the game - expecting that every risk can be mitigated is stupid, then again, they are humans so it's just a condition of our nature to do stupid things, like stupidly assuming we can stop ourselves from doing stupid things. The only way to prevent it is to not do whatever induces the risk. Irrespective of all that, I do have respect for their situation, they were in there doing the business and after reading their account, used a bit of mongrel and got themselves out alive. 3.) I can't find this report they speak of due to that piece of crap FireNet being designed and developed by blind limbless monkeys that bashed their heads against keyboards and hoped for the best. However I'd like permission to make some wild assumptions about the volunteers based on the information contained in news articles: It sounds like a.) the vollies were too fatigued from doing OSM, SMS and other station paperwork duties to find water quick enough and b.) some dumb decisions were made by volunteers due to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder from having to do said OSM, SMS and other station paperwork duties through the new FireNet. This is a draft arm chair analysis - until I find all the facts, or someone shares them. > -----Original Message----- > From: vollynet-bounces@vollynet.org.nz [mailto:vollynet- > bounces@vollynet.org.nz] On Behalf Of 4kings@nettel.net.nz > Sent: Friday, 11 November 2011 10:07 > To: VollyNet > Subject: RE: [VollyNet] (no subject) > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Come on Ben and others, the comments weren't made by the Union. They > were > made by the guy who nearly died in there, Sam Julian. Derek Best merely > asks why the DOL chose not to prosecute? > To say its a Union bashing vollies thing is rather irresponsible.And if > it > was you who was the badly burnt victim would you not be asking the same > questions? > Cheers > Ian From a.a.hartley at gmail.com Fri Nov 11 11:27:08 2011 From: a.a.hartley at gmail.com (Anaru Hartley) Date: Fri Nov 11 11:27:35 2011 Subject: [VollyNet] (no subject) In-Reply-To: <2179aeeff3db4788ae77d9f55b47eac2@vodafone.co.nz> References: <7199DAA5CF2B427A85F8F123C5CB9F93@PaulandRochelle> <000001cc9fe9$f64b0610$e2e11230$@net.nz> <2179aeeff3db4788ae77d9f55b47eac2@vodafone.co.nz> Message-ID: <4ebc4fc7.4256b40a.2ec3.ffff9921@mx.google.com> Thank you Simon. A very interesting read. On a serious note - the parts about Level 2 gear and gloves are very interesting. I've always moaned about my Level 2 pants being fitted for a short and fat person, so they're very baggy and if I pull them up the bottoms come halfway up the gumboots. The bunker coat fits alright but is too short, so bending over my back is exposed. I've noticed in a lot of training material there are photographs of firefighters with the same things going on and it seems pretty common for most people. My main gripe is that it makes us look like dorks with poor fitting uniform that looks awkward. But reading that report takes it to a whole new level of well founded moaning. > -----Original Message----- > From: vollynet-bounces@vollynet.org.nz [mailto:vollynet- > bounces@vollynet.org.nz] On Behalf Of Simon Quirke > Sent: Friday, 11 November 2011 10:16 > To: VollyNet > Subject: Re: [VollyNet] (no subject) > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > The report makes interesting reading and is, in some places, at odds > with > the info supplied to the writer of this article. > > The crew that was injured decided to leave the delivery they were > assigned > to and to move to another delivery. They passed this decision by the > acting AAM, and so moved "under direct supervision from a paid fire > officer". So this particular beat-up is unwarranted. > > Having said that, the biggest issue was that crew having its water shut > off > at the volunteer pump just when they were ready to make the fire > attack. > > Search for "Lepperton" on FireNet and have a read of the Operational > Review > and the Level 2 Serious Harm reports. From tds_4 at hotmail.com Fri Nov 11 11:43:09 2011 From: tds_4 at hotmail.com (Tristan Saunders) Date: Fri Nov 11 11:43:24 2011 Subject: [VollyNet] (no subject) In-Reply-To: <4ebc4fc7.4256b40a.2ec3.ffff9921@mx.google.com> References: <7199DAA5CF2B427A85F8F123C5CB9F93@PaulandRochelle> <000001cc9fe9$f64b0610$e2e11230$@net.nz> , <2179aeeff3db4788ae77d9f55b47eac2@vodafone.co.nz>, <4ebc4fc7.4256b40a.2ec3.ffff9921@mx.google.com> Message-ID: say 'K0 till i get an proper fitting kit' > From: a.a.hartley@gmail.com > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > Subject: RE: [VollyNet] (no subject) > Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 11:27:08 +1300 > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Thank you Simon. A very interesting read. > > On a serious note - the parts about Level 2 gear and gloves are very interesting. I've always moaned about my Level 2 pants being fitted for a short and fat person, so they're very baggy and if I pull them up the bottoms come halfway up the gumboots. The bunker coat fits alright but is too short, so bending over my back is exposed. I've noticed in a lot of training material there are photographs of firefighters with the same things going on and it seems pretty common for most people. > > My main gripe is that it makes us look like dorks with poor fitting uniform that looks awkward. But reading that report takes it to a whole new level of well founded moaning. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: vollynet-bounces@vollynet.org.nz [mailto:vollynet- > > bounces@vollynet.org.nz] On Behalf Of Simon Quirke > > Sent: Friday, 11 November 2011 10:16 > > To: VollyNet > > Subject: Re: [VollyNet] (no subject) > > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > The report makes interesting reading and is, in some places, at odds > > with > > the info supplied to the writer of this article. > > > > The crew that was injured decided to leave the delivery they were > > assigned > > to and to move to another delivery. They passed this decision by the > > acting AAM, and so moved "under direct supervision from a paid fire > > officer". So this particular beat-up is unwarranted. > > > > Having said that, the biggest issue was that crew having its water shut > > off > > at the volunteer pump just when they were ready to make the fire > > attack. > > > > Search for "Lepperton" on FireNet and have a read of the Operational > > Review > > and the Level 2 Serious Harm reports. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise From jgmarks at xtra.co.nz Fri Nov 11 12:10:08 2011 From: jgmarks at xtra.co.nz (Marks Family) Date: Fri Nov 11 12:10:21 2011 Subject: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation Message-ID: <1320966608.1917.13.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P> I have just completed the final version of the LRVFB's submission on the Brigade Rules of Association and the conclusions are: > 1. > Conclusion: > > The proposed Rules of Association have be drawn up in a patronising > manor with limited consultation with the members and extensive > consultation with the FSC and FS i.e. the bosses. > > The Membership have been given very little time to consider their > responses to this proposal in relation to the year or more the > committee have had to draw it up. > > The document is weighted to the needs of the FSC and detrimental to > the members. > > A longer period of consultation with the membership is required and > the document should be rejected by the membership at conference (if it > is presented) until further and full consultation with the membership > has taken place. > I have asked the Vollynet administration if they can post them as a PDF Any one who wants a copy can email me and I will send it. Geoff > From ed at hintz.org Fri Nov 11 14:18:24 2011 From: ed at hintz.org (Edmund Hintz) Date: Fri Nov 11 14:18:39 2011 Subject: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation In-Reply-To: <1320966608.1917.13.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P> References: <1320966608.1917.13.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P> Message-ID: <4EBC77E0.8080900@hintz.org> On 11/11/11 12:10 PM, Marks Family wrote: > I have asked the Vollynet administration if they can post them as a PDF /me tries sending it through... -- Regards, Ed Hintz ed@hintz.org From ed at hintz.org Fri Nov 11 14:28:15 2011 From: ed at hintz.org (Edmund Hintz) Date: Fri Nov 11 14:28:24 2011 Subject: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation In-Reply-To: <4EBC77E0.8080900@hintz.org> References: <1320966608.1917.13.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P> <4EBC77E0.8080900@hintz.org> Message-ID: <4EBC7A2F.2030608@hintz.org> On 11/11/11 2:18 PM, Edmund Hintz wrote: >> I have asked the Vollynet administration if they can post them as a PDF > > /me tries sending it through... Hm. Mailman helpfully stripped the attachment. Ah well. I just threw the thing on my website, y'all can go grab at will. http://www.hintz.org/fire/LRVFB_Submission.pdf -- Regards, Ed Hintz ed@hintz.org From tds_4 at hotmail.com Fri Nov 11 16:20:44 2011 From: tds_4 at hotmail.com (Tristan Saunders) Date: Fri Nov 11 16:21:01 2011 Subject: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation In-Reply-To: <4EBC7A2F.2030608@hintz.org> References: <1320966608.1917.13.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P>, <4EBC77E0.8080900@hintz.org>, <4EBC7A2F.2030608@hintz.org> Message-ID: correct me if im wrong.. but the rules are to be agreed upon between the brigade and the commission.. A brigade doesnt necessarily have to adopt the UFBA formulated ones.. > Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 14:28:15 +1300 > From: ed@hintz.org > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > Subject: Re: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > On 11/11/11 2:18 PM, Edmund Hintz wrote: > > >> I have asked the Vollynet administration if they can post them as a PDF > > > > /me tries sending it through... > > Hm. Mailman helpfully stripped the attachment. Ah well. I just threw the > thing on my website, y'all can go grab at will. > > http://www.hintz.org/fire/LRVFB_Submission.pdf > > -- > Regards, > > Ed Hintz > ed@hintz.org > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise From kiwis1 at slingshot.co.nz Fri Nov 11 16:27:33 2011 From: kiwis1 at slingshot.co.nz (Stephen) Date: Fri Nov 11 16:27:46 2011 Subject: [VollyNet] News:- 111 won't be trademarked Message-ID: <035001cca021$d9bb2fb0$8d318f10$@co.nz> http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5947318/Pizza-dooms-effort-to-trademark-111 From ed at hintz.org Fri Nov 11 16:36:52 2011 From: ed at hintz.org (Edmund Hintz) Date: Fri Nov 11 16:37:08 2011 Subject: [VollyNet] News:- 111 won't be trademarked In-Reply-To: <035001cca021$d9bb2fb0$8d318f10$@co.nz> References: <035001cca021$d9bb2fb0$8d318f10$@co.nz> Message-ID: <4EBC9854.2040702@hintz.org> On 11/11/11 4:27 PM, Stephen wrote: > http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5947318/Pizza-dooms-effort-to-trademark-111 "If 111 gets trademarked, punters will use it to order pizza"... If that's not worthy of a Tui "Yeah Right" billboard I don't know what is. -- Regards, Ed Hintz ed@hintz.org From tds_4 at hotmail.com Fri Nov 11 16:38:12 2011 From: tds_4 at hotmail.com (Tristan Saunders) Date: Fri Nov 11 16:38:22 2011 Subject: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation In-Reply-To: <1320966608.1917.13.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P> References: <1320966608.1917.13.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P> Message-ID: Some good alterations there Mark. However I think there are a few too many 'Chief or Management committee' options in there. This will only lead to confused leadership and authority and potential for undermining. Playing one off of the other. Can not afford to have that... From: jgmarks@xtra.co.nz To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 12:10:08 +1300 Subject: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz ---------------------------------------------------------------- I have just completed the final version of the LRVFB's submission on the Brigade Rules of Association and the conclusions are: > 1. > Conclusion: > > The proposed Rules of Association have be drawn up in a patronising > manor with limited consultation with the members and extensive > consultation with the FSC and FS i.e. the bosses. > > The Membership have been given very little time to consider their > responses to this proposal in relation to the year or more the > committee have had to draw it up. > > The document is weighted to the needs of the FSC and detrimental to > the members. > > A longer period of consultation with the membership is required and > the document should be rejected by the membership at conference (if it > is presented) until further and full consultation with the membership > has taken place. > I have asked the Vollynet administration if they can post them as a PDF Any one who wants a copy can email me and I will send it. Geoff > ---------------------------------------------------------------- MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise From jgmarks at xtra.co.nz Fri Nov 11 16:43:28 2011 From: jgmarks at xtra.co.nz (Marks Family) Date: Fri Nov 11 16:43:37 2011 Subject: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation In-Reply-To: References: <1320966608.1917.13.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P> , <4EBC77E0.8080900@hintz.org>, <4EBC7A2F.2030608@hintz.org> Message-ID: <1320983008.1917.31.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P> The Rules of Association according to the CONSTITUTION AND RULES OF THE UNITED FIRE BRIGADES? ASSOCIATION OF NEW ZEALAND (INCORPORATED) are defined as: Model Rules of Association: means the document issued jointly by the New Zealand Fire Service and the United Fire Brigades? Association setting out ?best practice? for the conduct of each fire brigade?s administration and affairs. The Agreement of Service is the agreement each brigade individually enter into with the Fire Service Commission under section 34 of the fire service act. Each individual Brigade will have to adopt these proposed new rules. But as a foundation they weaken the position on Brigades and will be used a a tool by the FSC. > Section 34 - Volunteer fire brigades > (1) For the purposes of this Act the term volunteer fire > brigade means any group of persons associated by mutual > consent as a fire brigade where? > > * (a) those persons have entered as a group into a > binding agreement of service with the Commission; and > > * (b) that group of persons is registered as a volunteer > fire brigade under this Act pursuant to subsection > (3). > > (2) The member of the Fire Service in charge of any Fire > Region may recommend to the Commission the establishment and > maintenance of a volunteer fire brigade in that Region or the > revocation of its registration. > > > (3) Where any group of persons has entered into an agreement > of service with the Commission for the purpose of becoming a > volunteer fire brigade, the Commission may, if it is satisfied > that the group is or will become reasonably efficient as to > organisation, staffing, equipment, discipline, and training to > operate as a volunteer fire brigade and meet the requirements > of the area or property which it is intended to protect, and, > on application signed by the principal officer of that group, > register it as a volunteer fire brigade. In making any such > registration, the Commission may impose any conditions which > it considers necessary, but the imposition of conditions shall > not affect the validity of the registration. > > > (4) The Commission may revoke the registration of any > volunteer fire brigade if? > > * (a) it ceases for any reason to function, or to be > authorised to function, as a volunteer fire brigade; > or > > * (b) it fails for 2 consecutive years to attain such > reasonable standard of efficiency as the Commission > may determine to be proper in the circumstances: > > > provided that no such revocation shall take effect until > written notice of the circumstances has been given to the > United Fire Brigades' Association of New Zealand and the > Commission has considered the representations, if any, made by > that Association in the matter within a reasonable time. > > > (5) In the event of any dispute arising between? > > * (a) the Commission, or any employee or employees of > the Commission; and > > * (b) any volunteer fire brigade or any volunteer member > or members of any volunteer fire brigade,? > > > the Commission shall give written notice of the circumstances > of the dispute to the United Fire Brigades' Association of New > Zealand and shall not make any final decision regarding the > settling of the dispute until it has considered the > representations, if any, made by that Association in the > matter within a reasonable time: > > provided that, in any case where a mutually acceptable > settlement of a dispute cannot be reached, either party may > refer the matter for consideration by the Minister, whose > decision shall be final. > > > (6) No member of a fire brigade, other than a member who is an > employee of the Commission attached to the brigade, shall be > required to become a member of any service organisation by > reason of his services with the brigade unless that member? > > * (a) is a member of a volunteer fire brigade which, by > a majority of the valid votes cast at a ballot taken > in a manner approved by the Secretary of Labour, and > under the supervision of a person appointed by the > Secretary of Labour, has decided to join the > appropriate service organisation; or > > * (b) [Repealed] > > (7) Any member of a volunteer fire brigade who is required to > become a member of any service organisation shall be entitled > to become a full financial member of the service organisation > on payment of the appropriate entrance fee and on payment of > one-half of the subscription payable by any full time member > of a brigade: > > provided that nothing in this subsection shall apply to any > employee of the Commission who is attached for duty to a > volunteer fire brigade. > > On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 16:20 +1300, Tristan Saunders wrote: > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > correct me if im wrong.. but the rules are to be agreed upon between the brigade and the commission.. A brigade doesnt necessarily have to adopt the UFBA formulated ones.. > > > Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 14:28:15 +1300 > > From: ed@hintz.org > > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > > Subject: Re: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > On 11/11/11 2:18 PM, Edmund Hintz wrote: > > > > >> I have asked the Vollynet administration if they can post them as a PDF > > > > > > /me tries sending it through... > > > > Hm. Mailman helpfully stripped the attachment. Ah well. I just threw the > > thing on my website, y'all can go grab at will. > > > > http://www.hintz.org/fire/LRVFB_Submission.pdf > > > > -- > > Regards, > > > > Ed Hintz > > ed@hintz.org > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise From ed at hintz.org Fri Nov 11 16:45:00 2011 From: ed at hintz.org (Edmund Hintz) Date: Fri Nov 11 16:45:08 2011 Subject: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation In-Reply-To: References: <1320966608.1917.13.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P>, <4EBC77E0.8080900@hintz.org>, <4EBC7A2F.2030608@hintz.org> Message-ID: <4EBC9A3C.3070803@hintz.org> On 11/11/11 4:20 PM, Tristan Saunders wrote: > correct me if im wrong.. but the rules are to be agreed upon between the brigade and the commission.. A brigade doesnt necessarily have to adopt the UFBA formulated ones.. Yep. But, quite a lot of brigades are likely to just blindly adopt them, and once they've been adopted it's game over. Ergo, building in some sort of protections which ensure that brigades that aren't quite paying attention aren't hurt by poor decisions isn't a bad idea. If it's done right, the only folks it hurts are everyone but the brigades (the brigades can freely choose to hand over their powers, but ideally they should make a conscious decision to do so rather than have it happen by default). -- Regards, Ed Hintz ed@hintz.org From kiwis1 at slingshot.co.nz Fri Nov 11 16:50:25 2011 From: kiwis1 at slingshot.co.nz (Stephen) Date: Fri Nov 11 16:50:39 2011 Subject: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation In-Reply-To: <1320983008.1917.31.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P> References: <1320966608.1917.13.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P> , <4EBC77E0.8080900@hintz.org>, <4EBC7A2F.2030608@hintz.org> <1320983008.1917.31.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P> Message-ID: <035101cca025$0b9c79a0$22d56ce0$@co.nz> "Clause 1.2.6 As in document: These Rules are intended through fair and transparent management to provide effective support for the Chief Fire Officer in the execution of his duties." When I saw this, it amazed me that this document got through so many hands without having "his" changed to "their". Who were the dinosaurs who produced, checked and approved this document? What confidence can we have in the rest, if this is how well it was constructed? Stephen From jgmarks at xtra.co.nz Fri Nov 11 17:20:16 2011 From: jgmarks at xtra.co.nz (Marks Family) Date: Fri Nov 11 17:20:33 2011 Subject: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation In-Reply-To: References: <1320966608.1917.13.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P> Message-ID: <1320985216.7627.8.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P> The Chief is in charge of the operational readiness of the brigade, how ever, the chief does not run the brigade. So there need to be a separation of functions. The limited time we have had to think about this, in comparison to the year or more the UFBA and the FSC had to prepare the proposed rules means that the members need to be more involved to sort out it out. Also considering the change in the Fire Service Act section 27 the Chief could actually be appointed by the Fire Service. Do you want an outsider running your brigade. It is already happening in Springfield! > Section 27 - Chief Fire Officer and Deputy Chief Fire Officer > (1) The chief executive must appoint a Chief Fire Officer and > a Deputy Chief Fire Officer for each Fire District, who must > be either? > > * (a) a member of the Fire Service; or > > * (b) a member of a volunteer brigade that has entered > into an agreement for service under section 34. > > (2) An appointment as Chief Fire Officer or Deputy Chief Fire > Officer may be held separately or in conjunction with any > other office in the Fire Service. > Geoff On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 16:38 +1300, Tristan Saunders wrote: > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Some good alterations there Mark. However I think there are a few too many 'Chief or Management committee' options in there. This will only lead to confused leadership and authority and potential for undermining. Playing one off of the other. Can not afford to have that... > > From: jgmarks@xtra.co.nz > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 12:10:08 +1300 > Subject: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > I have just completed the final version of the LRVFB's submission on the > Brigade Rules of Association and the conclusions are: > > > > 1. > > Conclusion: > > > > The proposed Rules of Association have be drawn up in a patronising > > manor with limited consultation with the members and extensive > > consultation with the FSC and FS i.e. the bosses. > > > > The Membership have been given very little time to consider their > > responses to this proposal in relation to the year or more the > > committee have had to draw it up. > > > > The document is weighted to the needs of the FSC and detrimental to > > the members. > > > > A longer period of consultation with the membership is required and > > the document should be rejected by the membership at conference (if it > > is presented) until further and full consultation with the membership > > has taken place. > > > I have asked the Vollynet administration if they can post them as a PDF > > Any one who wants a copy can email me and I will send it. > > Geoff > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise ---------------------------------------------------------------- > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise From tds_4 at hotmail.com Fri Nov 11 17:48:44 2011 From: tds_4 at hotmail.com (Tristan Saunders) Date: Fri Nov 11 17:49:04 2011 Subject: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation In-Reply-To: <1320983008.1917.31.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P> References: <1320966608.1917.13.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P>,, <4EBC77E0.8080900@hintz.org>, <4EBC7A2F.2030608@hintz.org>, , <1320983008.1917.31.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P> Message-ID: 'best practice' for management etc. Not a condition of the agreement to have UFBA ones.... > Subject: RE: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > From: jgmarks@xtra.co.nz > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 16:43:28 +1300 > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > The Rules of Association according to the CONSTITUTION AND RULES OF THE > UNITED FIRE BRIGADES? ASSOCIATION OF NEW ZEALAND (INCORPORATED) are > defined as: > > Model Rules of Association: means the document issued jointly by the New > Zealand Fire Service and the United Fire Brigades? Association setting > out ?best practice? for the conduct of each fire brigade?s > administration and affairs. > > The Agreement of Service is the agreement each brigade individually > enter into with the Fire Service Commission under section 34 of the fire > service act. > > Each individual Brigade will have to adopt these proposed new rules. But > as a foundation they weaken the position on Brigades and will be used a > a tool by the FSC. > > > > > Section 34 - Volunteer fire brigades > > (1) For the purposes of this Act the term volunteer fire > > brigade means any group of persons associated by mutual > > consent as a fire brigade where? > > > > * (a) those persons have entered as a group into a > > binding agreement of service with the Commission; and > > > > * (b) that group of persons is registered as a volunteer > > fire brigade under this Act pursuant to subsection > > (3). > > > > (2) The member of the Fire Service in charge of any Fire > > Region may recommend to the Commission the establishment and > > maintenance of a volunteer fire brigade in that Region or the > > revocation of its registration. > > > > > > (3) Where any group of persons has entered into an agreement > > of service with the Commission for the purpose of becoming a > > volunteer fire brigade, the Commission may, if it is satisfied > > that the group is or will become reasonably efficient as to > > organisation, staffing, equipment, discipline, and training to > > operate as a volunteer fire brigade and meet the requirements > > of the area or property which it is intended to protect, and, > > on application signed by the principal officer of that group, > > register it as a volunteer fire brigade. In making any such > > registration, the Commission may impose any conditions which > > it considers necessary, but the imposition of conditions shall > > not affect the validity of the registration. > > > > > > (4) The Commission may revoke the registration of any > > volunteer fire brigade if? > > > > * (a) it ceases for any reason to function, or to be > > authorised to function, as a volunteer fire brigade; > > or > > > > * (b) it fails for 2 consecutive years to attain such > > reasonable standard of efficiency as the Commission > > may determine to be proper in the circumstances: > > > > > > provided that no such revocation shall take effect until > > written notice of the circumstances has been given to the > > United Fire Brigades' Association of New Zealand and the > > Commission has considered the representations, if any, made by > > that Association in the matter within a reasonable time. > > > > > > (5) In the event of any dispute arising between? > > > > * (a) the Commission, or any employee or employees of > > the Commission; and > > > > * (b) any volunteer fire brigade or any volunteer member > > or members of any volunteer fire brigade,? > > > > > > the Commission shall give written notice of the circumstances > > of the dispute to the United Fire Brigades' Association of New > > Zealand and shall not make any final decision regarding the > > settling of the dispute until it has considered the > > representations, if any, made by that Association in the > > matter within a reasonable time: > > > > provided that, in any case where a mutually acceptable > > settlement of a dispute cannot be reached, either party may > > refer the matter for consideration by the Minister, whose > > decision shall be final. > > > > > > (6) No member of a fire brigade, other than a member who is an > > employee of the Commission attached to the brigade, shall be > > required to become a member of any service organisation by > > reason of his services with the brigade unless that member? > > > > * (a) is a member of a volunteer fire brigade which, by > > a majority of the valid votes cast at a ballot taken > > in a manner approved by the Secretary of Labour, and > > under the supervision of a person appointed by the > > Secretary of Labour, has decided to join the > > appropriate service organisation; or > > > > * (b) [Repealed] > > > > (7) Any member of a volunteer fire brigade who is required to > > become a member of any service organisation shall be entitled > > to become a full financial member of the service organisation > > on payment of the appropriate entrance fee and on payment of > > one-half of the subscription payable by any full time member > > of a brigade: > > > > provided that nothing in this subsection shall apply to any > > employee of the Commission who is attached for duty to a > > volunteer fire brigade. > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 16:20 +1300, Tristan Saunders wrote: > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > correct me if im wrong.. but the rules are to be agreed upon between the brigade and the commission.. A brigade doesnt necessarily have to adopt the UFBA formulated ones.. > > > > > Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 14:28:15 +1300 > > > From: ed@hintz.org > > > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > > > Subject: Re: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > > > > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > > > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > On 11/11/11 2:18 PM, Edmund Hintz wrote: > > > > > > >> I have asked the Vollynet administration if they can post them as a PDF > > > > > > > > /me tries sending it through... > > > > > > Hm. Mailman helpfully stripped the attachment. Ah well. I just threw the > > > thing on my website, y'all can go grab at will. > > > > > > http://www.hintz.org/fire/LRVFB_Submission.pdf > > > > > > -- > > > Regards, > > > > > > Ed Hintz > > > ed@hintz.org > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > > > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise From tds_4 at hotmail.com Fri Nov 11 17:53:19 2011 From: tds_4 at hotmail.com (Tristan Saunders) Date: Fri Nov 11 17:53:31 2011 Subject: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation In-Reply-To: <1320985216.7627.8.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P> References: <1320966608.1917.13.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P>, , <1320985216.7627.8.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P> Message-ID: maybe we on the same page then. One of your additions state that the chief can. Or the management committee can. Thats not a seperation of functions.. I think more simply, the chief shud be responsible for operational stuff, and the management committee responsible for management of the brigade, but the chief is the chair. Means a group decision , and the chief can be outnumbered, but not on operational matters.. > Subject: RE: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > From: jgmarks@xtra.co.nz > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 17:20:16 +1300 > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > The Chief is in charge of the operational readiness of the brigade, how > ever, the chief does not run the brigade. So there need to be a > separation of functions. > The limited time we have had to think about this, in comparison to the > year or more the UFBA and the FSC had to prepare the proposed rules > means that the members need to be more involved to sort out it out. > > Also considering the change in the Fire Service Act section 27 the Chief > could actually be appointed by the Fire Service. Do you want an outsider > running your brigade. It is already happening in Springfield! > > > > Section 27 - Chief Fire Officer and Deputy Chief Fire Officer > > (1) The chief executive must appoint a Chief Fire Officer and > > a Deputy Chief Fire Officer for each Fire District, who must > > be either? > > > > * (a) a member of the Fire Service; or > > > > * (b) a member of a volunteer brigade that has entered > > into an agreement for service under section 34. > > > > (2) An appointment as Chief Fire Officer or Deputy Chief Fire > > Officer may be held separately or in conjunction with any > > other office in the Fire Service. > > > Geoff > > > On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 16:38 +1300, Tristan Saunders wrote: > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Some good alterations there Mark. However I think there are a few too many 'Chief or Management committee' options in there. This will only lead to confused leadership and authority and potential for undermining. Playing one off of the other. Can not afford to have that... > > > > From: jgmarks@xtra.co.nz > > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > > Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 12:10:08 +1300 > > Subject: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > I have just completed the final version of the LRVFB's submission on the > > Brigade Rules of Association and the conclusions are: > > > > > > > 1. > > > Conclusion: > > > > > > The proposed Rules of Association have be drawn up in a patronising > > > manor with limited consultation with the members and extensive > > > consultation with the FSC and FS i.e. the bosses. > > > > > > The Membership have been given very little time to consider their > > > responses to this proposal in relation to the year or more the > > > committee have had to draw it up. > > > > > > The document is weighted to the needs of the FSC and detrimental to > > > the members. > > > > > > A longer period of consultation with the membership is required and > > > the document should be rejected by the membership at conference (if it > > > is presented) until further and full consultation with the membership > > > has taken place. > > > > > I have asked the Vollynet administration if they can post them as a PDF > > > > Any one who wants a copy can email me and I will send it. > > > > Geoff > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise From jgmarks at xtra.co.nz Fri Nov 11 18:49:10 2011 From: jgmarks at xtra.co.nz (Marks Family) Date: Fri Nov 11 18:49:19 2011 Subject: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation In-Reply-To: References: <1320966608.1917.13.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P> , , <1320985216.7627.8.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P> Message-ID: <1320990550.7627.22.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P> there is no doubt that the the command and control on the fire ground and the making sure a brigade is operational is like a military operation. However, fire and rescue is now only part of what we do - especially for more isolated brigades. Definitions of isolated: - single pump station with 24 year old appliance - 30 to 40 minutes away form nearest back up brigade - 40 to 50 minutes away form nearest ambulance station - single access road (block twice in the last year) I am sure other brigades may be the same or even worst off. The feeling we get here is that larger brigades can sit back and say "I'm all right Jack" Isolated brigades do not need the ivory tower dwellers in Wellington lording in over us - Now that was a rant. So we want to keep our independence with the Chief in charge of operational activities and the management committed managing the Brigade. Geoff On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 17:53 +1300, Tristan Saunders wrote: > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > maybe we on the same page then. One of your additions state that the chief can. Or the management committee can. Thats not a seperation of functions.. > > I think more simply, the chief shud be responsible for operational stuff, and the management committee responsible for management of the brigade, but the chief is the chair. Means a group decision , and the chief can be outnumbered, but not on operational matters.. > > > > Subject: RE: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > > From: jgmarks@xtra.co.nz > > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > > Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 17:20:16 +1300 > > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > The Chief is in charge of the operational readiness of the brigade, how > > ever, the chief does not run the brigade. So there need to be a > > separation of functions. > > The limited time we have had to think about this, in comparison to the > > year or more the UFBA and the FSC had to prepare the proposed rules > > means that the members need to be more involved to sort out it out. > > > > Also considering the change in the Fire Service Act section 27 the Chief > > could actually be appointed by the Fire Service. Do you want an outsider > > running your brigade. It is already happening in Springfield! > > > > > > > Section 27 - Chief Fire Officer and Deputy Chief Fire Officer > > > (1) The chief executive must appoint a Chief Fire Officer and > > > a Deputy Chief Fire Officer for each Fire District, who must > > > be either? > > > > > > * (a) a member of the Fire Service; or > > > > > > * (b) a member of a volunteer brigade that has entered > > > into an agreement for service under section 34. > > > > > > (2) An appointment as Chief Fire Officer or Deputy Chief Fire > > > Officer may be held separately or in conjunction with any > > > other office in the Fire Service. > > > > > Geoff > > > > > > On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 16:38 +1300, Tristan Saunders wrote: > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > > > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Some good alterations there Mark. However I think there are a few too many 'Chief or Management committee' options in there. This will only lead to confused leadership and authority and potential for undermining. Playing one off of the other. Can not afford to have that... > > > > > > From: jgmarks@xtra.co.nz > > > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > > > Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 12:10:08 +1300 > > > Subject: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > > > > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > > > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > I have just completed the final version of the LRVFB's submission on the > > > Brigade Rules of Association and the conclusions are: > > > > > > > > > > 1. > > > > Conclusion: > > > > > > > > The proposed Rules of Association have be drawn up in a patronising > > > > manor with limited consultation with the members and extensive > > > > consultation with the FSC and FS i.e. the bosses. > > > > > > > > The Membership have been given very little time to consider their > > > > responses to this proposal in relation to the year or more the > > > > committee have had to draw it up. > > > > > > > > The document is weighted to the needs of the FSC and detrimental to > > > > the members. > > > > > > > > A longer period of consultation with the membership is required and > > > > the document should be rejected by the membership at conference (if it > > > > is presented) until further and full consultation with the membership > > > > has taken place. > > > > > > > I have asked the Vollynet administration if they can post them as a PDF > > > > > > Any one who wants a copy can email me and I will send it. > > > > > > Geoff > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > > > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > > > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise From tds_4 at hotmail.com Fri Nov 11 19:22:46 2011 From: tds_4 at hotmail.com (Tristan Saunders) Date: Fri Nov 11 19:23:05 2011 Subject: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation In-Reply-To: <1320990550.7627.22.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P> References: <1320966608.1917.13.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P>,, ,, <1320985216.7627.8.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P>, , <1320990550.7627.22.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P> Message-ID: i think you're missing my point.. But i see yours.. I can definitely see HQ wanting to assume greater control... > Subject: RE: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > From: jgmarks@xtra.co.nz > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 18:49:10 +1300 > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > there is no doubt that the the command and control on the fire ground > and the making sure a brigade is operational is like a military > operation. > > However, fire and rescue is now only part of what we do - especially for > more isolated brigades. > > Definitions of isolated: > > - single pump station with 24 year old appliance > - 30 to 40 minutes away form nearest back up brigade > - 40 to 50 minutes away form nearest ambulance station > - single access road (block twice in the last year) > > I am sure other brigades may be the same or even worst off. > > The feeling we get here is that larger brigades can sit back and say > "I'm all right Jack" > > Isolated brigades do not need the ivory tower dwellers in Wellington > lording in over us - Now that was a rant. > > So we want to keep our independence with the Chief in charge of > operational activities and the management committed managing the > Brigade. > > Geoff > > > On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 17:53 +1300, Tristan Saunders wrote: > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > maybe we on the same page then. One of your additions state that the chief can. Or the management committee can. Thats not a seperation of functions.. > > > > I think more simply, the chief shud be responsible for operational stuff, and the management committee responsible for management of the brigade, but the chief is the chair. Means a group decision , and the chief can be outnumbered, but not on operational matters.. > > > > > > > Subject: RE: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > > > From: jgmarks@xtra.co.nz > > > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > > > Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 17:20:16 +1300 > > > > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > > > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > The Chief is in charge of the operational readiness of the brigade, how > > > ever, the chief does not run the brigade. So there need to be a > > > separation of functions. > > > The limited time we have had to think about this, in comparison to the > > > year or more the UFBA and the FSC had to prepare the proposed rules > > > means that the members need to be more involved to sort out it out. > > > > > > Also considering the change in the Fire Service Act section 27 the Chief > > > could actually be appointed by the Fire Service. Do you want an outsider > > > running your brigade. It is already happening in Springfield! > > > > > > > > > > Section 27 - Chief Fire Officer and Deputy Chief Fire Officer > > > > (1) The chief executive must appoint a Chief Fire Officer and > > > > a Deputy Chief Fire Officer for each Fire District, who must > > > > be either? > > > > > > > > * (a) a member of the Fire Service; or > > > > > > > > * (b) a member of a volunteer brigade that has entered > > > > into an agreement for service under section 34. > > > > > > > > (2) An appointment as Chief Fire Officer or Deputy Chief Fire > > > > Officer may be held separately or in conjunction with any > > > > other office in the Fire Service. > > > > > > > Geoff > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 16:38 +1300, Tristan Saunders wrote: > > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > > > > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > Some good alterations there Mark. However I think there are a few too many 'Chief or Management committee' options in there. This will only lead to confused leadership and authority and potential for undermining. Playing one off of the other. Can not afford to have that... > > > > > > > > From: jgmarks@xtra.co.nz > > > > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > > > > Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 12:10:08 +1300 > > > > Subject: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > > > > > > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > > > > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > I have just completed the final version of the LRVFB's submission on the > > > > Brigade Rules of Association and the conclusions are: > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. > > > > > Conclusion: > > > > > > > > > > The proposed Rules of Association have be drawn up in a patronising > > > > > manor with limited consultation with the members and extensive > > > > > consultation with the FSC and FS i.e. the bosses. > > > > > > > > > > The Membership have been given very little time to consider their > > > > > responses to this proposal in relation to the year or more the > > > > > committee have had to draw it up. > > > > > > > > > > The document is weighted to the needs of the FSC and detrimental to > > > > > the members. > > > > > > > > > > A longer period of consultation with the membership is required and > > > > > the document should be rejected by the membership at conference (if it > > > > > is presented) until further and full consultation with the membership > > > > > has taken place. > > > > > > > > > I have asked the Vollynet administration if they can post them as a PDF > > > > > > > > Any one who wants a copy can email me and I will send it. > > > > > > > > Geoff > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > > > > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > > > > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > > > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise From 4kings at nettel.net.nz Sat Nov 12 11:27:36 2011 From: 4kings at nettel.net.nz (Ian & Heather King) Date: Sat Nov 12 11:28:00 2011 Subject: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation References: <1320966608.1917.13.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P> <1320985216.7627.8.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P> Message-ID: <575D362866174C209FFC7CE40E238B80@SN2938977271> And that is where i think you are wrong, " the chief does not run the brigade". I personally think he/she does, but the social side now referred to as 'the club' can be run by a committee but still must report to the Chief. Call me old fashioned or whatever but I cannot see two positions (Chief and Mgt Com Chair) running a Brigade without some sort of disruption or disharmony, and at the very least some 'side taking'? Ian ----- Original Message ----- From: Marks Family To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 5:20 PM Subject: RE: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Chief is in charge of the operational readiness of the brigade, how ever, the chief does not run the brigade. So there need to be a separation of functions. The limited time we have had to think about this, in comparison to the year or more the UFBA and the FSC had to prepare the proposed rules means that the members need to be more involved to sort out it out. Also considering the change in the Fire Service Act section 27 the Chief could actually be appointed by the Fire Service. Do you want an outsider running your brigade. It is already happening in Springfield! > Section 27 - Chief Fire Officer and Deputy Chief Fire Officer > (1) The chief executive must appoint a Chief Fire Officer and > a Deputy Chief Fire Officer for each Fire District, who must > be either? > > * (a) a member of the Fire Service; or > > * (b) a member of a volunteer brigade that has entered > into an agreement for service under section 34. > > (2) An appointment as Chief Fire Officer or Deputy Chief Fire > Officer may be held separately or in conjunction with any > other office in the Fire Service. > Geoff On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 16:38 +1300, Tristan Saunders wrote: > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Some good alterations there Mark. However I think there are a few too many 'Chief or Management committee' options in there. This will only lead to confused leadership and authority and potential for undermining. Playing one off of the other. Can not afford to have that... > > From: jgmarks@xtra.co.nz > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 12:10:08 +1300 > Subject: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > I have just completed the final version of the LRVFB's submission on the > Brigade Rules of Association and the conclusions are: > > > > 1. > > Conclusion: > > > > The proposed Rules of Association have be drawn up in a patronising > > manor with limited consultation with the members and extensive > > consultation with the FSC and FS i.e. the bosses. > > > > The Membership have been given very little time to consider their > > responses to this proposal in relation to the year or more the > > committee have had to draw it up. > > > > The document is weighted to the needs of the FSC and detrimental to > > the members. > > > > A longer period of consultation with the membership is required and > > the document should be rejected by the membership at conference (if it > > is presented) until further and full consultation with the membership > > has taken place. > > > I have asked the Vollynet administration if they can post them as a PDF > > Any one who wants a copy can email me and I will send it. > > Geoff > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise ---------------------------------------------------------------- > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise ---------------------------------------------------------------- MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise From jgmarks at xtra.co.nz Sat Nov 12 11:53:55 2011 From: jgmarks at xtra.co.nz (Marks Family) Date: Sat Nov 12 11:54:06 2011 Subject: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation In-Reply-To: <575D362866174C209FFC7CE40E238B80@SN2938977271> References: <1320966608.1917.13.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P> <1320985216.7627.8.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P> <575D362866174C209FFC7CE40E238B80@SN2938977271> Message-ID: <1321052035.6182.6.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P> Under the present Rules of Association that have existed for many years the chief does not run the brigade. The fact that some chiefs think they do and act like they do and have the wool pulled over the eyes of the other brigade members is a missus of power and position. The chief only has one vote in a meeting and if the majority want to over rule the chief they can. The chief also has no right of veto. On Sat, 2011-11-12 at 11:27 +1300, Ian & Heather King wrote: > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > And that is where i think you are wrong, " the chief does not run the brigade". I personally think he/she does, but the social side now referred to as 'the club' can be run by a committee but still must report to the Chief. Call me old fashioned or whatever but I cannot see two positions (Chief and Mgt Com Chair) running a Brigade without some sort of disruption or disharmony, and at the very least some 'side taking'? > Ian > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Marks Family > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 5:20 PM > Subject: RE: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > The Chief is in charge of the operational readiness of the brigade, how > ever, the chief does not run the brigade. So there need to be a > separation of functions. > The limited time we have had to think about this, in comparison to the > year or more the UFBA and the FSC had to prepare the proposed rules > means that the members need to be more involved to sort out it out. > > Also considering the change in the Fire Service Act section 27 the Chief > could actually be appointed by the Fire Service. Do you want an outsider > running your brigade. It is already happening in Springfield! > > > > Section 27 - Chief Fire Officer and Deputy Chief Fire Officer > > (1) The chief executive must appoint a Chief Fire Officer and > > a Deputy Chief Fire Officer for each Fire District, who must > > be either? > > > > * (a) a member of the Fire Service; or > > > > * (b) a member of a volunteer brigade that has entered > > into an agreement for service under section 34. > > > > (2) An appointment as Chief Fire Officer or Deputy Chief Fire > > Officer may be held separately or in conjunction with any > > other office in the Fire Service. > > > Geoff > > > On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 16:38 +1300, Tristan Saunders wrote: > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Some good alterations there Mark. However I think there are a few too many 'Chief or Management committee' options in there. This will only lead to confused leadership and authority and potential for undermining. Playing one off of the other. Can not afford to have that... > > > > From: jgmarks@xtra.co.nz > > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > > Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 12:10:08 +1300 > > Subject: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > I have just completed the final version of the LRVFB's submission on the > > Brigade Rules of Association and the conclusions are: > > > > > > > 1. > > > Conclusion: > > > > > > The proposed Rules of Association have be drawn up in a patronising > > > manor with limited consultation with the members and extensive > > > consultation with the FSC and FS i.e. the bosses. > > > > > > The Membership have been given very little time to consider their > > > responses to this proposal in relation to the year or more the > > > committee have had to draw it up. > > > > > > The document is weighted to the needs of the FSC and detrimental to > > > the members. > > > > > > A longer period of consultation with the membership is required and > > > the document should be rejected by the membership at conference (if it > > > is presented) until further and full consultation with the membership > > > has taken place. > > > > > I have asked the Vollynet administration if they can post them as a PDF > > > > Any one who wants a copy can email me and I will send it. > > > > Geoff > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise From ed at hintz.org Sat Nov 12 12:15:36 2011 From: ed at hintz.org (Edmund Hintz) Date: Sat Nov 12 12:15:46 2011 Subject: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation In-Reply-To: <575D362866174C209FFC7CE40E238B80@SN2938977271> References: <1320966608.1917.13.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P> <1320985216.7627.8.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P> <575D362866174C209FFC7CE40E238B80@SN2938977271> Message-ID: <4EBDAC98.2070602@hintz.org> On 11/12/11 11:27 AM, Ian & Heather King wrote: > (Chief and Mgt Com Chair) running a Brigade without some sort of disruption or disharmony, and at the very least some 'side taking'? My experience has been that the side-talking, disruption, and disharmony are a result of the people, not the organizational structure. We had an environment where the CFO was the undisputed CFO+Mgmt Chair, and we had all of the above in spades. It was unpleasant. I daresay with the right mixture of people, a separation between operational and social leadership will be perfectly harmonious. Likewise, with the wrong mixture of people, a one-ring-to-rule-them-all leader will be a backstabbing snark fest. The advantage I see to the separation model is that it tends to erode at the traditional CFO=God model, which I'm all for. With a well adjusted populace neither model will create significant disruption, and with a maladjusted one there is less likelihood for abuse of power (on any side), as there is simply much less centralized power to abuse. -- Regards, Ed Hintz ed@hintz.org From 4kings at nettel.net.nz Sat Nov 12 12:58:53 2011 From: 4kings at nettel.net.nz (Ian & Heather King) Date: Sat Nov 12 12:59:10 2011 Subject: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation References: <1320966608.1917.13.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P><1320985216.7627.8.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P><575D362866174C209FFC7CE40E238B80@SN2938977271> <1321052035.6182.6.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P> Message-ID: <8C67974AB1674F86AAD6D3BBADDFB6B0@SN2938977271> Geoff Re your points below. Yes I only have one vote and if the brigade choose to vote in a different direction to that which I voted I have no issues, its called democracy. I have no right of veto true and wouldn't want same, but would suggest in the event of a split vote I do have a casting vote (is this not a right of veto in drag?). If it was too contentious to do this or affected me or my position directly, I would probably abstain from voting anyway. Ask any of my brigade and they will all tell you that they have never had the 'wool pulled over their eyes' in fact if you were to suggest same given we are dealing with a bunch of men and women with obviously more commonsense than some, they would be most upset. You are right on one part - the "missus is the power and position" - probably same in your household! I just feel we don't need brigades getting spilt into cliques, and can't fathom why we need 40 pages of rules particularly in a very small rural isolated brigade who may meet once a month?? This comment was also stressed to me by my DCFO and the brigade Treasurer when reading these proposed rules - too much, too complicated abd what is the 'real' purpose behind them?(They are obviously suspicious of the Commission too) Ian ----- Original Message ----- From: Marks Family To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2011 11:53 AM Subject: Re: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz ---------------------------------------------------------------- Under the present Rules of Association that have existed for many years the chief does not run the brigade. The fact that some chiefs think they do and act like they do and have the wool pulled over the eyes of the other brigade members is a missus of power and position. The chief only has one vote in a meeting and if the majority want to over rule the chief they can. The chief also has no right of veto. On Sat, 2011-11-12 at 11:27 +1300, Ian & Heather King wrote: > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > And that is where i think you are wrong, " the chief does not run the brigade". I personally think he/she does, but the social side now referred to as 'the club' can be run by a committee but still must report to the Chief. Call me old fashioned or whatever but I cannot see two positions (Chief and Mgt Com Chair) running a Brigade without some sort of disruption or disharmony, and at the very least some 'side taking'? > Ian > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Marks Family > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 5:20 PM > Subject: RE: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > The Chief is in charge of the operational readiness of the brigade, how > ever, the chief does not run the brigade. So there need to be a > separation of functions. > The limited time we have had to think about this, in comparison to the > year or more the UFBA and the FSC had to prepare the proposed rules > means that the members need to be more involved to sort out it out. > > Also considering the change in the Fire Service Act section 27 the Chief > could actually be appointed by the Fire Service. Do you want an outsider > running your brigade. It is already happening in Springfield! > > > > Section 27 - Chief Fire Officer and Deputy Chief Fire Officer > > (1) The chief executive must appoint a Chief Fire Officer and > > a Deputy Chief Fire Officer for each Fire District, who must > > be either? > > > > * (a) a member of the Fire Service; or > > > > * (b) a member of a volunteer brigade that has entered > > into an agreement for service under section 34. > > > > (2) An appointment as Chief Fire Officer or Deputy Chief Fire > > Officer may be held separately or in conjunction with any > > other office in the Fire Service. > > > Geoff > > > On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 16:38 +1300, Tristan Saunders wrote: > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Some good alterations there Mark. However I think there are a few too many 'Chief or Management committee' options in there. This will only lead to confused leadership and authority and potential for undermining. Playing one off of the other. Can not afford to have that... > > > > From: jgmarks@xtra.co.nz > > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > > Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 12:10:08 +1300 > > Subject: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > I have just completed the final version of the LRVFB's submission on the > > Brigade Rules of Association and the conclusions are: > > > > > > > 1. > > > Conclusion: > > > > > > The proposed Rules of Association have be drawn up in a patronising > > > manor with limited consultation with the members and extensive > > > consultation with the FSC and FS i.e. the bosses. > > > > > > The Membership have been given very little time to consider their > > > responses to this proposal in relation to the year or more the > > > committee have had to draw it up. > > > > > > The document is weighted to the needs of the FSC and detrimental to > > > the members. > > > > > > A longer period of consultation with the membership is required and > > > the document should be rejected by the membership at conference (if it > > > is presented) until further and full consultation with the membership > > > has taken place. > > > > > I have asked the Vollynet administration if they can post them as a PDF > > > > Any one who wants a copy can email me and I will send it. > > > > Geoff > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise ---------------------------------------------------------------- MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise From sayerfamilynz at gmail.com Sat Nov 12 14:33:53 2011 From: sayerfamilynz at gmail.com (Sayer Family) Date: Sat Nov 12 14:34:16 2011 Subject: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation Message-ID: Ian I think, somehow, he meant "misuse" - but see your point Daz Ian & Heather King <4kings@nettel.net.nz> wrote: >VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ >For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz >---------------------------------------------------------------- >Geoff >Re your points below. >Yes I only have one vote and if the brigade choose to vote in a different direction to that which I voted I have no issues, its called democracy. I have no right of veto true and wouldn't want same, but would suggest in the event of a split vote I do have a casting vote (is this not a right of veto in drag?). If it was too contentious to do this or affected me or my position directly, I would probably abstain from voting anyway. >Ask any of my brigade and they will all tell you that they have never had the 'wool pulled over their eyes' in fact if you were to suggest same given we are dealing with a bunch of men and women with obviously more commonsense than some, they would be most upset. >You are right on one part - the "missus is the power and position" - probably same in your household! >I just feel we don't need brigades getting spilt into cliques, and can't fathom why we need 40 pages of rules particularly in a very small rural isolated brigade who may meet once a month?? This comment was also stressed to me by my DCFO and the brigade Treasurer when reading these proposed rules - too much, too complicated abd what is the 'real' purpose behind them?(They are obviously suspicious of the Commission too) >Ian > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Marks Family > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2011 11:53 AM > Subject: Re: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Under the present Rules of Association that have existed for many years > the chief does not run the brigade. > > The fact that some chiefs think they do and act like they do and have > the wool pulled over the eyes of the other brigade members is a missus > of power and position. > > The chief only has one vote in a meeting and if the majority want to > over rule the chief they can. > > The chief also has no right of veto. > > > On Sat, 2011-11-12 at 11:27 +1300, Ian & Heather King wrote: > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > And that is where i think you are wrong, " the chief does not run the brigade". I personally think he/she does, but the social side now referred to as 'the club' can be run by a committee but still must report to the Chief. Call me old fashioned or whatever but I cannot see two positions (Chief and Mgt Com Chair) running a Brigade without some sort of disruption or disharmony, and at the very least some 'side taking'? > > Ian > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Marks Family > > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > > Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 5:20 PM > > Subject: RE: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > > > > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > The Chief is in charge of the operational readiness of the brigade, how > > ever, the chief does not run the brigade. So there need to be a > > separation of functions. > > The limited time we have had to think about this, in comparison to the > > year or more the UFBA and the FSC had to prepare the proposed rules > > means that the members need to be more involved to sort out it out. > > > > Also considering the change in the Fire Service Act section 27 the Chief > > could actually be appointed by the Fire Service. Do you want an outsider > > running your brigade. It is already happening in Springfield! > > > > > > > Section 27 - Chief Fire Officer and Deputy Chief Fire Officer > > > (1) The chief executive must appoint a Chief Fire Officer and > > > a Deputy Chief Fire Officer for each Fire District, who must > > > be either? > > > > > > * (a) a member of the Fire Service; or > > > > > > * (b) a member of a volunteer brigade that has entered > > > into an agreement for service under section 34. > > > > > > (2) An appointment as Chief Fire Officer or Deputy Chief Fire > > > Officer may be held separately or in conjunction with any > > > other office in the Fire Service. > > > > > Geoff > > > > > > On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 16:38 +1300, Tristan Saunders wrote: > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > > > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Some good alterations there Mark. However I think there are a few too many 'Chief or Management committee' options in there. This will only lead to confused leadership and authority and potential for undermining. Playing one off of the other. Can not afford to have that... > > > > > > From: jgmarks@xtra.co.nz > > > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > > > Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 12:10:08 +1300 > > > Subject: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > > > > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > > > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > I have just completed the final version of the LRVFB's submission on the > > > Brigade Rules of Association and the conclusions are: > > > > > > > > > > 1. > > > > Conclusion: > > > > > > > > The proposed Rules of Association have be drawn up in a patronising > > > > manor with limited consultation with the members and extensive > > > > consultation with the FSC and FS i.e. the bosses. > > > > > > > > The Membership have been given very little time to consider their > > > > responses to this proposal in relation to the year or more the > > > > committee have had to draw it up. > > > > > > > > The document is weighted to the needs of the FSC and detrimental to > > > > the members. > > > > > > > > A longer period of consultation with the membership is required and > > > > the document should be rejected by the membership at conference (if it > > > > is presented) until further and full consultation with the membership > > > > has taken place. > > > > > > > I have asked the Vollynet administration if they can post them as a PDF > > > > > > Any one who wants a copy can email me and I will send it. > > > > > > Geoff > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > > > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > > > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise >---------------------------------------------------------------- >MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > >ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of >personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise From sayerfamilynz at gmail.com Sat Nov 12 14:43:09 2011 From: sayerfamilynz at gmail.com (Sayer Family) Date: Sat Nov 12 14:43:27 2011 Subject: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation Message-ID: I have yet to see convincing argument that separating the roles of CFO and chair of management committee is useful. On one hand I expect that in some brigades this will cause ill-will within the membership, for many reasons, while on the other hand I can see that if the CFO is well-respected, he/she will be elected chair in many cases anyway. My largest unanswered reservation is what is the point in having 2 leaders in the 1 (usually small) organisation? And which of the 2 do we answer to? Daryl Sayer Sumner Ian & Heather King <4kings@nettel.net.nz> wrote: >VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ >For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz >---------------------------------------------------------------- >Geoff >Re your points below. >Yes I only have one vote and if the brigade choose to vote in a different direction to that which I voted I have no issues, its called democracy. I have no right of veto true and wouldn't want same, but would suggest in the event of a split vote I do have a casting vote (is this not a right of veto in drag?). If it was too contentious to do this or affected me or my position directly, I would probably abstain from voting anyway. >Ask any of my brigade and they will all tell you that they have never had the 'wool pulled over their eyes' in fact if you were to suggest same given we are dealing with a bunch of men and women with obviously more commonsense than some, they would be most upset. >You are right on one part - the "missus is the power and position" - probably same in your household! >I just feel we don't need brigades getting spilt into cliques, and can't fathom why we need 40 pages of rules particularly in a very small rural isolated brigade who may meet once a month?? This comment was also stressed to me by my DCFO and the brigade Treasurer when reading these proposed rules - too much, too complicated abd what is the 'real' purpose behind them?(They are obviously suspicious of the Commission too) >Ian > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Marks Family > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2011 11:53 AM > Subject: Re: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Under the present Rules of Association that have existed for many years > the chief does not run the brigade. > > The fact that some chiefs think they do and act like they do and have > the wool pulled over the eyes of the other brigade members is a missus > of power and position. > > The chief only has one vote in a meeting and if the majority want to > over rule the chief they can. > > The chief also has no right of veto. > > > On Sat, 2011-11-12 at 11:27 +1300, Ian & Heather King wrote: > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > And that is where i think you are wrong, " the chief does not run the brigade". I personally think he/she does, but the social side now referred to as 'the club' can be run by a committee but still must report to the Chief. Call me old fashioned or whatever but I cannot see two positions (Chief and Mgt Com Chair) running a Brigade without some sort of disruption or disharmony, and at the very least some 'side taking'? > > Ian > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Marks Family > > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > > Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 5:20 PM > > Subject: RE: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > > > > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > The Chief is in charge of the operational readiness of the brigade, how > > ever, the chief does not run the brigade. So there need to be a > > separation of functions. > > The limited time we have had to think about this, in comparison to the > > year or more the UFBA and the FSC had to prepare the proposed rules > > means that the members need to be more involved to sort out it out. > > > > Also considering the change in the Fire Service Act section 27 the Chief > > could actually be appointed by the Fire Service. Do you want an outsider > > running your brigade. It is already happening in Springfield! > > > > > > > Section 27 - Chief Fire Officer and Deputy Chief Fire Officer > > > (1) The chief executive must appoint a Chief Fire Officer and > > > a Deputy Chief Fire Officer for each Fire District, who must > > > be either? > > > > > > * (a) a member of the Fire Service; or > > > > > > * (b) a member of a volunteer brigade that has entered > > > into an agreement for service under section 34. > > > > > > (2) An appointment as Chief Fire Officer or Deputy Chief Fire > > > Officer may be held separately or in conjunction with any > > > other office in the Fire Service. > > > > > Geoff > > > > > > On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 16:38 +1300, Tristan Saunders wrote: > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > > > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Some good alterations there Mark. However I think there are a few too many 'Chief or Management committee' options in there. This will only lead to confused leadership and authority and potential for undermining. Playing one off of the other. Can not afford to have that... > > > > > > From: jgmarks@xtra.co.nz > > > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > > > Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 12:10:08 +1300 > > > Subject: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > > > > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > > > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > I have just completed the final version of the LRVFB's submission on the > > > Brigade Rules of Association and the conclusions are: > > > > > > > > > > 1. > > > > Conclusion: > > > > > > > > The proposed Rules of Association have be drawn up in a patronising > > > > manor with limited consultation with the members and extensive > > > > consultation with the FSC and FS i.e. the bosses. > > > > > > > > The Membership have been given very little time to consider their > > > > responses to this proposal in relation to the year or more the > > > > committee have had to draw it up. > > > > > > > > The document is weighted to the needs of the FSC and detrimental to > > > > the members. > > > > > > > > A longer period of consultation with the membership is required and > > > > the document should be rejected by the membership at conference (if it > > > > is presented) until further and full consultation with the membership > > > > has taken place. > > > > > > > I have asked the Vollynet administration if they can post them as a PDF > > > > > > Any one who wants a copy can email me and I will send it. > > > > > > Geoff > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > > > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > > > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise >---------------------------------------------------------------- >MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > >ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of >personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise From jgmarks at xtra.co.nz Sat Nov 12 14:55:06 2011 From: jgmarks at xtra.co.nz (Marks Family) Date: Sat Nov 12 14:55:31 2011 Subject: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation In-Reply-To: <8C67974AB1674F86AAD6D3BBADDFB6B0@SN2938977271> References: <1320966608.1917.13.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P> <1320985216.7627.8.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P> <575D362866174C209FFC7CE40E238B80@SN2938977271> <1321052035.6182.6.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P> <8C67974AB1674F86AAD6D3BBADDFB6B0@SN2938977271> Message-ID: <1321062906.7800.4.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P> Ian I apologize if you took my remarks personally - They we not personal. I do not know you and therefore I am unable to make comments about you. Please take my comments as general and not pointed at anyone. And yes I did mean misuse - thanks Daz Geoff On Sat, 2011-11-12 at 12:58 +1300, Ian & Heather King wrote: > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Geoff > Re your points below. > Yes I only have one vote and if the brigade choose to vote in a different direction to that which I voted I have no issues, its called democracy. I have no right of veto true and wouldn't want same, but would suggest in the event of a split vote I do have a casting vote (is this not a right of veto in drag?). If it was too contentious to do this or affected me or my position directly, I would probably abstain from voting anyway. > Ask any of my brigade and they will all tell you that they have never had the 'wool pulled over their eyes' in fact if you were to suggest same given we are dealing with a bunch of men and women with obviously more commonsense than some, they would be most upset. > You are right on one part - the "missus is the power and position" - probably same in your household! > I just feel we don't need brigades getting spilt into cliques, and can't fathom why we need 40 pages of rules particularly in a very small rural isolated brigade who may meet once a month?? This comment was also stressed to me by my DCFO and the brigade Treasurer when reading these proposed rules - too much, too complicated abd what is the 'real' purpose behind them?(They are obviously suspicious of the Commission too) > Ian > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Marks Family > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2011 11:53 AM > Subject: Re: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Under the present Rules of Association that have existed for many years > the chief does not run the brigade. > > The fact that some chiefs think they do and act like they do and have > the wool pulled over the eyes of the other brigade members is a missus > of power and position. > > The chief only has one vote in a meeting and if the majority want to > over rule the chief they can. > > The chief also has no right of veto. > > > On Sat, 2011-11-12 at 11:27 +1300, Ian & Heather King wrote: > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > And that is where i think you are wrong, " the chief does not run the brigade". I personally think he/she does, but the social side now referred to as 'the club' can be run by a committee but still must report to the Chief. Call me old fashioned or whatever but I cannot see two positions (Chief and Mgt Com Chair) running a Brigade without some sort of disruption or disharmony, and at the very least some 'side taking'? > > Ian > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Marks Family > > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > > Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 5:20 PM > > Subject: RE: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > > > > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > The Chief is in charge of the operational readiness of the brigade, how > > ever, the chief does not run the brigade. So there need to be a > > separation of functions. > > The limited time we have had to think about this, in comparison to the > > year or more the UFBA and the FSC had to prepare the proposed rules > > means that the members need to be more involved to sort out it out. > > > > Also considering the change in the Fire Service Act section 27 the Chief > > could actually be appointed by the Fire Service. Do you want an outsider > > running your brigade. It is already happening in Springfield! > > > > > > > Section 27 - Chief Fire Officer and Deputy Chief Fire Officer > > > (1) The chief executive must appoint a Chief Fire Officer and > > > a Deputy Chief Fire Officer for each Fire District, who must > > > be either? > > > > > > * (a) a member of the Fire Service; or > > > > > > * (b) a member of a volunteer brigade that has entered > > > into an agreement for service under section 34. > > > > > > (2) An appointment as Chief Fire Officer or Deputy Chief Fire > > > Officer may be held separately or in conjunction with any > > > other office in the Fire Service. > > > > > Geoff > > > > > > On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 16:38 +1300, Tristan Saunders wrote: > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > > > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Some good alterations there Mark. However I think there are a few too many 'Chief or Management committee' options in there. This will only lead to confused leadership and authority and potential for undermining. Playing one off of the other. Can not afford to have that... > > > > > > From: jgmarks@xtra.co.nz > > > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > > > Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 12:10:08 +1300 > > > Subject: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > > > > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > > > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > I have just completed the final version of the LRVFB's submission on the > > > Brigade Rules of Association and the conclusions are: > > > > > > > > > > 1. > > > > Conclusion: > > > > > > > > The proposed Rules of Association have be drawn up in a patronising > > > > manor with limited consultation with the members and extensive > > > > consultation with the FSC and FS i.e. the bosses. > > > > > > > > The Membership have been given very little time to consider their > > > > responses to this proposal in relation to the year or more the > > > > committee have had to draw it up. > > > > > > > > The document is weighted to the needs of the FSC and detrimental to > > > > the members. > > > > > > > > A longer period of consultation with the membership is required and > > > > the document should be rejected by the membership at conference (if it > > > > is presented) until further and full consultation with the membership > > > > has taken place. > > > > > > > I have asked the Vollynet administration if they can post them as a PDF > > > > > > Any one who wants a copy can email me and I will send it. > > > > > > Geoff > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > > > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > > > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise From tds_4 at hotmail.com Sat Nov 12 16:33:04 2011 From: tds_4 at hotmail.com (Tristan Saunders) Date: Sat Nov 12 16:33:17 2011 Subject: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation In-Reply-To: <4EBDAC98.2070602@hintz.org> References: <1320966608.1917.13.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P>, <1320985216.7627.8.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P>, <575D362866174C209FFC7CE40E238B80@SN2938977271>, <4EBDAC98.2070602@hintz.org> Message-ID: And in a volunteer zone that sometimes takes who they can get out of necessity, that 'right mix of people' is not a reality Again, a committe with CFO as chair. not veto, but can have the swinging vote if tied. > Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 12:15:36 +1300 > From: ed@hintz.org > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > Subject: Re: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > On 11/12/11 11:27 AM, Ian & Heather King wrote: > > > (Chief and Mgt Com Chair) running a Brigade without some sort of disruption or disharmony, and at the very least some 'side taking'? > > My experience has been that the side-talking, disruption, and disharmony > are a result of the people, not the organizational structure. We had an > environment where the CFO was the undisputed CFO+Mgmt Chair, and we had > all of the above in spades. It was unpleasant. > > I daresay with the right mixture of people, a separation between > operational and social leadership will be perfectly harmonious. > Likewise, with the wrong mixture of people, a one-ring-to-rule-them-all > leader will be a backstabbing snark fest. > > The advantage I see to the separation model is that it tends to erode at > the traditional CFO=God model, which I'm all for. With a well adjusted > populace neither model will create significant disruption, and with a > maladjusted one there is less likelihood for abuse of power (on any > side), as there is simply much less centralized power to abuse. > > -- > Regards, > > Ed Hintz > ed@hintz.org > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise From tds_4 at hotmail.com Sat Nov 12 16:36:21 2011 From: tds_4 at hotmail.com (Tristan Saunders) Date: Sat Nov 12 16:36:34 2011 Subject: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation In-Reply-To: References: <1320966608.1917.13.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P>, , <1320985216.7627.8.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P>, , <575D362866174C209FFC7CE40E238B80@SN2938977271>, , <4EBDAC98.2070602@hintz.org>, Message-ID: Further, I agree with Ian, the possibility of having two seats of power is dangerous and can split the brigade. Hence my comments regarding LRVFB's submission. To have the chief AND the chair have the authority to revoke a membership (amongst other things) provides avenue for argument. one or the other.. > From: tds_4@hotmail.com > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > Subject: RE: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 16:33:04 +1300 > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > And in a volunteer zone that sometimes takes who they can get out of necessity, that 'right mix of people' is not a reality > > Again, a committe with CFO as chair. not veto, but can have the swinging vote if tied. > > > > > Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 12:15:36 +1300 > > From: ed@hintz.org > > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > > Subject: Re: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > On 11/12/11 11:27 AM, Ian & Heather King wrote: > > > > > (Chief and Mgt Com Chair) running a Brigade without some sort of disruption or disharmony, and at the very least some 'side taking'? > > > > My experience has been that the side-talking, disruption, and disharmony > > are a result of the people, not the organizational structure. We had an > > environment where the CFO was the undisputed CFO+Mgmt Chair, and we had > > all of the above in spades. It was unpleasant. > > > > I daresay with the right mixture of people, a separation between > > operational and social leadership will be perfectly harmonious. > > Likewise, with the wrong mixture of people, a one-ring-to-rule-them-all > > leader will be a backstabbing snark fest. > > > > The advantage I see to the separation model is that it tends to erode at > > the traditional CFO=God model, which I'm all for. With a well adjusted > > populace neither model will create significant disruption, and with a > > maladjusted one there is less likelihood for abuse of power (on any > > side), as there is simply much less centralized power to abuse. > > > > -- > > Regards, > > > > Ed Hintz > > ed@hintz.org > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise From jgmarks at xtra.co.nz Sat Nov 12 20:31:57 2011 From: jgmarks at xtra.co.nz (Marks Family) Date: Sat Nov 12 20:32:07 2011 Subject: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation In-Reply-To: References: <1320966608.1917.13.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P> , , <1320985216.7627.8.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P> , , <575D362866174C209FFC7CE40E238B80@SN2938977271> , , <4EBDAC98.2070602@hintz.org> , Message-ID: <1321083117.7800.16.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P> I think we are all on the same track, each brigade is like and individual with different make ups of people, community, community needs, risks etc.. We therefore need a set of rules that allow brigades to adapt to their individual aspirations. As long we can up hold the requirement of the Agreement of Service we all have with the FSC we should be able to carry out other emergency service activities. I do not believe that we want to be but in to a box controlled by the FS because the are not members of the communities we serve. So for me it is important to have a set of rules that allow brigades to be individual and independent. If a brigades wants to fit into the FSC box that is their choice. Geoff On Sat, 2011-11-12 at 16:36 +1300, Tristan Saunders wrote: > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Further, I agree with Ian, the possibility of having two seats of power is dangerous and can split the brigade. Hence my comments regarding LRVFB's submission. > > To have the chief AND the chair have the authority to revoke a membership (amongst other things) provides avenue for argument. one or the other.. > > > > From: tds_4@hotmail.com > > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > > Subject: RE: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > > Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 16:33:04 +1300 > > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > And in a volunteer zone that sometimes takes who they can get out of necessity, that 'right mix of people' is not a reality > > > > Again, a committe with CFO as chair. not veto, but can have the swinging vote if tied. > > > > > > > > > Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 12:15:36 +1300 > > > From: ed@hintz.org > > > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > > > Subject: Re: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > > > > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > > > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > On 11/12/11 11:27 AM, Ian & Heather King wrote: > > > > > > > (Chief and Mgt Com Chair) running a Brigade without some sort of disruption or disharmony, and at the very least some 'side taking'? > > > > > > My experience has been that the side-talking, disruption, and disharmony > > > are a result of the people, not the organizational structure. We had an > > > environment where the CFO was the undisputed CFO+Mgmt Chair, and we had > > > all of the above in spades. It was unpleasant. > > > > > > I daresay with the right mixture of people, a separation between > > > operational and social leadership will be perfectly harmonious. > > > Likewise, with the wrong mixture of people, a one-ring-to-rule-them-all > > > leader will be a backstabbing snark fest. > > > > > > The advantage I see to the separation model is that it tends to erode at > > > the traditional CFO=God model, which I'm all for. With a well adjusted > > > populace neither model will create significant disruption, and with a > > > maladjusted one there is less likelihood for abuse of power (on any > > > side), as there is simply much less centralized power to abuse. > > > > > > -- > > > Regards, > > > > > > Ed Hintz > > > ed@hintz.org > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > > > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise From nelsonc at xnet.co.nz Sat Nov 12 20:52:19 2011 From: nelsonc at xnet.co.nz (Chris Nelson) Date: Sat Nov 12 20:53:57 2011 Subject: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation In-Reply-To: References: <1320966608.1917.13.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P>, , <1320985216.7627.8.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P>, , <575D362866174C209FFC7CE40E238B80@SN2938977271>, , <4EBDAC98.2070602@hintz.org>, Message-ID: <002901cca110$01214cd0$0363e670$@xnet.co.nz> The post " To have the chief AND the chair have the authority to revoke a membership (amongst other things) provides avenue for argument. one or the other." Where does it say the Chair has authority to revoke membership or discipline?? The proposed rules state "Where the Member is found to have caused dissatisfaction among the Members, the Chief Fire Officer (or in the absence of the Chief Fire Officer, the Deputy Chief Fire Officer) may impose a penalty on that Member that is appropriate to the dissatisfaction caused." -----Original Message----- From: vollynet-bounces@vollynet.org.nz [mailto:vollynet-bounces@vollynet.org.nz] On Behalf Of Tristan Saunders Sent: Saturday, 12 November 2011 4:36 p.m. To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz Subject: RE: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz ---------------------------------------------------------------- Further, I agree with Ian, the possibility of having two seats of power is dangerous and can split the brigade. Hence my comments regarding LRVFB's submission. To have the chief AND the chair have the authority to revoke a membership (amongst other things) provides avenue for argument. one or the other.. > From: tds_4@hotmail.com > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > Subject: RE: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 16:33:04 +1300 > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ For > information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > And in a volunteer zone that sometimes takes who they can get out of > necessity, that 'right mix of people' is not a reality > > Again, a committe with CFO as chair. not veto, but can have the swinging vote if tied. > > > > > Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 12:15:36 +1300 > > From: ed@hintz.org > > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > > Subject: Re: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ For > > information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > On 11/12/11 11:27 AM, Ian & Heather King wrote: > > > > > (Chief and Mgt Com Chair) running a Brigade without some sort of disruption or disharmony, and at the very least some 'side taking'? > > > > My experience has been that the side-talking, disruption, and > > disharmony are a result of the people, not the organizational > > structure. We had an environment where the CFO was the undisputed > > CFO+Mgmt Chair, and we had all of the above in spades. It was unpleasant. > > > > I daresay with the right mixture of people, a separation between > > operational and social leadership will be perfectly harmonious. > > Likewise, with the wrong mixture of people, a > > one-ring-to-rule-them-all leader will be a backstabbing snark fest. > > > > The advantage I see to the separation model is that it tends to > > erode at the traditional CFO=God model, which I'm all for. With a > > well adjusted populace neither model will create significant > > disruption, and with a maladjusted one there is less likelihood for > > abuse of power (on any side), as there is simply much less centralized power to abuse. > > > > -- > > Regards, > > > > Ed Hintz > > ed@hintz.org > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of personal > > opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of personal > opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise ---------------------------------------------------------------- MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise From nelsonc at xnet.co.nz Sat Nov 12 21:26:56 2011 From: nelsonc at xnet.co.nz (Chris Nelson) Date: Sat Nov 12 21:28:30 2011 Subject: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation In-Reply-To: <1321083117.7800.16.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P> References: <1320966608.1917.13.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P> , , <1320985216.7627.8.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P> , , <575D362866174C209FFC7CE40E238B80@SN2938977271> , , <4EBDAC98.2070602@hintz.org> , <1321083117.7800.16.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P> Message-ID: <002a01cca114$d7454240$85cfc6c0$@xnet.co.nz> I understand where you are coming from but I envisage the FS and the FSC need to know that a brigade is representing them appropriately. At the end of the day they own the building, the gear and the big red truck and any mishaps that may occur does reflect on the brigade and the NZFS. I am not saying there should not be flexibility as I like the ideal of a brigade being able to add rules as they see fit but I can also understand the expectation of the FS. What other emergency activities are you referring to? -----Original Message----- From: vollynet-bounces@vollynet.org.nz [mailto:vollynet-bounces@vollynet.org.nz] On Behalf Of Marks Family Sent: Saturday, 12 November 2011 8:32 p.m. To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz Subject: RE: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz ---------------------------------------------------------------- I think we are all on the same track, each brigade is like and individual with different make ups of people, community, community needs, risks etc.. We therefore need a set of rules that allow brigades to adapt to their individual aspirations. As long we can up hold the requirement of the Agreement of Service we all have with the FSC we should be able to carry out other emergency service activities. I do not believe that we want to be but in to a box controlled by the FS because the are not members of the communities we serve. So for me it is important to have a set of rules that allow brigades to be individual and independent. If a brigades wants to fit into the FSC box that is their choice. Geoff On Sat, 2011-11-12 at 16:36 +1300, Tristan Saunders wrote: > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ For > information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Further, I agree with Ian, the possibility of having two seats of power is dangerous and can split the brigade. Hence my comments regarding LRVFB's submission. > > To have the chief AND the chair have the authority to revoke a membership (amongst other things) provides avenue for argument. one or the other.. > > > > From: tds_4@hotmail.com > > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > > Subject: RE: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > > Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 16:33:04 +1300 > > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ For > > information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > And in a volunteer zone that sometimes takes who they can get out of > > necessity, that 'right mix of people' is not a reality > > > > Again, a committe with CFO as chair. not veto, but can have the swinging vote if tied. > > > > > > > > > Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 12:15:36 +1300 > > > From: ed@hintz.org > > > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > > > Subject: Re: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > > > > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ For > > > information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > On 11/12/11 11:27 AM, Ian & Heather King wrote: > > > > > > > (Chief and Mgt Com Chair) running a Brigade without some sort of disruption or disharmony, and at the very least some 'side taking'? > > > > > > My experience has been that the side-talking, disruption, and > > > disharmony are a result of the people, not the organizational > > > structure. We had an environment where the CFO was the undisputed > > > CFO+Mgmt Chair, and we had all of the above in spades. It was unpleasant. > > > > > > I daresay with the right mixture of people, a separation between > > > operational and social leadership will be perfectly harmonious. > > > Likewise, with the wrong mixture of people, a > > > one-ring-to-rule-them-all leader will be a backstabbing snark fest. > > > > > > The advantage I see to the separation model is that it tends to > > > erode at the traditional CFO=God model, which I'm all for. With a > > > well adjusted populace neither model will create significant > > > disruption, and with a maladjusted one there is less likelihood > > > for abuse of power (on any side), as there is simply much less centralized power to abuse. > > > > > > -- > > > Regards, > > > > > > Ed Hintz > > > ed@hintz.org > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of personal > > > opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of personal > > opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of personal > opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise ---------------------------------------------------------------- MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise From tds_4 at hotmail.com Sat Nov 12 22:23:14 2011 From: tds_4 at hotmail.com (Tristan Saunders) Date: Sat Nov 12 22:23:31 2011 Subject: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation In-Reply-To: <002901cca110$01214cd0$0363e670$@xnet.co.nz> References: <1320966608.1917.13.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P>, , , <1320985216.7627.8.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P>, ,,<575D362866174C209FFC7CE40E238B80@SN2938977271>, , , <4EBDAC98.2070602@hintz.org>, , , , <002901cca110$01214cd0$0363e670$@xnet.co.nz> Message-ID: I was referring to some submitting alterations Chris > From: nelsonc@xnet.co.nz > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > Subject: RE: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 20:52:19 +1300 > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > The post > " To have the chief AND the chair have the authority to revoke a membership > (amongst other things) provides avenue for argument. one or the other." > > Where does it say the Chair has authority to revoke membership or > discipline?? > > The proposed rules state > "Where the Member is found to have caused dissatisfaction among the > Members, the Chief Fire Officer (or in the absence of the Chief Fire > Officer, the > Deputy Chief Fire Officer) may impose a penalty on that Member that is > appropriate > to the dissatisfaction caused." > > -----Original Message----- > From: vollynet-bounces@vollynet.org.nz > [mailto:vollynet-bounces@vollynet.org.nz] On Behalf Of Tristan Saunders > Sent: Saturday, 12 November 2011 4:36 p.m. > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > Subject: RE: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ For > information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Further, I agree with Ian, the possibility of having two seats of power is > dangerous and can split the brigade. Hence my comments regarding LRVFB's > submission. > > To have the chief AND the chair have the authority to revoke a membership > (amongst other things) provides avenue for argument. one or the other.. > > > > From: tds_4@hotmail.com > > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > > Subject: RE: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > > Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 16:33:04 +1300 > > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ For > > information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > And in a volunteer zone that sometimes takes who they can get out of > > necessity, that 'right mix of people' is not a reality > > > > Again, a committe with CFO as chair. not veto, but can have the swinging > vote if tied. > > > > > > > > > Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 12:15:36 +1300 > > > From: ed@hintz.org > > > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > > > Subject: Re: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > > > > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ For > > > information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > On 11/12/11 11:27 AM, Ian & Heather King wrote: > > > > > > > (Chief and Mgt Com Chair) running a Brigade without some sort of > disruption or disharmony, and at the very least some 'side taking'? > > > > > > My experience has been that the side-talking, disruption, and > > > disharmony are a result of the people, not the organizational > > > structure. We had an environment where the CFO was the undisputed > > > CFO+Mgmt Chair, and we had all of the above in spades. It was > unpleasant. > > > > > > I daresay with the right mixture of people, a separation between > > > operational and social leadership will be perfectly harmonious. > > > Likewise, with the wrong mixture of people, a > > > one-ring-to-rule-them-all leader will be a backstabbing snark fest. > > > > > > The advantage I see to the separation model is that it tends to > > > erode at the traditional CFO=God model, which I'm all for. With a > > > well adjusted populace neither model will create significant > > > disruption, and with a maladjusted one there is less likelihood for > > > abuse of power (on any side), as there is simply much less centralized > power to abuse. > > > > > > -- > > > Regards, > > > > > > Ed Hintz > > > ed@hintz.org > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of personal > > > opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of personal > > opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of personal opinion > only unless specifically stated otherwise > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise From tds_4 at hotmail.com Sat Nov 12 22:24:13 2011 From: tds_4 at hotmail.com (Tristan Saunders) Date: Sat Nov 12 22:24:24 2011 Subject: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation In-Reply-To: References: <1320966608.1917.13.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P>, , , , <1320985216.7627.8.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P>, , , , <575D362866174C209FFC7CE40E238B80@SN2938977271>, , , , <4EBDAC98.2070602@hintz.org>, , , , , , , <002901cca110$01214cd0$0363e670$@xnet.co.nz>, Message-ID: *submitted > From: tds_4@hotmail.com > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > Subject: RE: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 22:23:14 +1300 > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > I was referring to some submitting alterations Chris > > > From: nelsonc@xnet.co.nz > > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > > Subject: RE: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > > Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 20:52:19 +1300 > > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > The post > > " To have the chief AND the chair have the authority to revoke a membership > > (amongst other things) provides avenue for argument. one or the other." > > > > Where does it say the Chair has authority to revoke membership or > > discipline?? > > > > The proposed rules state > > "Where the Member is found to have caused dissatisfaction among the > > Members, the Chief Fire Officer (or in the absence of the Chief Fire > > Officer, the > > Deputy Chief Fire Officer) may impose a penalty on that Member that is > > appropriate > > to the dissatisfaction caused." > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: vollynet-bounces@vollynet.org.nz > > [mailto:vollynet-bounces@vollynet.org.nz] On Behalf Of Tristan Saunders > > Sent: Saturday, 12 November 2011 4:36 p.m. > > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > > Subject: RE: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ For > > information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Further, I agree with Ian, the possibility of having two seats of power is > > dangerous and can split the brigade. Hence my comments regarding LRVFB's > > submission. > > > > To have the chief AND the chair have the authority to revoke a membership > > (amongst other things) provides avenue for argument. one or the other.. > > > > > > > From: tds_4@hotmail.com > > > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > > > Subject: RE: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > > > Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 16:33:04 +1300 > > > > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ For > > > information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > And in a volunteer zone that sometimes takes who they can get out of > > > necessity, that 'right mix of people' is not a reality > > > > > > Again, a committe with CFO as chair. not veto, but can have the swinging > > vote if tied. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 12:15:36 +1300 > > > > From: ed@hintz.org > > > > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > > > > Subject: Re: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > > > > > > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ For > > > > information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > On 11/12/11 11:27 AM, Ian & Heather King wrote: > > > > > > > > > (Chief and Mgt Com Chair) running a Brigade without some sort of > > disruption or disharmony, and at the very least some 'side taking'? > > > > > > > > My experience has been that the side-talking, disruption, and > > > > disharmony are a result of the people, not the organizational > > > > structure. We had an environment where the CFO was the undisputed > > > > CFO+Mgmt Chair, and we had all of the above in spades. It was > > unpleasant. > > > > > > > > I daresay with the right mixture of people, a separation between > > > > operational and social leadership will be perfectly harmonious. > > > > Likewise, with the wrong mixture of people, a > > > > one-ring-to-rule-them-all leader will be a backstabbing snark fest. > > > > > > > > The advantage I see to the separation model is that it tends to > > > > erode at the traditional CFO=God model, which I'm all for. With a > > > > well adjusted populace neither model will create significant > > > > disruption, and with a maladjusted one there is less likelihood for > > > > abuse of power (on any side), as there is simply much less centralized > > power to abuse. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Ed Hintz > > > > ed@hintz.org > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of personal > > > > opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of personal > > > opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of personal opinion > > only unless specifically stated otherwise > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise From nelsonc at xnet.co.nz Sat Nov 12 23:07:46 2011 From: nelsonc at xnet.co.nz (Chris Nelson) Date: Sat Nov 12 23:09:24 2011 Subject: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation In-Reply-To: References: <1320966608.1917.13.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P>, , , , <1320985216.7627.8.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P>, , , , <575D362866174C209FFC7CE40E238B80@SN2938977271>, , , , <4EBDAC98.2070602@hintz.org>, , , , , , , <002901cca110$01214cd0$0363e670$@xnet.co.nz>, Message-ID: <002b01cca122$ed523710$c7f6a530$@xnet.co.nz> OK I missed that. I would agree that would be dangerous. -----Original Message----- From: vollynet-bounces@vollynet.org.nz [mailto:vollynet-bounces@vollynet.org.nz] On Behalf Of Tristan Saunders Sent: Saturday, 12 November 2011 10:24 p.m. To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz Subject: RE: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz ---------------------------------------------------------------- *submitted > From: tds_4@hotmail.com > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > Subject: RE: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 22:23:14 +1300 > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ For > information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > I was referring to some submitting alterations Chris > > > From: nelsonc@xnet.co.nz > > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > > Subject: RE: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > > Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 20:52:19 +1300 > > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ For > > information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > The post > > " To have the chief AND the chair have the authority to revoke a > > membership (amongst other things) provides avenue for argument. one or the other." > > > > Where does it say the Chair has authority to revoke membership or > > discipline?? > > > > The proposed rules state > > "Where the Member is found to have caused dissatisfaction among the > > Members, the Chief Fire Officer (or in the absence of the Chief Fire > > Officer, the Deputy Chief Fire Officer) may impose a penalty on that > > Member that is appropriate to the dissatisfaction caused." > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: vollynet-bounces@vollynet.org.nz > > [mailto:vollynet-bounces@vollynet.org.nz] On Behalf Of Tristan > > Saunders > > Sent: Saturday, 12 November 2011 4:36 p.m. > > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > > Subject: RE: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ For > > information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Further, I agree with Ian, the possibility of having two seats of > > power is dangerous and can split the brigade. Hence my comments > > regarding LRVFB's submission. > > > > To have the chief AND the chair have the authority to revoke a > > membership (amongst other things) provides avenue for argument. one or the other.. > > > > > > > From: tds_4@hotmail.com > > > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > > > Subject: RE: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > > > Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 16:33:04 +1300 > > > > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ For > > > information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > And in a volunteer zone that sometimes takes who they can get out > > > of necessity, that 'right mix of people' is not a reality > > > > > > Again, a committe with CFO as chair. not veto, but can have the > > > swinging > > vote if tied. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 12:15:36 +1300 > > > > From: ed@hintz.org > > > > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > > > > Subject: Re: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > > > > > > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > > > > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > On 11/12/11 11:27 AM, Ian & Heather King wrote: > > > > > > > > > (Chief and Mgt Com Chair) running a Brigade without some sort > > > > > of > > disruption or disharmony, and at the very least some 'side taking'? > > > > > > > > My experience has been that the side-talking, disruption, and > > > > disharmony are a result of the people, not the organizational > > > > structure. We had an environment where the CFO was the > > > > undisputed > > > > CFO+Mgmt Chair, and we had all of the above in spades. It was > > unpleasant. > > > > > > > > I daresay with the right mixture of people, a separation between > > > > operational and social leadership will be perfectly harmonious. > > > > Likewise, with the wrong mixture of people, a > > > > one-ring-to-rule-them-all leader will be a backstabbing snark fest. > > > > > > > > The advantage I see to the separation model is that it tends to > > > > erode at the traditional CFO=God model, which I'm all for. With > > > > a well adjusted populace neither model will create significant > > > > disruption, and with a maladjusted one there is less likelihood > > > > for abuse of power (on any side), as there is simply much less > > > > centralized > > power to abuse. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Ed Hintz > > > > ed@hintz.org > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > > > > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of personal > > > opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of personal > > opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of personal > > opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of personal > opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise ---------------------------------------------------------------- MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise From jgmarks at xtra.co.nz Sat Nov 12 23:10:52 2011 From: jgmarks at xtra.co.nz (Marks Family) Date: Sat Nov 12 23:10:58 2011 Subject: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation In-Reply-To: <002a01cca114$d7454240$85cfc6c0$@xnet.co.nz> References: <1320966608.1917.13.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P> , , <1320985216.7627.8.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P> , , <575D362866174C209FFC7CE40E238B80@SN2938977271> , , <4EBDAC98.2070602@hintz.org> , <1321083117.7800.16.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P> <002a01cca114$d7454240$85cfc6c0$@xnet.co.nz> Message-ID: <1321092652.7800.31.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P> > At the end of the day they own the building, the gear and the big red > Truck In the case at Little River they own a 24 year old veteran little flick book value zero dollars. We have a support vehicle that has a greater book value purchased by our community, on that we have a defibrillator purchased by our community. Our building is a joint owned between the community and FS and built by the community. Christchurch City Council has places a brand new tanker at our station in a brand new shed. So the answer is we owe the FS and FSC nothing while we and 3000 other volunteers cover there big back side. I suggest that we get over the idea that we owe the FSC and the FS some debt of gratitude. The FSC and the FS seem to be very concerned about their BRAND image - well who gives them such a good brand image - yes the volunteers. On Sat, 2011-11-12 at 21:26 +1300, Chris Nelson wrote: > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > I understand where you are coming from but I envisage the FS and the FSC need to know that a brigade is representing them appropriately. At the end of the day they own the building, the gear and the big red truck and any mishaps that may occur does reflect on the brigade and the NZFS. > > I am not saying there should not be flexibility as I like the ideal of a brigade being able to add rules as they see fit but I can also understand the expectation of the FS. > > What other emergency activities are you referring to? > > -----Original Message----- > From: vollynet-bounces@vollynet.org.nz [mailto:vollynet-bounces@vollynet.org.nz] On Behalf Of Marks Family > Sent: Saturday, 12 November 2011 8:32 p.m. > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > Subject: RE: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > I think we are all on the same track, each brigade is like and individual with different make ups of people, community, community needs, risks etc.. > > We therefore need a set of rules that allow brigades to adapt to their individual aspirations. > > As long we can up hold the requirement of the Agreement of Service we all have with the FSC we should be able to carry out other emergency service activities. > > I do not believe that we want to be but in to a box controlled by the FS because the are not members of the communities we serve. > > > So for me it is important to have a set of rules that allow brigades to be individual and independent. If a brigades wants to fit into the FSC box that is their choice. > > Geoff > > > On Sat, 2011-11-12 at 16:36 +1300, Tristan Saunders wrote: > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ For > > information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Further, I agree with Ian, the possibility of having two seats of power is dangerous and can split the brigade. Hence my comments regarding LRVFB's submission. > > > > To have the chief AND the chair have the authority to revoke a membership (amongst other things) provides avenue for argument. one or the other.. > > > > > > > From: tds_4@hotmail.com > > > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > > > Subject: RE: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > > > Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 16:33:04 +1300 > > > > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ For > > > information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > And in a volunteer zone that sometimes takes who they can get out of > > > necessity, that 'right mix of people' is not a reality > > > > > > Again, a committe with CFO as chair. not veto, but can have the swinging vote if tied. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 12:15:36 +1300 > > > > From: ed@hintz.org > > > > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > > > > Subject: Re: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > > > > > > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ For > > > > information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > On 11/12/11 11:27 AM, Ian & Heather King wrote: > > > > > > > > > (Chief and Mgt Com Chair) running a Brigade without some sort of disruption or disharmony, and at the very least some 'side taking'? > > > > > > > > My experience has been that the side-talking, disruption, and > > > > disharmony are a result of the people, not the organizational > > > > structure. We had an environment where the CFO was the undisputed > > > > CFO+Mgmt Chair, and we had all of the above in spades. It was unpleasant. > > > > > > > > I daresay with the right mixture of people, a separation between > > > > operational and social leadership will be perfectly harmonious. > > > > Likewise, with the wrong mixture of people, a > > > > one-ring-to-rule-them-all leader will be a backstabbing snark fest. > > > > > > > > The advantage I see to the separation model is that it tends to > > > > erode at the traditional CFO=God model, which I'm all for. With a > > > > well adjusted populace neither model will create significant > > > > disruption, and with a maladjusted one there is less likelihood > > > > for abuse of power (on any side), as there is simply much less centralized power to abuse. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Ed Hintz > > > > ed@hintz.org > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of personal > > > > opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of personal > > > opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of personal > > opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise From tds_4 at hotmail.com Sun Nov 13 23:58:21 2011 From: tds_4 at hotmail.com (Tristan Saunders) Date: Sun Nov 13 23:58:44 2011 Subject: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation In-Reply-To: <1321092652.7800.31.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P> References: <1320966608.1917.13.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P>, , , , <1320985216.7627.8.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P>,, , <575D362866174C209FFC7CE40E238B80@SN2938977271>,, , <4EBDAC98.2070602@hintz.org>,, , , <1321083117.7800.16.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P>, <002a01cca114$d7454240$85cfc6c0$@xnet.co.nz>, <1321092652.7800.31.camel@marks-G41MT-S2P> Message-ID: the volly sector has alot more power than they care to exercise.. > Subject: RE: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > From: jgmarks@xtra.co.nz > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 23:10:52 +1300 > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > At the end of the day they own the building, the gear and the big red > > Truck > > In the case at Little River they own a 24 year old veteran little flick > book value zero dollars. > > We have a support vehicle that has a greater book value purchased by our > community, on that we have a defibrillator purchased by our community. > > Our building is a joint owned between the community and FS and built by > the community. > > Christchurch City Council has places a brand new tanker at our station > in a brand new shed. > > So the answer is we owe the FS and FSC nothing while we and 3000 other > volunteers cover there big back side. > > I suggest that we get over the idea that we owe the FSC and the FS some > debt of gratitude. > > The FSC and the FS seem to be very concerned about their BRAND image - > well who gives them such a good brand image - yes the volunteers. > > > > > On Sat, 2011-11-12 at 21:26 +1300, Chris Nelson wrote: > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ > > For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > I understand where you are coming from but I envisage the FS and the FSC need to know that a brigade is representing them appropriately. At the end of the day they own the building, the gear and the big red truck and any mishaps that may occur does reflect on the brigade and the NZFS. > > > > I am not saying there should not be flexibility as I like the ideal of a brigade being able to add rules as they see fit but I can also understand the expectation of the FS. > > > > What other emergency activities are you referring to? > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: vollynet-bounces@vollynet.org.nz [mailto:vollynet-bounces@vollynet.org.nz] On Behalf Of Marks Family > > Sent: Saturday, 12 November 2011 8:32 p.m. > > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > > Subject: RE: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ For information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > I think we are all on the same track, each brigade is like and individual with different make ups of people, community, community needs, risks etc.. > > > > We therefore need a set of rules that allow brigades to adapt to their individual aspirations. > > > > As long we can up hold the requirement of the Agreement of Service we all have with the FSC we should be able to carry out other emergency service activities. > > > > I do not believe that we want to be but in to a box controlled by the FS because the are not members of the communities we serve. > > > > > > So for me it is important to have a set of rules that allow brigades to be individual and independent. If a brigades wants to fit into the FSC box that is their choice. > > > > Geoff > > > > > > On Sat, 2011-11-12 at 16:36 +1300, Tristan Saunders wrote: > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ For > > > information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Further, I agree with Ian, the possibility of having two seats of power is dangerous and can split the brigade. Hence my comments regarding LRVFB's submission. > > > > > > To have the chief AND the chair have the authority to revoke a membership (amongst other things) provides avenue for argument. one or the other.. > > > > > > > > > > From: tds_4@hotmail.com > > > > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > > > > Subject: RE: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > > > > Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 16:33:04 +1300 > > > > > > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ For > > > > information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > And in a volunteer zone that sometimes takes who they can get out of > > > > necessity, that 'right mix of people' is not a reality > > > > > > > > Again, a committe with CFO as chair. not veto, but can have the swinging vote if tied. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 12:15:36 +1300 > > > > > From: ed@hintz.org > > > > > To: vollynet@vollynet.org.nz > > > > > Subject: Re: [VollyNet] Brigade Rules of Assocation > > > > > > > > > > VOLLYNET : OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING IN NZ For > > > > > information and help see www.vollynet.org.nz > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > On 11/12/11 11:27 AM, Ian & Heather King wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > (Chief and Mgt Com Chair) running a Brigade without some sort of disruption or disharmony, and at the very least some 'side taking'? > > > > > > > > > > My experience has been that the side-talking, disruption, and > > > > > disharmony are a result of the people, not the organizational > > > > > structure. We had an environment where the CFO was the undisputed > > > > > CFO+Mgmt Chair, and we had all of the above in spades. It was unpleasant. > > > > > > > > > > I daresay with the right mixture of people, a separation between > > > > > operational and social leadership will be perfectly harmonious. > > > > > Likewise, with the wrong mixture of people, a > > > > > one-ring-to-rule-them-all leader will be a backstabbing snark fest. > > > > > > > > > > The advantage I see to the separation model is that it tends to > > > > > erode at the traditional CFO=God model, which I'm all for. With a > > > > > well adjusted populace neither model will create significant > > > > > disruption, and with a maladjusted one there is less likelihood > > > > > for abuse of power (on any side), as there is simply much less centralized power to abuse. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Ed Hintz > > > > > ed@hintz.org > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > > > > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of personal > > > > > opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of personal > > > > opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of personal > > > opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > MEET THE COMMUNITY! Visit www.vollynet.org.nz/profiles > > ALL posts to VollyNet should be considered statements of > personal opinion only unless specifically stated otherwise