Firefighters? Anyone?

This is a very intriguing discussion. I think Punzy has hit the nail on the head with this one. It is great that groups are learning more about the candidates. I just think they could be even more persuasive (read powerful) by showing how they came to their conclusions, what questions were asked, what the responses were, etc.

I wonder if one of the questions were in relation to the current federal legislation that has been introduced in Congress in regards to collective bargaining? I would be very interested in some of the answers to that one.

Alan Osborne, I've been sitting back and trying to take of this in. To reference your last post, I think the criteria used for their endorsement is stated clearly in the really long post above by SoWalProFire. And I'm with graytonbeachguy on this one. You have a reputation of being a controlling, close-minded hot head. This is Walton County Government, not the US Military. Your rank has no bearing here. Stand down from red alert. I am so sick and tired of people losing ground or basis in their argument, then breaking the "emergency glass" and using the "9-11" card to give their argument some credibility. That card is way over played, and frankly I find it disrespectful. If you want to show honor to those who died, how about a little respect. Do they still teach that in the military? I would think that as a political candidate, you would do your best to make friends and rally support, not make enemies and burn bridges. Did you ever think that your reputation had preceded you, and that is why they aren't responding?

Why is this getting so heated? What are the rest of us missing?

As you can see from my signature line, I have decided to support Mr. Osborne. When I first asked the question about the criteria, I was merely leaning Osborne. When I saw that the firefighters had endorsed Mr. Braunstein, I was a bit surprised and wanted to know more about why they'd chosen to support him. In my mind, firefighters carry a lot of weight and I wanted to reevaluate Mr. Braunstein before I made a final decision.

Instead of a positive review of Mr. Braunstein's candidacy, or a new awareness of issues I had not yet considered (all these empty and abandoned houses in SoWal seem like a dangerous hazard, does one candidate have a plan to deal with them?), this thread has degenerated into an attack on Mr. Osbourne. That's terribly unfortunate if our goal is an informed voter.

We all know Mr. Osborne doesn't 'play ball' (it's why many of us do support him) -- but in a field of five candidates, attacking one person does nothing to help your chosen candidate.

Osborne wanted to answer your questions and offered to do so in multiple public forums so all could attend - he just had some clarifications due to the phrasing that didn't seem to come from Joe Q. Firefighter.

Then he mentions how much he supports you and how he has personally been involved in emergency responses ............and all of a sudden he was under attack. My "something else is going on " radar sure pinged on that one!

Bottom line is this, We still don't know what criteria was used for the endorsement!

Mr. Osborne, Every candidate who responded to our questionnaire by answering the questions on it and submitting their responses to our organization, was invited to our regular monthly meeting in June. During this meeting the members of our organization asked their own candid questions of each of the candidates. After all the candidates had their turn in the hot seat (so to speak), the membership held a vote. This is how we determined which candidates to support.

Each of these candidates received the same questionnaire you received. Each of these candidates did their own research and answered the questions to the best of their ability. This is how we have always done it. It would not be fair to provide "questionnaire aid" to any individual candidate. If the candidate does not answer the questions as written, then the candidate does not get invited to the meeting of the membership. We have never changed our process to bend to the will of any individual candidate.

Much like the constituency of Walton County District 5, we believe that our elected officials are in office to serve our needs, not vise-versa. Our agenda is a simple one, support the campaign of those who will support us. When a candidate suggests to us that he or she knows better what questions we should be asking and how those questions should be worded, it seems a lot like the tail trying to wag the dog.

My personal hope is that if you are elected, you will let your constituency determine what actions you take as a commissioner and not vise-versa.

You suggest that our process is not fair. I suggest this to you: It was not us who did not give you a fair chance for our support. It was you who denied yourself this opportunity.

A lawyer did not write our questionnaire. It was written by firefighters, who are more intelligent than some people give them credit for.

My response

I appreciate your response. Just so you know, I was never invited and other than my conversation with coy, received no phone calls about this meeting from anyone. What candidates were there? I have attended everything I have been invited to or gave a response if I had a prior commitment. I would have like to have addressed the group myself and had a turn in the Hot Seat so to speak. Thats all I'm saying and I'll leave it at that. It has been very frustrating to find out about events after the fact. I don't blame you but I want you to know that I very much wanted to particpate. I do things for what I believe are the right reasons and it's everyone's right to disagree if they want. I have not tried to cut a deal with any group, I just wanted to make myself available. If people attack me for that then so be it. I did make the effort is all I'm saying.
Alan

Very good point. An endorsement that is not based on a candidate forum, i.e. Emerald Coast Association of Realtors, or some other criteria the public can examine is always questionable.

Also, anyone involved with South Walton Fire District out there? If so, was this an issue that SWFD was involved with?

On a somewhat related note, I keep hearing that some candidates are being approached by (or possibly approaching) SWFD to strike a deal for support for the district, in exchange for supporting that candidate. This is rather concerning, as it certainly stinks of the good ole boy politics so many on here complain about.

To my knowledge, SWFD is not nor will it be "involved" in any political action. This is so because of the Hatch Act. SWFD is funded by ad valorem tax dollars.

South Walton Professional Firefighters Association is the labor organization whose members are the men and women on the ambulances and fire trucks and are employed by SWFD. These two organizations are mutually exclusive. South Walton Professional Firefighters Assoc. and their and interests are funded solely by membership dues and participation.

South Walton Fire District cannot legally "strike a deal" in support or opposition of any candidate. This would be in violation of the Hatch Act.

What are the specific issues the local firefighters are looking for when endorsing candidates? Wages, health care, work conditions, management etc.

I appreciate your response. Just so you know, I was never invited and other than my conversation with coy, received no phone calls about this meeting from anyone. What candidates were there? I have attended everything I have been invited to or gave a response if I had a prior commitment. I would have like to have addressed the group myself and had a turn in the Hot Seat so to speak. Thats all I'm saying and I'll leave it at that. It has been very frustrating to find out about events after the fact. I don't blame you but I want you to know that I very much wanted to particpate. I do things for what I believe are the right reasons and it's everyone's right to disagree if they want. I have not tried to cut a deal with any group, I just wanted to make myself available. If people attack me for that then so be it. I did make the effort is all I'm saying.
Alan

Again;

Each of these candidates received the same questionnaire you received. Each of these candidates did their own research and answered the questions to the best of their ability. This is how we have always done it. It would not be fair to provide "questionnaire aid" to any individual candidate. If the candidate does not answer the questions as written, then the candidate does not get invited to the meeting of the membership. We have never changed our process to bend to the will of any individual candidate.

While I'm all for rules and regulations in local politics, asking for more info or a clarification on a question shouldn't disqualify a person from participating in a public candidate's forum. Little draconian IMO.

SWProfire:

As I mentioned above, it might be even more powerful for your organization and helpful to others if you were willing to share reasons why your group voted to support the candidates you are. I realize it was based on a questionnaire and some additional live questions. Could you at least share with us the questionnaire and candidate's responses from those who did respond?

While I'm all for rules and regulations in local politics, asking for more info or a clarification on a question shouldn't disqualify a person from participating in a public candidate's forum. Little draconian IMO.

Again;

Each of these candidates did their own research and answered the questions to the best of their ability. This is how we have always done it. It would not be fair to provide "questionnaire aid" to any individual candidate.

Asking for clarification did not disqualify a person for participating. Not submitting the completed questionnaire did. This was not a "public candidate's forum”. Our meetings are not public. One must be a member or be invited. To be invited this particular meeting one must first complete the questionnaire and submit it. Every other candidate did this.

Anyway, it seems as if I find myself in the position of having to justify our methods to those who are only really interested in finding a way to sully our name and diminish the impact of our support of any candidate other than the one you are backing.

My guess is that if Sid Braunstein had not answered the questionnaire and subsequently had not been invited to our meeting, you would support everything I have entered into this forum.

If you have read my first post to this forum, then you know why firefighters are involved in political action. I think these facts are also supported and evidenced by our involvement in our communities in other ways. Every year, on our own time, and with our own funds we support our community by hosting a variety of events such as our annual charity golf tournament, the haunted woods at Halloween, the angel tree at Christmas, delivering thanksgiving dinner to local indigent families, delivering gifts to indigent kids at Christmas, the annual shop with a firefighter event, charity car washes, not to mention the thousands of dollars given by our organization to local burn victims and families affected by fires. We also raise money annually for MDA and St. Jude Children’s Hospital. We do these things to give back to our communities in return for them allowing us to be a part of this great profession and for allowing us to serve the community we love. We take a great deal of pride in caring for the people we serve. Our genuine hope is that this shows at every opportunity we are given to help someone in need.

Of coarse we are also concerned about our working conditions, pay and benefits, but please keep in mind there are many other professions that provide more pay and benefits than the one we chose. Few firefighters chose this profession for the money. We do it because we love to help people. Any candidate willing to prove their support of this ideal will have our support.

I will spend no more time justifying our political actions.

Again, thank you for your interest in this important subject.

I certainly know that the SWFD are a community asset and also do a great deal of additional service to the community, that's why I want to know the issues that are important to them.

If I don't know what you consider to be the important issues or what our local firefighters want/need I can't help them get it, or use it as a criteria for figuring out who to vote for.

I certainly know that the SWFD are a community asset and also do a great deal of additional service to the community, that's why I want to know the issues that are important to them.

If I don't know what you consider to be the important issues or what our local firefighters want/need I can't help them get it, or use it as a criteria for figuring out who to vote for.

Our issues:
Knowledge of our District and the fire service in general.

Knowledge of established standards relating to adequate fire department staffing levels.

Candidates view on the need for safe and up to date life saving apparatus and equipment.

Candidate view on improvements needed in the local fire service.

Candidates view on fire district funding.

Candidates view on the local impact of service consolidation.

Candidates view on firefighters right to be actively involved in political action while off duty.

Candidates views on firefighters right to due process and to bargain in good faith for Fair and competitive working conditions, wages and benefits for firefighters.

Our local politics follow a similar paradigm in that we endorse candidates who have proven their support of these ideals throughout their term, and not just talked about it during their campaign.

I see that the firefighter's union for Okaloosa and Walton County have contributed to a particular County Commissioner Candidate, who has never proven his support in the way which you state qualifies him as your choice. Care to explain that? For all of the new candidates running, how could they prove their support in the past, if they weren't in power to make the decisions?

Our issues:
Candidates view on firefighters right to be actively involved in political action while off duty.

Candidates views on firefighters right to due process and to bargain in good faith for Fair and competitive working conditions, wages and benefits for firefighters.

What kind of political action? Isn't the fire department/district non-partisan?

Isn't due process guaranteed by law? Is the SWFD a closed shop? Are they allowed to strike as part of the bargaining process?

Osbourne, sounds like you wanted to dictate the terms on which you would speak to a vitally important constituency in this county. I have observed you at County Commission meetings and find this to be par for the course. You demand to have the questions framed in a method that will justify your answer. If the questioner refuses to comply, you simply attack the questioner. As everyone knows, these ad hominem attacks are one of the basic fallacies of logic....

Excuse me, but to not understand that there is an extreme difference between the FireFighters' UNION, and the firefighters, is a big over site.

I've attended most of the BCC meetings when Alan Osborne spoke on behalf of 170 homeowners and their families. I can somewhat see how you might perceive Alan's position the way you do, but from my point of view, Alan has stuck to the facts, and it was the BCC and their Interim Attorney who were making him, jump through hoops, so that they could avoid the real question. Perhaps the UNION for the Firefighters have a similar attorney who tries to word the questions in such a way that they cannot be completely answered without candidate knowing more information. I haven't seen the questions, but I recall word problem math tests in elementary school, where the correct answer was: "not enough information given to know the answer."

SWProfire:

As I mentioned above, it might be even more powerful for your organization and helpful to others if you were willing to share reasons why your group voted to support the candidates you are. I realize it was based on a questionnaire and some additional live questions. Could you at least share with us the questionnaire and candidate's responses from those who did respond?

Our issues:
Knowledge of our District and the fire service in general.

Knowledge of established standards relating to adequate fire department staffing levels.

Candidates view on the need for safe and up to date life saving apparatus and equipment.

Candidate view on improvements needed in the local fire service.

Candidates view on fire district funding.

Candidates view on the local impact of service consolidation.

Candidates view on firefighters right to be actively involved in political action while off duty.

Candidates views on firefighters right to due process and to bargain in good faith for Fair and competitive working conditions, wages and benefits for firefighters.

Were these the "questions" asked, or are these just items of interest?
Anyone can have views on those subjects, and the subjects are very broad, yet, a candidate's responses have nothing to do with that which you state in a previous post, that your decision to support a candidate is based on proving himself in the past.

I'd like you to post the actual questions. By refusing to do so, you are ripping the credibility sheet from under your feet.

I'm beginning to wonder if the Fire District Board members have something to do with the UNION's decision to back particular candidates.

Our local politics follow a similar paradigm in that we endorse candidates who have proven their support of these ideals throughout their term, and not just talked about it during their campaign.

I guess I am even confused as to why the questions would be asked to any new candidates running, who had not previously held office, since your Union "endorse(s) candidates who have proven their support of these ideals throughout their term, and not just talked about it during their campaign."

What kind of political action? Isn't the fire department/district non-partisan?

Isn't due process guaranteed by law? Is the SWFD a closed shop? Are they allowed to strike as part of the bargaining process?

From where I am standing, it looks like the firefighters in question are not supporting candidates as part of the SWFD. They are supporting the candidates as part of the local firefighters union, no different that any other union and more power to them.

As for your second question, it has not been played up in Sowal as it has in other localities, but there is currently legislation regarding collective bargaining and unions for fire and police that have been introduced in Congress. Let me repost the local union link and I would recommend you looking at the bottom of the page from the firefighters point of view. http://www.local3516.com/

As you can imagine, there are many local governments that are actively fighting against some of the legislation for a variety of reasons, including costs. I have heard about it in a couple of other states where I currently work. It's not a simple cut and dried issue, and I don't claim to know the facts. What I do know is that it is much bigger than it seems on the surface and local governments in Tennessee and North Carolina use the word "bankruptcy" and "huge tax increase" when they discuss it. I am not surprised that it would be part of the process the local union is using for their decision making.

Excuse me, but to not understand that there is an extreme difference between the FireFighters' UNION, and the firefighters, is a big over site.

Of the 86 firefighters eligible by law to be in our labor organization, 85 are.

So, contrary to your statement, there is not an extreme difference between the firefighters union and the firefighters. You can spin it anyway you like.

We are not a closed shop. Every member has the right to join or not join. All but one are members. This is because being a member gives them even more opportunity to actively help this community.

What kind of political action? Isn't the fire department/district non-partisan?

Isn't due process guaranteed by law? Is the SWFD a closed shop? Are they allowed to strike as part of the bargaining process?

I do believe that the fire district and the firefighter's union are two separate entities. From what I have seen in the past, people think they are one and the same. As stated in a past posting, the firefighter's union is funded by the membership. They can do what they feel like with their own money.

SoWalProFire, I guess you will next tell me that Teachers Unions are the same as teachers. Unions are after the things which benefits unions. Regardless of 85 of 86 firefighters joining the union because of peer pressure or promises for higher wages, the Union is not the same as the firefighters.

I am a Realtor, not part of a union, because I am self-employed. Every year, Florida Association of Realtors automatically includes a fee on the bill to pay for PACs (Political Action Committees). One has to deduct that fee if they don't want their money to go toward the PAC. To say that Realtors are the same as the Florida Association of Realtors is not similar to what you are saying about the firefighters and their Union, but it is far from the truth. More often than not, I disagree with the stance of the Florida Association of Realtors. I will add that the Emerald Coast Association of Realtors (ECAR) endorses candidates, and while I am a member of ECAR, I don't necessarily agree with their choice of candidates. I haven't seen their endorsements this year, and I was pleased to see that ECAR hosted a Meet the Candidates forum without endorsing any particular candidates.

Say what you want about unions working for their members, but unions work for the unions.

Now back to my question, which you chose to skip -- Why does your union send out questionaires to candidates who have no previous voting history, since your Union "endorse(s) candidates who have proven their support of these ideals throughout their term, and not just talked about it during their campaign?"

I guess I am even confused as to why the questions would be asked to any new candidates running, who had not previously held office, since your Union endorses candidates who have proven their support of these ideals throughout their term, and not just talked about it during their campaign."

Sorry for the confusion. I just assumed that it would be clear to you that candidates who do not currently hold office have not had the opportunity to "prove" their support by action. So we let them "prove" their support by answering and signing a questionnaire, which they submit back to us. This is important because this puts in writing for all to see, where they stand on our issues. If a candidate chooses not to answer the questionnaire, it simply means that he or she does not wish our support of his or her campaign.

We do not hold it against anyone who does not wish our support. We simply do not support them. Fair enough? Our signs don't say "you are wrong for not supporting our candidate". They state, rather simply, "Firefighters Support (candidate name) for (Office)". We fully support your right to vote for whom ever you choose.

This whole thing started with someone asking why firefighters support political candidates. I believe that question has been answered repeatedly. It is starting to feel like a bit of a witch hunt. So carry on if you like, but I am done here.

So, use your American right to vote for whom you chose and we firefighters will do the same thing, collectively based on our own values, ideals and beliefs.

SoWalProFire, I guess you will next tell me that Teachers Unions are the same as teachers. Unions are after the things which benefits unions. Regardless of 85 of 86 firefighters joining the union because of peer pressure or promises for higher wages, the Union is not the same as the firefighters.

I am a Realtor, not part of a union, because I am self-employed. Every year, Florida Association of Realtors automatically includes a fee on the bill to pay for PACs (Political Action Committees). One has to deduct that fee if they don't want their money to go toward the PAC. To say that Realtors are the same as the Florida Association of Realtors is not similar to what you are saying about the firefighters and their Union, but it is far from the truth. More often than not, I disagree with the stance of the Florida Association of Realtors. I will add that the Emerald Coast Association of Realtors (ECAR) endorses candidates, and while I am a member of ECAR, I don't necessarily agree with their choice of candidates. I haven't seen their endorsements this year, and I was pleased to see that ECAR hosted a Meet the Candidates forum without endorsing any particular candidates.

Say what you want about unions working for their members, but unions work for the unions.

Ok, it just became clear that you have no idea what you are talking about.

My firefighters union local is completely autonomous. We answer to no one but our own membership. Our Executive Board is made up of elected dues paying members who act at the direction of the rest of the dues paying membership within South Walton Professional Firefighters Assoc. Period. When you say that unions work for the unions and not for the members, I wonder who you think the "unions" are.

Furthermore, if you doubt our commitment to the safety and well-being of the members of this community as being our top priority you need to do a lot more research. After having done so, if you have any self respect or decency, I doubt that you will come back and try to sully our name and astound us with your ignorance again.

I haven't seen the signs. May I ask who the firefighters have chosen to support?

Anyone who agrees with the union apparently! :roll: