Topic

firefighters

13 petitions

Update posted 18 hours ago

Petition to Waltham City Council President Diane LeBlanc

Prevent Another Major Fire in Waltham

In August 2017, Waltham suffered the worst fire in the modern history of the city when five luxury apartment towers at the corner of Cooper & Elm Streets went up in flames while under construction. The developers have refused to meet with citizens while claiming that they will rebuild. The city councilor for the ward, Robert Logan, has refused to meet with us as well. Citizens of the City of Waltham, please sign this petition asking the Waltham City Council to prevent the redevelopment of this site and to have Councilor Logan—who took donations from the developers and their attorneys in 2014—recuse himself from the vote, which he did not do when the project was first permitted by the City Council that year. The fire at Cooper and Elm Streets was so large because the council allowed it to be overdeveloped. The subsequent fire placed the lives of first responders at risk. It placed the lives of elderly citizens who live next door at risk. It placed the lives of disabled people at risk. It placed one of the most historic structures in the Boston area at risk. There were concerns about this development from the start, when it came before the council in 2014. As reported at the time the council fast-tracked the review process anyway, over the objections of two of their fifteen members as well as a number of expert municipal employees. The council moved so swiftly, they never even informed neighbors that they were going to vote on the project before they approved it, which is against the law. They then had to re-take the vote, and again allowed it to proceed by a wide margin. The entire effort was led by Councilor Logan, who received donations to his campaign, but never recused himself from the vote. The fire in August potentially spread hazardous material from the dirt below—the site was long-contaminated and there is no evidence of remediation—into the air. It caused substantial damage to the elderly housing next door. It incinerated a neighboring business. It also spewed noxious materials into the Charles River. Councilor Logan quickly took to the airwaves to denounce the method of construction, and he did interviews for the newspaper. Yet he never disclosed that his campaign accepted funds from the same builders who used that method of construction. When constituents asked for meetings, he cancelled on them. So did the developers. When we held one anyway, he didn’t respond or come. Now, it appears that the developers wish to rebuild at the site, without having addressed any constituent concerns. On Thursday, September 7, the executive vice president for the development company stated that they were going to proceed and rebuild exactly the same project in the same location using the same building materials in the reconstruction. Developers should not be able to buy off our politicians with impunity. Politicians should not be able to put the citizenry at risk. That is just what they are poised to get away with all over again. Therefore, we ask Council President Diane LeBlanc to (1) Initiate the process to revoke the developers’ permit to use the site as previously approved, due to safety, fire apparatus-access, density, and building materials concerns. (2) Set in motion a process to prevent the over-development of the site as previously approved. (3) Require that Councilor Robert Logan (Ward 9) disclose all financial ties, past and present, personal and as a political candidate, to any people with a financial stake in the purchase or sale of the parcels that now comprise Cooper and Elm Street, including their representatives past or present. (4) Require Councilor Logan to recuse himself from all future votes on any items that relate to this property, directly or indirectly.

Donald Desrochers
208 supporters
Started 4 days ago

Petition to City of Amarillo, Jeff Greenlee - Fire Chief, Ed Drain - Police Chief

Allow Visible Ink for Skilled City Civil Service Employees - Ink Does Not Define Integrity

City of Amarillo,   I am an Amarillo native, a local business owner, and a laser tattoo removal technician. I have been removing them for over 3 years in our great city.  Though more recently have I been saddened by current policies that are outdated about what is allowed to be visible on somebody who might be in a patrol car or a fire truck racing to the same wreck.  My father, Ted Winton was a city employee and a firefighter my entire childhood. He woke up at 6:30am, kissed us on the cheek as he left for a 24 hour work shift at the fire station (he worked at 7,9, the airport and the old downtown station too), and I hoped and awaited each following morning that my dad would walk into the door alive or unharmed. He worked incredibly hard to feed our family, he truly loved not just fighting fires, but every call he went on. Stories that would bring your jaw down to the floor and tears to your eyes. He was on the clock when he was there - dialed into his community present for their concerns. There was a shift or two over his 20 year period where he may have been a few moments away from coming home to us alive, would a tattoo have mattered then? But my dad wasn't the only good man waking up and clocking into another shift of serving his city and the people who lived in it.  As I have lasered intelligent, fit and capable people who have been denied positions in this city over tattoos that would be visible and smaller than the size of a business card - I have been saddened and honestly confused. If it's not rascist or gang related - what's the issue?  Would my father have been any less of a fire fighter, father or man if he had my moms name tattooed on his hand? No.  If he hadn't become a fire fighter - would the city have lost out on a man who was aware of structures under distress, motor vehicles and trauma situations for a lesser capable person who just didn't have a tattoo? Yes, they would have.  If that kept him from being on the department 25+ years ago he and the department would have missed out on a unique opportunity to take somebody ready, smart and willing to be the person needed and capable to dispense him out to the incoming calls from a three digit 911 call. Tattoo removal takes time, tattoo removal cost money, and it is a process. It can take 1-7 treatments to remove something truly home made or Amateur and 8-12 treatments to remove something Professional. We like to space sessions out 6-8 weeks apart. This means the people expecting a quality employee canidate to wait over their outdated appearance policies may not be able to join them for over 6 months - 2 years. That means we are missing out on the best new city employees right even now!!! Removing things that wouldn't bug my bible loving 80 year old grandmother if a man in uniform came to help her!  I would rather have a more qualified person in every position than somebody who 'looks' professional. 'Selfless Commitment' to a career that makes this city better shouldn't default to an outdated protocol for how one must look. If your home is on fire, you need to get to a hospital and have been shot or a man is stealing your stuff in the living room - are you going to ask for another man in uniform to help when the first responder who gets to you has a star behind his ear or on his wrist? I don't think so. That is probably the last worry on your mind in the moment. You see the uniform and you know help is here. We are no longer blinded by the stigma that a tattoo equates you instantly to a criminal or a Methhead. This is the Texas Panhandle and yes, we tend to be behind the curve on certain social things, but is this really something that needs to continue to be an issue?  I'd like to see better policies for our city employees who do put their lives on the line each and every shift in this city. It's almost 2018 and it blows my mind that this is still an problem and that we are denying quality employees the opportunity to serve this very moment. Civil Service men and women in larger cities and all over the nation have been lucky to have these policies changed or updated to current feelings about tattoos or ink. I know I am one of many citizens who feels the way I do. When most any man or woman in a full uniform on a call shows up, they are often 75% or more covered when they arrive to help.  Most importantly the character of a person who has the ability to take care of this city with the demands of the physical, mental and emotional - should not be defined by ink that isn't outright offensive. Please join me, sign and share this petition so we can too update our policies and have better more qualified people serve our city.  Lydia Marsh  Owner | Professional Laser Tech Progress MD  5461 McKenna Square, Suite 104 Amarillo, Texas 79119

Lydia Marsh
3,401 supporters
Update posted 1 month ago

Petition to Bill de Blasio, Charles Schumer, Kirsten Gillibrand, Andrew Cuomo, Andrew Lanza, James Oddo, Deborah Rose, New York City Department of Transportation, Melissa Mark-Viverito

Name a S.I. Ferry after Firefighter and hero John G. Chipura (USMC, FDNY, NYPD, BSA).

We recommend that one of the future Staten Island Ferries in the Michael Ollis Class be named after Firefighter John G. Chipura, a Staten Islander who sacrificed his life in response to the World Trade Center attacks on September 11, 2001. We are blessed that we have a multitude of heroes in this great city who serve with distinction and honor. On 9/11 alone, we lost 343 members of the FDNY, 23 members of NYPD and 37 members of the Port Authority Police department - many of them from Staten Island. Any of these heroes deserves the honor of having a Ferry named after them, so what makes John G. Chipura uniquely deserving? John was a Staten Islander who lived a life of service and died a hero of this city, of this state and of this great nation.  In his name, John’s life of service continues after his death. John started his service at a very young age by joining the Boy Scouts of America - Troop 21.  John had a lifelong commitment to the Scouts, eventually became an Eagle Scout and Assistant Scout Master.                              John joined the United States Marine Corps. and was on active duty in Beirut, Lebanon when the Marine Corps. barracks was bombed on October 23, 1983.  Although knocked unconscious from the blast, John survived. John lost 241 "brothers" in that terrorist attack and remained steadfast in his duty and service to his country. The United States Marine Corps. Facebook page features a quote from John, "We Marines are truly blessed. We get to enjoy the sweet taste of freedom because we know its price." John was a proud member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion, the Iwo Jima Association and the Beirut Veterans Memorial Association. He served two tours in this war-torn area before receiving an honorable discharge in 1984 and returned to Staten Island with a hardened resolve and an even stronger will to help people. John then joined the honored ranks of the New York City Police Department and proudly served as one of the "Finest". With great courage and distinction, John was highly decorated and rose to the rank of Detective in Brooklyn's 72nd Precinct, Brooklyn South Narcotics. Transferring to the New York City Fire Department,  John followed in the footsteps of his father Anthony Chipura, and his brother Capt. Gerard Chipura/ E164, as a member of the "Bravest." John continued his tradition of honor, service, and sacrifice as a firefighter with Engine 219/ Ladder 105 in Brooklyn. On 9/11/01, John answered the call and sacrificed his own life so that others might live. While John's life is over, his legacy continues through his foundation http://www.johngchipurafoundation.org Through fundraising by the John G. Chipura Foundation, he still (posthumously) supports Scouts, Veterans, Firefighters and Police Officers in need.  Throughout the year, members of these groups and civilians from all walks of life, gather to honor John's memory and support the foundation in his name. This keeps the memory of John alive, as well as his duty of service to others. Additionally, an annual blood drive in John's name has saved the lives of countless New Yorkers over the past 14 years by collecting over 1,000 units of blood for the NY Blood Center. John Chipura's amazing life story represents the distinguished honor and dedication to this country that every member of service strives to achieve. Naming the Ferry in his honor will remind people from all over the world of the heroism John Chipura embodied in all walks of his service. From the Scouts, to the Marines, to the NYPD and the FDNY, John lived his life in service of his city, his state, and his country. It's hard to find a more fitting role model to bestow this honor on.  Thank you for signing.

John G. Chipura Foundation
6,491 supporters
Update posted 5 months ago

Petition to Texas State Senate, Texas State House, Joan Huffman, Don Huffines, Lois Kolkhorst, Mike Schofield, Dwayne Bohac, Joe Straus, Larry Phillips, Texas Governor, Ted Cruz, Barack Obama, John Cornyn, Michael McCaul

ALLOW TEXAS 1ST RESPONDERS, WHO MEET MINIMUM CRITERIA, TO CARRY A CONCEALED WEAPON ON DUTY

Fire and EMS first responders routinely respond to the same violent incidents that police officers do. While they typically endeavor to await the arrival of law enforcement prior to entering a known dangerous scene, they operate in an extremely dynamic field and even the most innocuous sounding "sick call" can rapidly turn into a violent incident. Evidence of this can be found in two studies (McGuire et al, 2009)* which showed that pre-hospital emergency medical services providers are 7 times more likely to be murdered on duty than all other healthcare providers. It also showed that Fire and EMS first responders are 22 times more likely, than the working public at large, to sustain injuries in a violent assault that leave them unable to return to work for their next shift. There are many other studies that support these findings, as well. I do not see this as only a problem for EMS providers around the nation, it is also a very real problem for me personally. While responding to a night club shooting where law enforcement was inaccurately reported to be on scene, my crew walked into an incident that turned violent in seconds. We were lead to believe that the scene was secure, yet suddenly I found myself face to face with an armed man who stood behind the kneeling members of my crew and individually held a pistol to the back of each of their heads. Had he decided to kill us, we would have had no recourse except to await our turn to be shot. These scenes have played out hundreds of times around the both Texas and the country. Every day that our first responders lives are placed in the hands of agencies who yield to political correctness and financial liability over their right to defend themselves, quite literally brings us one day closer to the next severely injured first responder. Or even worse, the next flag draped coffin. Currently The great State of Texas allows first responders to carry on duty but it also allows for an employer to restrict or prohibit their employees from exercising their right to carry. Most employing agencies prohibit their employees from carrying on the job for fear of liability. This concern is addressed in the language of the proposed bill. A simplified explanation is included below** as well as a link to an informational YouTube video***.   *McGuire et al. "Occupational Fatalities in EMS: A Hidden Crisis." & "The Epidemiology of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses Among EMS Personnel"   **On Duty Concealed Handgun License (ODCHL) Proposal I. I would like to propose that on duty first responders (FRs) be permitted to exercise their right to carry a concealed weapon for self defense. A. Currently Texas law grants FRs the right to carry but their employers can restrict or prohibit them from exercising that right. II. I propose increased training requirements, at the candidate’s expense. This curriculum would include the prerequisite of obtaining a standard Texas license to carry and then additional training in the following subjects (est. 40 hrs), to be permitted to carry on duty: A. De-escalation techniques B. Cover and concealment of both person and weapon (tactical thinking) C. Consequences of improper use D. Small arms training: i. Instinctive shooting ii. Tactical shooting iii. Shooting & moving iv. Low light shooting v. Shoot/don't shoot drills "Hogan's Alley" III. Current Texas laws prohibit the carrying of a concealed weapon in several specific locations. A. These exceptions to CHL rights should not be affected by the ODCHL endorsement if the card carrier is off duty. B. While on duty, and functioning under exigent circumstances, the ODCHL endorsement should supersede location restrictions. i. The Supreme Court ruling in 'US vs. Lopez' showed that the states have the right to set where, and by whom, those restrictions can be set or abandoned ii. The exceptions to that rule would be federal installations where 'US vs. Lopez' is not applicable iii. For these rare possibilities, as well as for fire incidents, a secure location should be provided for storage of a firearm. (Approx. $40 per unit retail) iv. The on duty exception for First Responders with an ODCHL would be similar in Tex30.06 to the FR exemption provided in Tex30.05 IV. Agency indemnification/Municipal limitations of liability A. Language should grant first responder employing agencies immunity from civil liability B. Exceptions to this rule include: Negligently failing to reasonably provide for first responder protection. Examples include: i. Failure to send law enforcement on a known dangerous situation ii. Failure to send law enforcement assistance in a timely manner when on scene units request help iii. Failure to provide accurate available information to responding units (ie. Dispatching a fire/EMS unit to a known shooting but sending it as a "Medical Problem".   ***Informational YouTube Video: https://youtu.be/hLQqZly3gsc

Christopher McAllister
3,427 supporters