THE 18 SAFETY ISSUES, AND UNION'S RESPONSE

YES I HAVE IT!! Here are the "18 Safety Issues" Haman REFUSES to divulge, and with Union Fire Co.'s responses, you'll see why!!

Members of the Bensalem Township Council, we as members of the Union Fire Company appear before you tonight to address the “18 points” made by Director of Public Safety Harran that resulted in him shutting down the Union Fire Company in June of this year. Please note that we only received this information from Director of Public Safety Harran last week. These were only provided to us after we told him we would come to you to receive them if he would not provide them to us. After he gave them to us last week, he refused to discuss them with us. He told us he was moving forward and would not discuss them. How can he refuse to discuss issues that caused him to shut down an emergency service?
When Director of Public Safety Harran publicly shut down our fire department he said he did so due to safety issues that endangered the public and the fire service. We would now like to review with you these safety issues that endangered the public and the fire service since he refuses to address them with the Union Fire Company.

1. Chief Troisi has not attended a Chief’s meeting since February 2010.
Response:
Chief Troisi was working night work at the time. He did make sure an officer from the Union Fire Company was present at the Chief’s meetings and provided the information to Chief Troisi.

2. In early 2010, the Union Fire Company refused the assistance of the daytime fire inspectors while only having two of their personnel on Engine 37.
Response:
When Chief Jerri asked Director of Public Safety Harran to clarify this statement, Director of Public Safety Harran refused to answer Chief Jerri.

3. In January 2010, I (Director of Public Safety Harran) requested detailed information regarding Union Fire Company and the attempt to purchase a large boat that cost approximately 1 million dollars, for which Union had a grant covering ¾ of the cost. Union Fire Company would not respond to my request for information. I again requested this information on January 26, February 10, March 23, June 25 and August 6.
Response:
The Union Fire Company began assessing their marine response capabilities in 2005. In 2006, it was confirmed that the Union Fire Company was undersized, under equipped and underpowered to safety operate on the Delaware River. The Union Fire Company had no fire suppression capabilities and was unable to provide the minimum medical attention due to the lack of space, facilities and equipment on their marine units. The units were over 25 years of age, the smaller unit being over 40 years of age.
Chief Troisi advised the Public Safety Director of the department’s finding and its decision to update its marine response capabilities. Chief Troisi continued to update the Public Safety Director about this project. There was no input from the Department of Public Safety. The only response from the Director of Public Safety was ridicule and statements that the Union Fire Company would not receive funding.
When the Director of Public Safety asked for information regarding the new marine unit in 2010, the Union Fire Company provided the name of the of the manufacturer and the general specifications as the final specifications were not completed.
When the Union Fire Company requested a copy of the SAFER grant application the township made it was refused. Chief Troisi told Director of Public Safety Harran that he would be glad to exchange a copy of the Union Fire Company grant for a copy of the SAFER grant. Director of Public Safety Harran refused to provide the fire company with a copy of the SAFER grant (and continues to do so) and threatened to shut the Union Fire Company down if they did not provide a copy of the grant to him.
When the Union Fire Company provided a copy of the grant the following occurred:
1. The Deputy Director of Public Safety contacted the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA) and requested that they cancel the grant award. The representative from PEMA that spoke with the Deputy Director of Public Safety stated that PEMA was not involved in the grant process.
2. The Deputy Director of Public Safety then contacted the Maritime Exchange for the Delaware River and Bay (the fiduciary agent for the Port Security Grant Program) and told them that the township wanted the grant award cancelled. This did not work.
3. The Deputy Director of Public Safety then contacted the Maritime Exchange for the Delaware River and Bay and advised them that the township did not have the matching funds for the grant award. The Maritime Exchange for the Delaware River and Bay then contacted Chief Troisi. Chief Troisi confirmed that the township was not part of the grant process and was not responsible for the matching funds. These funds were coming from the Union Fire Company and not the township.
4. A member of the Fire Marshal’s staff approached the Mayor in the township building in front of several members of the public and told the Mayor not to permit the Union Fire Company to obtain the new marine unit. This member of the Fire Marshal’s office has no responsibility for marine unit operations. The Mayor properly told this staff member that the project was being coordinated through the Union Fire Company and was not costing the township anything.
5. Director of Public Safety Harran told the Mayor and Union Fire Company that the liability insurance for the new marine unit would be too costly. Union Fire Company then learned that the township was not paying any liability for their current marine units. The Union Fire Company stated that they would pay the liability insurance for the new marine unit.
6. The Director of Public Safety would then add additional costs to the township’s Workmen’s Compensation insurance. The Director of Public Safety stated to the members of Union Fire Company that the volunteer fire companies and crossing guards are the groups with the most Workmen’s Compensation insurance claims. What this has to do with the new marine unit is unclear to the Union Fire Company. The Director of Public Safety believes that the new marine unit would increase Workmen’s Compensation claims.
7. The Director of Public Safety then claimed that he feared the Union Fire Company would run over jet skiers with the new marine unit as a reason not to get the new marine unit.
8. The Director of Public Safety and/or his staff filed complaints against the grant award with FEMA which was unfounded.
9. The Director of Public Safety and/or his staff filed complaints against the grant award with the Department of Homeland Security which was unfounded.
10. The Director of Public Safety contacted the Pennsylvania Yacht Club and told the members of their Board of Directors not to assist the Union Fire Company with housing our new marine unit at their facility.
11. The Director of Public Safety was instructed by the Mayor in front of members of the Union Fire Company to stop interfering with the grant. Since that time the Director of Public Safety and the Deputy Director of Public Safety filed a complaint against the grant with the F.B.I.
It should be noted that this is occurring even though serious discrepancies with the township SAFER grant regarding information contained in the application have not been addressed. The Director of Public Safety REFUSES to discuss any information within the SAFER grant application with members of the fire service.

4. In February 2010, Union Fire Company was on location at a building fire for nearly 30 minutes before realizing that the building next door was on fire. During the incident, they initiated a procedure that made it unsafe for firefighters on the scene.
Response:

The Union Fire Company responded to an alarm condition on Camer Drive. Unknown to the Command Staff or the members of the Union Fire Company was that a business located two businesses over from the one they had been dispatched to had a previous arson attempt. The Director of Public Safety was aware of this information but chose not to share it with the members of the Union Fire Company. The building that was on fire had no working alarm system. Had the Union Fire Company been made aware of this previous attempted arson attempt at the commercial business located two businesses away from the dispatched location the fire would have been found sooner. MORE IMPORTANTLY, the members of the Union Fire Company and additionally dispatched companies would not have been placed in unnecessary danger resulting from the lack of this critical information. This failure by the Director of Public Safety to provide critical safety information to the Union Fire Company placed the members of that fire company in unnecessary danger. This IS a safety issue that endangered the members of the fire service. This safety issue was created by the Director of Public Safety and endangered the membership of the Union Fire Company. When the Union Fire Company addressed the issue with the Director of Public Safety he stated that he does not release information about active investigations. Is the investigation of an arson fire more important than the safety of the members of the Union Fire Company? This became more alarming when it was learned that members of the Cornwells Fire Company had been made aware of the first arson attempt by a staff member of the Fire Marshal’s office.
5. In June 2010, all fire departments were advised by the township that they would be audited. Union fire Company had their attorneys question the township’s reason for the audit.
Response:
The fire company questioned the township’s insistence that the fire companies pay for the audit. Not the reason for the audit. In fact, the township agreed with the Union Fire Company and agreed to pay for the audit.

6. I September 2010, during a building fire, a Union firefighter engaged in an unsafe practice.
Response:

Chief Jerri asked Director of Public Safety Harran for additional information so that any safety issue (if it did occur) could be addressed. If there was an unsafe act performed by a Union Fire Company firefighter in September 2010 why it was not brought to the attention of the Command Staff of the Union Fire Company until August 2011? And when Chief Jerri asked for clarification, why did the Director of Public Safety refuse to discuss it?

7. On September 25th, 2010 the township EMA board arranged training for all Emergency Service commanders within the Township. Everyone was in attendance except for representation from the Union Fire Company.
Response:
The Union Fire Company should have had someone at that training session. The Union Fire Company should have requested a training program outline for that program to ensure that its Command Staff was up to date on township training. The Union Fire Company is now requesting a copy of the training outline for that program from the township.
It should be noted that the township has recently held a township wide training program. The Union Fire Company received no notice of this training program. The Union Fire Company is now requesting a copy of the program outlines for this recently held program.

8. In October 2010, the Union Fire Company began to respond aggressively to fires without proper manpower so that they would arrive on scene before the paid firefighters.
Response:

The Union Fire Company has always responded aggressively to fire calls. The claim that the Union Fire Company responded without proper manpower is not true. The fire company responded with the available personnel counting on the members of the Fire Marshal’s office to fill out the staffing. As it was understood by the Union Fire Company members of the Fire Marshal’s office responding in non-firefighting vehicles were to assist fire apparatus when they arrived on the fire ground.

9. On October 24th, 2010, at the scene of a trench rescue, a Union Fire Company chief Officer used extremely unsafe maneuvers during this rescue.
Response:

The Chief in charge of the on scene rescue operations is a member of the Bucks County Technical Rescue Task Force. If someone observed “extremely unsafe maneuvers” during the course of this rescue, why was it not brought to the attention of the Union Fire Company immediately? When asked to discuss what “extremely unsafe maneuvers” occurred, the Director of Public Safety refused to answer. If there were “extremely unsafe maneuvers” how can they be corrected if they are not identified and discussed?

10. On January 4, 2011 Engine 222 and Station 37 were dispatched to an incident. Station 37 recalled Engine 222. While Engine 222 was on recall, Station 37 returned to their station to pick up additional manpower to assist them instead of using personnel from Engine 222.
Response:
Director of Public Safety Harran refused to address this issue. Chief Jerri researched January 4, 2011 and came up with three calls that occurred during the time Engine 222 was in service.
1. An alarm system in the Salem Harbour apartment complex. Union Fire Company scratched on the call.
2. An alarm system in the Salem Harbour complex. A Union Fire Company chief officer arrived on scene and determined that it was an accidental alarm. The Union Fire Company chief officer recalled the assignment.
3. Marine incident. Union Fire Company was dispatched for an unoccupied paddle boat on the Delaware River. Union Fire Company handled the assignment with training personnel from its marine unit.

11. On March 3, 2011 Squrt 37 and engine 222 were dispatched to a water flow alarm system. Squrt 37 responded with inadequate manpower, made the establishment of water supply and did not connect to the building’s sprinkler system as required by regulation.
Response:

Squrt 37 arrived on location and DID connect to the sprinkler system after establishing a water supply. This was accomplished with the aid of a member of the Bristol Borough fire service. Engine 222 responded inadequate manpower (less than 3). Both engines were supported by staff from the Fire Marshal’s office arriving on scene in non-firefighting vehicles. The member of the Bristol Borough fire service that assisted with the sprinkler connection is available for interview or to provide a written statement regarding this incident.

12. On March 3, 2011 after confirmed building fire, Chief Troisi arrived on scene, then left to respond to an alarm system where additional companies had already been dispatched.
Response:
Chief Troisi arrived at the confirmed building fire; however he had not assumed command. The Union Fire Company did address this issue with Chief Troisi. This issue was not brought to the attention of the Union Fire Company until August 2011.

13. On April 4, 2011 the Mayor and myself, along with presidents and treasurers of the fire companies had a meeting to discuss some issues. Within 24 hours, these issues were posted on the internet.
Response:

There were five other fire companies present at this meeting. There is NO evidence that the information was posted on a site owner or operated by the Union Fire Company or any of its members. Further, there is no evidence that a member of the Union Fire Company provided this information to anyone outside of the fire company.
When asked by our president what the meeting was being called for, the Director of Public Safety refused to provide any information. When our officers arrived at the meeting along with the other five fire company representatives we learned that due to a failure by the Director of Public Safety to complete a plan for the paid daytime only fire department, they would have to take funding away from the volunteer fire companies to pay for this mistake. To the date of this meeting, we have nothing in writing to tell the six volunteer fire companies exactly how much money will be taken from the six volunteer fire companies to pay for this mistake.
In fact, there is still no township ordinance to legally allow this fire company to operate.
When Chief Troisi raised concerns about the township’s ability to pay for the daytime only paid firefighters, the Director of Public Safety refused to respond to the concerns.
This is NOT a safety issue. In fact, if this was a reason used by the Director of Public Safety to shut down the Union Fire Company it is without any evidence that we stand accused and is nothing more than retaliation.

14. On April 19, 2011 members of Station 37 responded with blue lights to an incident which had already been recalled 5 minutes prior.
Response:
Once a firefighter receives an alert over his/her pager of an alarm they respond to the fire station to man the apparatus. During their response from the point their pager was activated they have no communications with the dispatch center. The firefighter would not learn of the recall UNTIL he/she arrived at the fire station.
It becomes a great concern to learn that the Director of Public Safety does not understand how the alerting system works for the fire service in Bensalem. If he did, this would not have been an issue. It should also be noted that this was not brought to the attention of the Union Fire Company until recently. When Chief Jerri requested to discuss this issue with the Director of Public Safety, the Director of Public Safety refused to discuss it.

15. On April 19, 2011 Chief Troisi delayed the supply of water to the crew of Engine 222 on an interior fire attack.
Response:

First the Director of Public Safety accused Chief Troisi of refusing to give water to the paid fire company. When this was found to be untrue, the Director of Public Safety Harran then stated that Chief Troisi delayed giving water to the paid fire company. When this was found to be untrue, the Director of Public Safety changed it to a “miss communication”.
The Chief of the Croydon Fire Company advised the Director of Public Safety that he was present when Engine 37 arrived and immediately gave its tank water to Engine 222, the Director of Public Safety refused to take his statement. The Chief of the Croydon Fire Company advised the Director of Public Safety that he had video evidence that Engine 37 immediately gave water to Engine 222, the Director of Public Safety refused to take the evidence.
When the Union Fire Company presented overwhelming evidence that Chief Troisi immediately gave water to the paid fire company, the Director of Public Safety stated he would clear Chief Troisi’s name and the name of the Union Fire Company as long as it did not make him and the township look bad. To the date of this meeting, this has not been done.

16. On April 19, 2011, two individuals who were not firefighters were permitted to enter a fire area on an active fire scene wearing incident command vests. It was later determined that these individuals were friends of the son of a Union Fire Company officer.
Response:
The persons in question were probationary firefighters acting as department photographers.
When the Union Fire Company provided photographic evidence of unsafe acts performed by a member of the Bensalem Rescue Squad to the Director of Public Safety and asked for the matter to be addressed; the Director of Public Safety responded that the member of the Bensalem Rescue Squad was an experienced firefighter. The fact that he was photographed inside a structure fire without ANY protective equipment including Personal Protective Equipment (turnout gear) did not matter to the Director of Public Safety. When the Union Fire Company presented photographic evidence of a junior firefighter being at the scene of the same building fire the Director of Public Safety refused to address the issue. Despite this being against township police which states junior firefighters can only respond to assignments within their companies local.

17. On April 19, 2011 Deputy Chief at a Chief’s meeting was questioned by the other 5 chiefs regarding a matter concerning the Union Fire Company and he refused in a rant to answer the other chiefs. The chiefs voted at that meeting, in a 5 to 1, not to support Union Fire Company regarding the incident.
Response:
The issue in question was the fact that the Union Fire Company wanted to establish a 911 Advanced Life Support Ambulance and a transport service responding out of its station. This ambulance service would address the township need of additional ambulances (daily outside ambulances respond into Bensalem to handle emergencies that Bensalem EMS was unable to respond to). This would improve service to the community, THERE WOULD BE NO ADDITIONAL TAX FUNDS REQUIRED FOR OR REQUESTED BY THE UNION FIRE COMPANY FOR THIS SERVICE and provide additional revenue for the Union Fire Company to support the fire company and its personnel retention programs.
Since the Director of Public Safety forced the Union Fire Company to abandon this project, the ambulance that had been placed in the Cornwells Fire Company to address issues regarding response to the lower section of the township has been removed.

18. Union Fire Company continually fails to submit background checks for new members as required; as early as last week.
Response:

Union Fire Company continues to provide a list of new members to the Director of Public Safety.

The fact that this information was the excuse for the Director of Public Safety to close the Union Fire Company and jeopardize the safety of the public SHOULD be of grave concern to the members of the Bensalem Council.
The Union Fire Company further notes that the Director of Public Safety has been harassing a member of our fire company who has a disability.
The Director of Public Safety stated in a letter to our member and our department that he/she ‘was a danger to the public and the fire service”. The letter stated that the member could not be involved in firefighting or administrative duties. The Director of Public Safety further stated that the member could not be a member of our fire company because of Workmen’s Compensation issues.
Our department checked with our attorney who researched the American’s with Disabilities Act. As long as our department made reasonable accommodations for the disability and the member operated within the limitations of his/her disability there would be no issue.
The Director of Public Safety then sent in writing that the insurance company requested the medical records for our member. When the Director of Public Safety was requested to place the fire company in direct communication with the insurance company he admitted that it was he and not the insurance company that wanted our member’s medical records.
The Director of Public Safety then requested a note from our member’s personal doctor stating what our member was permitted to participate in. The note was provided to the Director of Public Safety.
The note was provided to the Director of Public Safety.
The Director of Public Safety then requested that our member take a physical. Our member agreed to take the same physical that all our members take.
The Director of Public now wants our member to take a fitness examination that no other firefighter is being required to take.

Now that this is all out in the open for all to see...........


TRY LYING YOUR WAY OUT OF THIS ONE HAMAN!!