Author Topic: Region 1 group boundary rationalisation proposal  (Read 23459 times)

Offline Alex

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 675
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Region 1 group boundary rationalisation proposal
« on: September 14, 2009, 11:11:56 PM »
filtered hell boys, lets all get over it. there is an RCR directory that decides where everyone goes... this was signed off on by all services... now grow up, we cant all have all the gear and be into everything.


Eeeerrr... and isnt the latest that east torrens gets disolved and merged with other groups in the giant reshuffle anyway? Then you can all be friends, no little empires to protect.

Offline jaff

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 848
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Region 1 group boundary rationalisation proposal
« Reply #1 on: September 15, 2009, 12:01:08 AM »
Eeeerrr... and isnt the latest that east torrens gets disolved and merged with other groups in the giant reshuffle anyway? Then you can all be friends, no little empires to protect.


You must have waaaaaaaaay different mail too mine!
Just Another Filtered Fireman

Offline Alex

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 675
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Region 1 group boundary rationalisation proposal
« Reply #2 on: September 15, 2009, 12:25:21 AM »
so we havent all seen the little map yet? made its way to us at training tonight and wow...  although im sure its not exactly what will end up happening, some very interesting things to be seen. for those in region one with no clue what im talking about, think 12 groups being reshuffled into about six.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2009, 12:27:55 AM by Alex »

Offline Zippy

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,540
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Region 1 group boundary rationalisation proposal
« Reply #3 on: September 15, 2009, 02:01:15 AM »
Thats gonna stir more scheiße than it will remove.

Offline Alan J

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 516
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Certified Flamin' Nuisance
    • View Profile
Region 1 group boundary rationalisation proposal
« Reply #4 on: September 15, 2009, 02:28:01 AM »
An interesting map to be sure, to be sure.
Some of it made no sense at all. Random squiggly lines on a map designed to
provoke "discussion" perhaps?  Other bits might be what should have happened
10 years ago but didn't.

I'd say 6 groups in R1 is unrealistic ambit claim by the bean counters.
Intolerable workload on groupies. Serious North Tce parking lot material if
forced through.

8 or 9 groups is more realistic, allowing for a South Coast Group, and some
randomly altered squiggly lines in the north.

Who remembers the recent Regional Directive that command-cars-present-with-
strike-teams can/may/will-be-commandeered-by-the-IMT-for-management-purposes ?
Now imagine 1/3 of R1's group vehicles eliminated from "the system" by a stroke
of an administrative pen. And also the Groupies who did the work.

Same is planned/proposed for the other 5 regions, or so the story goes.
All in the name of cost cutting.

Meanwhile, the political capital tied up in hideously expensive leased aircraft
continues to grow. As I understand it, we could have an extra 6 or 8 AT802Fs
with the money that goes into leasing a single Aircrane. Enough to give first response air cover to the mid north & riverland, not just SE, MLR & EP.


Alan J.
Cherry Gdns CFS

Data isn't information.  Information isn't knowledge. 
Knowledge isn't wisdom.

Offline mattb

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 420
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Region 1 group boundary rationalisation proposal
« Reply #5 on: September 15, 2009, 08:49:53 AM »
I saw the map last night, seems very interesting.

Merging the Mawson and Kyeema Groups (ex Happy Valley who now end up in Sturt Group) would create a Group doing around 1500 jobs a year, who would want to be the Group Officer of that ?? Not to mention the Group Finance or Admin officer. You would really want a paid support person to be doing a lot of that of admin stuff for a group of that size, your looking after about 500 people!!

Offline Zippy

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,540
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Region 1 group boundary rationalisation proposal
« Reply #6 on: September 15, 2009, 08:58:01 AM »
I saw the map last night, seems very interesting.

Merging the Mawson and Kyeema Groups (ex Happy Valley who now end up in Sturt Group) would create a Group doing around 1500 jobs a year, who would want to be the Group Officer of that ?? Not to mention the Group Finance or Admin officer. You would really want a paid support person to be doing a lot of that of admin stuff for a group of that size, your looking after about 500 people!!

Yeah that is very unpractical...

500 people....thats out of volunteer league,  thats over half of the MFS personnel..

Offline jaff

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 848
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Region 1 group boundary rationalisation proposal
« Reply #7 on: September 15, 2009, 09:26:09 AM »
MODS suggest you create another thread "Region 1 group boundary rationalisation proposal" as the current flavour of this thread has changed from original post and this current subject will gather steam!
Burnside being part of East Torrens should stop the nuff nuffs fighting! :-D
Just Another Filtered Fireman

Darren

  • Guest
Re: Region 1 group boundary rationalisation proposal
« Reply #8 on: September 15, 2009, 11:30:20 AM »
Well if they want 6 groups they can staff them with paid staff and leave us vols to fight the fires, you can't expect a volly to manage a super group..........

Offline Alan J

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 516
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Certified Flamin' Nuisance
    • View Profile
Re: Region 1 group boundary rationalisation proposal
« Reply #9 on: September 15, 2009, 08:50:09 PM »
Imagine how much money could be saved by installing paid Groupies - people
answerable to the minister rather than the vols...

"We want to buy a..."
"NO"

"We need a..."
"NO"

:evil:

Then there is the reduced time impost on Regions & HQ in arguing / discussing
issues with vols. The hired lackey does what they are told.  I'd suggest it
would all need to be handled verrrry carefully to avoid a walkout by a large
number of those pesky volunteers...


Alan J.
Cherry Gdns CFS

Data isn't information.  Information isn't knowledge. 
Knowledge isn't wisdom.

Darren

  • Guest
Re: Region 1 group boundary rationalisation proposal
« Reply #10 on: September 15, 2009, 09:19:24 PM »
Maybe they wouldn't mind losing those pesky vols, they don't like us now, so what would it matter if we walked out  :-(

Offline jaff

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 848
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Region 1 group boundary rationalisation proposal
« Reply #11 on: September 15, 2009, 09:51:19 PM »
Well if they want 6 groups they can staff them with paid staff and leave us vols to fight the fires, you can't expect a volly to manage a super group..........



Here we go already now Darrens group is a "super group", well I bet my group will be superer, maybe even the superest! :-D
Just Another Filtered Fireman

Offline Zippy

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,540
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Region 1 group boundary rationalisation proposal
« Reply #12 on: September 15, 2009, 11:03:15 PM »
I can hear it now,  Adelaide Fire, This is ACDC Group Duty Officer Over...

Offline Alex

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 675
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Region 1 group boundary rationalisation proposal
« Reply #13 on: September 15, 2009, 11:59:34 PM »
Maybe they wouldn't mind losing those pesky vols, they don't like us now, so what would it matter if we walked out  :-(

Aaah Darren, i know why your upset... I would be to.

Offline jaff

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 848
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Region 1 group boundary rationalisation proposal
« Reply #14 on: September 16, 2009, 10:56:04 PM »
So being a glass half full kinda guy(slow drinker :wink:), what would be the positive aspects of the rationalisation?
Just Another Filtered Fireman

Darren

  • Guest
Re: Region 1 group boundary rationalisation proposal
« Reply #15 on: September 16, 2009, 11:44:07 PM »
Errrrrrrrm, save on stationary and GO taxi's (Group cars) ?

Less GRN talkgroups?

Less group AGM's for Region staff to attend ?

Offline Alan J

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 516
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Certified Flamin' Nuisance
    • View Profile
Re: Region 1 group boundary rationalisation proposal
« Reply #16 on: September 17, 2009, 12:50:19 AM »
Fewer GO's to argue with, and take up precious paid staff time, on irrelevancies such as response capability & community safety...  :evil:
Alan J.
Cherry Gdns CFS

Data isn't information.  Information isn't knowledge. 
Knowledge isn't wisdom.

Offline Zippy

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,540
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Region 1 group boundary rationalisation proposal
« Reply #17 on: September 17, 2009, 08:50:21 AM »
Fewer GO's to argue with, and take up precious paid staff time, on irrelevancies such as response capability & community safety...  :evil:


I hope for the 13 Brigade Groups, that Two Group Officers & 4 Deputies come into existance...and a north/south duty officer system.   A Single person just cant keep up with the going on's with 13 separate brigades...

Offline PJ

  • Forum Firefighter
  • **
  • Posts: 30
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Region 1 group boundary rationalisation proposal
« Reply #18 on: September 17, 2009, 11:44:12 AM »
so we havent all seen the little map yet? made its way to us at training tonight and wow...  although im sure its not exactly what will end up happening, some very interesting things to be seen. for those in region one with no clue what im talking about, think 12 groups being reshuffled into about six.

is the map and the proposal available electronicaaly so that it can be posted here for all to see or is this just CJM RC1 wanking on again?
The biggest mistake you can make is doing it wrong AGAIN!

Offline Baxter

  • Forum Senior Firefighter
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • ho ho ho its fire fighting time
    • View Profile
Re: Region 1 group boundary rationalisation proposal
« Reply #19 on: September 17, 2009, 07:05:42 PM »
is the map and the proposal available electronicaaly so that it can be posted here for all to see or is this just CJM RC1 wanking on again?

A bit harsh PJ

I hope that the idea flows to the rest of the regions as some of the regions have some group boundaries that just don't make any sense no more. With councils that have amalgamation and the change in funding the old boundtries just don't cut it.

Then again it is the spring horse racing carnival upon us so it would not be surprising some power jockeys have decided to mount up for pleasing their need for control.
keep it simple for sanity skes please

Offline firegun

  • Forum Firefighter
  • **
  • Posts: 41
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Region 1 group boundary rationalisation proposal
« Reply #20 on: September 21, 2009, 12:35:37 PM »
Interesting concept.
Some comments from a Volly NOT in Region 1.
i understand the concerns raised re some body looking after brigades doing 1500 jobs a year and perhaps loosing some command cars etc.
on the other side some good comments re the number of GO regions would have to "deal" with etc. might make it easier for all to operate

When you have such a large diversity in number of brigades in groups i can understand why such a proposal has been floated (i expect it to go to all regions in due time)I think one of the smallest groups has 4 brigades(5 appliances) (2 command/ logistical vehicles) up to the largest with i think 20 brigades (23 appliances) and 4 command/ logistical vehicles. The "balance" is just not there.

The point raised re no one would want to be the GO etc in "super" groups all boils down to 2 words

Delegation and
Management

The GO needs to Manage the group, and he needs to delegate responsibilities out to others.(not happening in some groups)

Now i know these comments will cause some discussion but that is what this forum is for isn't.?


Offline fridgemagnet

  • Forum Firefighter
  • **
  • Posts: 26
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Region 1 group boundary rationalisation proposal
« Reply #21 on: September 21, 2009, 01:35:56 PM »
Simple answer to the problem is start all over again. Don't both consulting with group as they are just protect themselves start with the Brigades as they know who are like minded in their ways.

In fact the CFS may already have the data in terms of those incident statistics so they have a tool to confirm what the brigade say.

BUT this is the biggie so floating the nice idea and now provide the real facts rather than the hot air blah blah blah. If you say you are going to do it then do it. We  don't need any more hot plasters as we have plenty of them called politicians!

Offline PJ

  • Forum Firefighter
  • **
  • Posts: 30
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Region 1 group boundary rationalisation proposal
« Reply #22 on: September 21, 2009, 04:02:59 PM »
So back to my question . Is there a map & document available electronically that can be posted here or is this all bull shite? (see picture)ephemeralthoughts.com/tag/humor/

So far no-ne has provided any evidence to suggest otherwise! At the moment it is all being tossed around with huge amounts of emotion etc.

I think before long, daisies and other plants will be growing out of this thread due to the high amont of fertiliser.

There you go the challenge is out there to prove me wrong :evil:

The biggest mistake you can make is doing it wrong AGAIN!

Offline Alex

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 675
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Region 1 group boundary rationalisation proposal
« Reply #23 on: September 21, 2009, 04:20:49 PM »
PJ - the map and theory behind it exists... don't know about an electronic copy floating around, or if only the groupies have the handout.

Offline tft

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Region 1 group boundary rationalisation proposal
« Reply #24 on: September 21, 2009, 04:24:39 PM »
All group officer should have a copy of the map, that went to the meeting.