8/14/2019 NY B13 U EMT Fdr- 10-2-02 McAllan Letter Re Radios- Politics- Controversy 041

1/2

Static Over The Police Radios!Abou t a week ago Channel Two aired a news piece about the Fire Department Adm inistrationeliminating the NYP D division radio freque ncies on the new portable radios they are issuing to theNYC EM S units. The piece touched on the obvious fact that direct commu nication between EM Sambulances and PD sector cars help to improve EM S am bulance response times by pinpointing theexact location of a patient and so forth.Fire Commissioner Scopetta released a statement that of course saw it the other way. In fact variousFire Com missioners have com plained for years that the EMS ambulances have "freelanced" in thefield. While freelancing may be a problem at times, no Com missioner has wanted to deal with thatissue directly while seeing to it that our EM S crews enjoyed the maximum safety possible fromcarrying NYPD division capable portable radios. N o doubt the new Fire Commissioner w as listeningto the same alleged FDN Y Com munications specialists who have so scarred the NY C Fire Departmentwith their scandal plague d Motorola d igital portable radio purchases ov er the last several years. Yo uhave to hand it to the survivors in the Fire Administration, they are specialists are tearing down NYCEM S systems that aren't broken.Given the abov e, a little EMS/Police Rad io history is in order. In Febru ary 1981, then EMS ExecutiveDirector James Kerr had NYPD issue a directive that EM S units were no longer permitted to signNY PD portables out of the precincts. Given the fact that the NYPD and EMS were only in the earlystages of com puterized 911 dispatching, these police radios then helped a great deal in reducing EMSrespons e times to critically ill or injured patients. There was an imm ediate uproa r over the no PDRadio Directive from both EM S w orkers and the Police Officers in the field. Your writer, along withother EM S workers, gave an interview to Channel Seven's Milton Lewis. I said that the loss of thesePolice Radios would delay serious calls reaching the EMS ambulances and that "Taking away th epolice radios will cost people their lives." The uproar was so great that in a matter of days the Citygave in and the EMS units could once again sign NY PD portables out of the precinct. W ithin threemonths (May of 1981), EM S issu ed its first "gag order" that said that EMS personnel could not talk torepresentatives of the news m edia without the prior permission of the EMS Execu tive Director.To EMS/HHC's credit, as newer Motorola portables becam e available that could accommo date morefrequencies, EM S had NY PD division frequenc ies installed in the replacement EM S radios so thatevery EM S unit would have NYPD comm unication capability in an emergency. So what aboutemergencies? W ell, as I have said befo re, I was assaulted in the back of my am bulance by a drunkdriver I had jus t picked up. If it w asn 't for a quick thinking partner and a civilian, I wo uld have beenseriously injured. What radio did I use to get us 10-85 help on? You know the answerI used theNY PD division portable radio.Now I 'll admit that the FDN Y Adm inistration has been slick in allowing the EM S units the capabilityto transmit to a secondary NY PD city-wide dispatcher. But as every one knows, this is not the same asbeing able to transm it and receive on NY PD d ivision radio in an emergency. Given this fact, onecould assume that the FDN Y Adm inistration doesn't care about the EMS personnel having the bestpossible safety available in the field. O r, since the FDNY Adm inistration has published OperationsOrders prohibiting EM S Dispatchers from requesting NY PD ESU to the scene of an emergency, wemight also assume that FDN Y doe sn't want the EMS field units speaking to the NY PD about theemergencies we have been assigned to and/or requesting ESU to respond to same.

8/14/2019 NY B13 U EMT Fdr- 10-2-02 McAllan Letter Re Radios- Politics- Controversy 041

2/2

The Local will tell you that th e FDNY Administration possesses th e management r ight to screw thingsup . These management rights do indeed apply to the FDNY Administration screwing up their day-to-da y managem ent decisions when it comes to NYC EMS (or Fire) operations. How ever, th e nature an dscope of the FDNY Ad ministration 's portable radio scandal sets th e purchase an d implementation ofth e new FD NY portable radio system apart as an extraordinary threat to EMS/Fire worke r safety.Under the NYS Taylor Law any union has the right to question management decisions when thesedecisions have a "practical impact" on the members ' safe ty .Unfortunately, th e Local 's files are overflow ing with incidents where our m emb ers have been seriouslyassaulted by patients. I also provided the Local with copies of the 1996 NY Daily New s Articleentitled "Medics Sud denly Find It Is Dodg e City" where two NYC EM S Paramedics w ere pinneddown in front of a Pitkin Avenu e building by gunfire from the Zodiac Killer. These quick thinkingParamedics w ere able to get shelter in an apartment but had to phone in for help because they couldn'tge t out on their radio. There are man y other stories of our mem bers being shot at , threatened with aknife or gun, assaulted by patients or others, having an accident, and so on. Often our mem bers gothelp in these situations with the aid of NYPD division portable radios.To the Lo cal 's credit , they did file a charge with the NYS Office of O ccupational Safety and Healthwhen FD NY started to take th e Division frequencies out of our portables last year. They also filed agrievance against th e same unsafe practice. W hile I certainly supported these steps, what could th eLocal have done if it really wanted to be effective? First of all, M r. Bahnken, as a Vice President ofDC 37 , could have had the Local 's collective bargaining representative, DC 37, file in New York StateSupreme Court for an injunction m aintaining th e status quo until th e NY PD division radio arbitrationwas com pleted. W hile there is no guarantee of success in Court, given the life and death safety issueof NYC EMS units having division radio capability and the fact that EM S units have had the samedivision radio capabilities without serious problems fo r twenty y ears t ime, an injunction pendingarbitration may well have been granted.This type of injunction would simply maintain the status quo un til an arbitrator ruled in the portabledivision radio dispute. The arbitration w ould focus on the whether th e safety of NYC EM S employeeswere being com promised because of this change in EM S/HHC past practice . Given all the dangersthat EMS workers face in the field, and the nume rous incidents where E MS workers have either beeninjured and/or threatened w ith serious bodily injury, one wo uld hope that an arbitrator would side w iththe EMS workers and order that NYPD division frequenc ies remain in our portables. O f course, theLocal would have been free to bring in NYC PBA mem bers and/or EMS workers from otherjurisdictions to testify before the arbitrator about the various dangers they have faced in theirrespective jobs and how eme rgency coordination was the key to enhanced safety in the field.Given the life and death nature of the remo val of NY PD division portable frequ encies from our radios,I for one wanted th e Local to leave no stone unturned in its efforts to protect our members' safety inthe field. But that is not what your Local wanted to doso now we have FDNY comprising our EMSworkers' personal safety with the new radios wh ile th e Local has merely covered it s backside in thislife an d death portable radio dispute. Think about that th e next t ime you're in trouble in the field andyou don't have NYPD division radio frequencies in your portable radio.

Respectfully Subm itted by Richard J. M cAllan, EMT -P rmcallan@ asan.com Oct. 2, 2002