I don't, but I guess that's because no other union has bothered to apply for one. In theory, and according to state law, any group like the PUD union or even the teacher's union could apply to have their own plate created. All you need is enough signatures and money.

The last I heard (and this has been a while ago) the Washington State Volunteer Firefighter's Association was looking at creating their own license plate as well. Don't know if that went anywhere or not.

You are correct Wally. Here is the RCW that authorizes the plate. The WSCFF lobby was obviously hard at work.

RCW 46.16.30901

The department shall issue a special license plate displaying a symbol, approved by the special license plate review board, for professional firefighters and paramedics who are members of the Washington State Council of Firefighters. Upon initial application and subsequent renewals, applicants must show proof of eligibility by providing a certificate of current membership from the Washington State Council of Firefighters. The special license plate may be used in lieu of regular or personalized license plates for vehicles required to display one or two vehicle license plates, excluding vehicles registered under chapter 46.87 RCW, upon the terms and conditions established by the department.

I guess Pat Glebe met with and came to some agreement with Aberdeen FD...less $$ than before.

This one annoyed me, major budget cuts on all State agencies, DOC included, and trying to save money was the right thing to do. Would have been great for Westport, too.

Simpson and FD still live on in my mind as bullies. Mr Glebe, by the way, is a class act.

It looked to me like Westport was being used as a pawn to get leverage with the city of Aberdeen. The DOC was happy to give Westport a reduced payment, knowing that any call that was beyond Westport's capacity would be answered by Aberdeen anyhow. When they perhaps wouldn't get the response they wanted, they recommended that Westport back out of the deal. They're getting what they want, professional service at volunteer prices. Now, how does that make anyone in Aberdeen the bullies?

Harborknight, your facts are all wrong, but it is academic now. The DOC was not using anyone as a pawn. It was just trying to reduce its costs for a service. Westport was willing to do it for a reduced price. Then Aberdeen and its IAFF members protested and caused Westport to back out, or lose 4 of its volunteers, who happened to be IAFF members and employed at a private ambulance company. The end result is that DOC now gets the service for the same price it was willing to pay Westport and Aberdeen gets to keep about 60% of the revenue that it would have lost had Westport been left with the contract. In my opinion, the City of Westport got screwed, but not by DOC.

Harborknight is pretty much right on. DOC was well aware of mutual aid and the fact that Aberdeen FD pretty much had respond anyway. So why pay more when you can get it for free.

Since you weren't involved in the process (except maybe in the end when Hoquiam thought about making a play for the contract until Hoquiams own unions told the city no - this info came from your own city staff btw) then you really wouldn't know everything that was said or done now would you.

Fact is Aberdeen would have been more than willing to work with DOC from the beginning. After 10 years of cooperation and service DOC chose to not even contact Aberdeen in any meaningful way to find out what the city would be willing to do in order to help. No warning or even a chance to match any offer. A two line email was pretty much the only correspondence.

Regarding the union the city had nothing to do with that. No matter what Michael Bruce might think the city does not control the union. You of all people should know that. The first most within elected city government heard about it was after the union already filed its complaint.

Just like to add that a few weeks back you attacked union members for being hypocrites, etc for being volunteers themselves. I checked. For the most part none are members(can't speak for Hoquiam).

It was explained to me by union membership that being a member of any volunteer fire department that has any paid members or contracts with a paid department is discouraged and if found out the member is told to resign their volunteer position.

I was told there were a few newer ones that may not have resigned yet. That was still being checked on last time I asked.

Now obviously without going down the entire list and checking it against the membership of every volunteer department I have no idea if every single member is following this but according to what I've been told it is accurate.

All I know about some of your firefighters being volunteers elsewhere is what I have been told by people who should know. I recognzie that it might be a small percentage that are volunteers, but supposedly it is against the IAFF bylaws -- period. I know for a fact that some of the Hoquiam firefightgers are volunteers in Montesano, and elsewhere. Apparently, the union turns a blind eye to that. Either it is a violation of the union bylaws to volunteer, or it isn't. They can't have it both ways.

And your information about Hoquiam making a play until the union said "no", is BS. I don't know which "city staff" told you that. The union doesn't tell the administration what to do over here. Granted, they try. Administration (mainly the fire chief) did not believe that it was in Hoquiam's best interest to contract to perform fire services so far outside the City limits.