CLARIFY FDNY HELP POLICY

Clarify FDNY Help Policy

A story in last week's issue about Debbie Reeve, a Paramedic who died of cancer March 15 at age 41, featured a detail that made her passing seem even crueler.

Her husband David, who is also a Paramedic working in the Fire Department's Emergency Medical Service Bureau, at one point during her illness learned of the FDNY Help Van that transports firefighters to medical appointments. He arranged to have his wife added to the list, but then got a call one evening from a light-duty firefighter who, after taking some information from him, said that he was only authorized to transport firefighters.

Mr. Reeve responded angrily and then hung up without pursuing the matter further. Several EMS employees told this newspaper's Ginger Adams Otis that the light-duty firefighter was merely stating department policy. A spokesman for Fire Commissioner Nick Scoppetta said that FDNY Chief of Operations Sal Cassano has begun an inquiry into the incident, but he added that there may be some confusion about two departmental programs that deal with injured or ill employees. The Help Van, the spokesman said, is used primarily when transporting to and from the hospital those who are injured in the line of duty, and its personnel often handle logistical arrangements with hospital staff.

FDNY employees - civilian workers as well as uniformed EMS personnel and firefighters - can take advantage of the department's Family Transport program in cases where either the employee or family members need to be driven to medical treatment facilities on a regular basis. This program is offered to employees regardless of whether the injury or illness occurred on the job, and so the question of whether Ms. Reeve's cancer was the result of her work at Ground Zero in the days following the World Trade Center attacks would have been irrelevant.

The spokesman emphasized that the Help Van program does not distinguish between firefighters and EMS members, citing the case of one Emergency Medical Technician who was seriously injured in a crash several years ago as someone whose family was able to utilize the program during the days before he succumbed to his injuries.

And so it is possible that the assertion by some EMS employees that a distinction is made comes from a combination of lack of awareness about the regulations governing the two programs and the mistrust some in the bureau feel toward the FDNY. As readers of this paper's letters pages have noticed from the heated, sometimes vitriolic exchanges between firefighters and EMS employees in recent months, tension exists between the two groups.

For the most part, however, there is a mutual appreciation for the diverse and demanding work each performs; the bitterness is primarily the result of EMS employees' unhappiness that neither the salaries nor their pension benefits come close to those of firefighters, and some firefighters' reluctance to handle medical duties as a backstop for EMS.

There should be no distinction in cases where medical assistance is needed, particularly when the situation is as serious as it was for Ms. Reeve. And so we would hope that when Chief Cassano completes his review of what led to her being denied transport, one of the steps that is taken is to issue an unambiguous statement about what arrangements are made in such cases and how to participate in the programs.

The wrenching difficulty that is endured by both employees and their loved ones during such situations should not be compounded by the belief - justified or not - that the FDNY and those working in its help programs are making transport decisions that benefit just one group of workers.

No More Appeals, Governor

The ruling last week by the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court upholding a lower court's order in the Campaign for Fiscal Equity case should be the last stop in the judicial process and the impetus for Governor Pataki and the Legislature to finally give the city public schools their fair share of state aid.

It was at the appellate level, after all, that Mr. Pataki previously won his only victory in the 13-year-old case. It was one that, ironically, left him mightily embarrassed when the majority opinion suggested that the city public schools under the aid formula in effect were fulfilling their duty by giving students the equivalent of at least an eighth-grade education. As obtuse as Mr. Pataki has consistently been on this matter, even he understood that a standard that low was not going to further his political ambitions.

In the three-plus years since that misguided ruling, the Court of Appeals - the state's highest judicial body - set aside the appellate finding, the trial judge in the case, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Leland DeGrasse, affirmed his earlier ruling and made recommendations on the appropriate aid increases, and the more recent appellate panel has essentially upheld his decision.

Any further appeal by the Governor should be viewed as a transparent attempt to continue avoiding responsibility for shifting a large increase in state aid to the city schools. It is pure political calculation, since Mr. Pataki's electoral strength has always rested outside the city, and the state has a large-enough budget surplus to begin living up to its obligation.

Editorial RSS feed