This is a printer-friendly version of an article from Zip06.com.
03/12/2024 04:42 PMNORTH HAVEN
On March 7, the North Haven Board of Selectmen (BOS) heard from residents regarding an ordinance intended to give tax relief to the families of fallen employed and volunteer public service officers to see if it can be expanded to include more beneficiaries.
If adopted by the town, the ordinance would “provide a tax abatement for surviving spouses of firefighters and police officers who died while in the line of duty,” read its language. The ordinance includes abatement for families of volunteer fighters, North Haven Police Department personnel, State Police officers who are North Haven residents, and school resource officers, according to the BOS.
The BOS cited examples of similar ordinances that other cities and towns, such as Greenwich, Groton, and Cromwell, have enacted for families of public safety officers. The BOS is looking to have this resolution adopted at a special town meeting at North Haven High School.
Jennie Caldwell, a member of the Board of Fire Commissioners, asked the BOS to delay a vote on the ordinance to allow more time for discussion and expand its language, viewing the language as restrictive.
Caldwell told the BOS that families of North Haven firefighters who did die directly from a workplace accident, such as perishing in a fire they are attempting to put out, should also be included as beneficiaries of the ordinance. Caldwell spoke on behalf of the Board of Fire Commissioners that the negative health effects that have disproportionately caused firefighter deaths are attributable to being in the “line of duty,” citing a report from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).
“The NIOSH report states…sudden cardiac arrest is the most common cause of firefighter mortality. 44 percent of on-duty firefighter fatalities during the 10-year period of 1995 to 2004 were due to sudden cardiac death,” Caldwell cited in the report.
Caldwell pointed out that firefighters “are exposed to workplace hazards that are associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes,” such as inhaling carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide, and other matter that can cause significant harm to the cardiovascular system.
“Our brave firefighters are at risk for cardiac events on the job because of the work they do, and we should not minimize their sacrifice because a line of duty death that does not occur in the matter is exclusively attributed to a fire,” Caldwell said.
Caldwell disagreed with the BOS that a licensed medical professional should make the determination of a “line of duty death.” This is something that the fire commission believes “displays a lack of understanding of the occupational risks that firefighters risk while doing their job.”
Several members of the audience of citizens agreed with Caldwell that the language should be expanded.
Tom White expressed concern about how relying solely on the analysis of a medical professional who does not possess “fire science expertise” would not reap the most accurate determination of a line of duty death.
“My recommendation is to leave it with the Board of Fire Commissioners,” White told the BOS. “It’s simpler to make that determination with the professionals in the fire department that know fire science and all that’s involved to make a more accurate determination.”
Mary White agreed with Caldwell, specifically a point raised by Caldwell that a line of duty death should include a fatal accident that occurs while an officer is traveling along a road to work, such as if a tree were to collapse upon their car and fatally strike them. She also pointed toward the stress that officers can have due to their work that could lead to negative health outcomes, as well.
“What if we have a firefighter who works a double shift…and in the course of working the shift, there’s maybe a big fire, very traumatic, very stressful…It’s time to go home. He gets in the car and, on the way home has a heart attack from the stress for that particular fire,” said White. “I’m concerned that this individual, their family would not get the benefit because he wasn’t physically on the job, but his body became very stressed.”
After hearing public comment, the BOS decided to push back the originally established date for a special town meeting on Wednesday, March 27 to a later one. They also factored in that this date would coincide with an Inland Wetlands Commission meeting that will see deliberations on the contentious issue of the proposed AB Eco Park waste-to-energy plant.
First Selectman Mike Freda asked his colleagues if they are going to be “disenfranchising many residents who have to pick and choose then which meeting they go to” regarding “two very important issues”
“That’s my concern,” he said.
Freda, who supports the ordinance, said the BOS will contemplate the concerns raised at the meeting before establishing a new date for a special town meeting.
The BOS agreed to table a decision to establish a date for the special meeting and will determine a date at its next meeting on Thursday, April 4.