Page 2 of 3
Re: SLH comments on Firefighters Union position in support of Issue 64
Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2016 12:28 pm
by Brian Essi
The silence from the opposition on key flaws in their narrative is telling.
And I thought that Chief Gilman was here to set the record straight.
Once again, it seems that Lakewood 's finest protectors of our community have been abandoned by their leadership.
Re: SLH comments on Firefighters Union position in support of Issue 64
Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2016 1:20 pm
by Pam Wetula
Lori Allen _ wrote:I think everyone missed one important point here. If you allowed the Certification Verification certificate to completely download, you will see that Chief Gilman does not appear to be a certified paramedic in the state of Ohio at this time.
Why does he appear then, to be the medical spokesperson for City Hall and the Fire Department? Nine years without a paramedic license is a big gap!
This is not meant to be a personal attack on Mr. Gilman, however, it does make one question his medical and EMS credibility concerning the medical and EMS information he has been been telling all over town.
Lori,
It appears that Mr Gilman recently activated his EMS certification. The question remains as to why he would be the spokesperson when he has no hands on training in all these years. Every aspect of healthcare & Emergency response has had some sort of change or upgrade since 2007. The equipment, techniques & even diagnosed illnesses have changed. I looked into this a number of months ago when Scott Gilman stated at the city Council meeting that all the Firefighters in Lakewood were paramedics. I was shocked to find that all the surrounding communities had Fire Chief's WITH EMS & sometimes EMS Instructor Certifications & Mr. Gilman had let his lapse in 2007.
While he certainly can read the changes in a book without the certification, there is NO way to compensate for the lack of hands on training.
It is certainly disappointing that the Firefighters would endorse for 64. As we saw in the video last year by 3 young Lakewood paramedics, they KNOW an ER not attached to a hospital brings a host of troubles for patients who need EMS services.
Vote AGAINST 64
pam
Re: SLH comments on Firefighters Union position in support of Issue 64
Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2016 2:47 pm
by Lori Allen _
Pam,
Now that is interesting. The certification certificate above was just looked at last night shows that his paramedic certification is inactive and has been since July of 2007. Actually, I just checked now and the paramedic certification on file with Ohio EMS still says inactive and expired since 2007. May I ask where you heard that Mr. Gilman only recently re-activated his EMS license? Has this been checked and certified through the State of Ohio? When was this re-activation? Was it before or after he apparently became the medical spokesman for City Hall? If it really was suddenly re-activated, why the sudden interest to do so? Was it because of all the scrutiny?
Also, did Mr. Gilman actually say at a council meeting that ALL Lakewood firefighters are paramedics? If that is the case, that seems to be outright false. There are numerous firefighters that have worked for Lakewood for a long time and are "grandfathered in" and are not required to have the paramedic certifications.Therefore, saying that ALL Lakewood firefighters are paramedics would be false. They cannot be grandfathered in without a license.
Also, not all paramedics and firemen agree with Summers and his Company. I have met at least two that have told me, off the record, that this is a bad deal.
Re: SLH comments on Firefighters Union position in support of Issue 64
Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2016 3:24 pm
by Lori Allen _
Pam,
I think whomever told you that Mr. Gilman recently re-activated his license was feeding you a line. I made a telephone call down to the Ohio Department of Public Safety - Division of EMS to verify what I saw online (in case it was out of date). The employee informed me that Ohio EMS has no record of Mr. Gilman having taken the paramedic exam recently or even signing up for the paramedic exam. She also informed me that Mr. Gilman's paramedic license indeed expired on 7/7/2007. His license is so expired that in order for Mr. Gilman to renew or "re-activate" his paramedic license, the State of Ohio would require him to take the entire paramedic course and exam over again.
Re: SLH comments on Firefighters Union position in support of Issue 64
Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2016 3:30 pm
by Peter Grossetti
Just about the same time Ed FitzGerald stopped renewing his driver's license?

Re: SLH comments on Firefighters Union position in support of Issue 64
Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2016 5:27 pm
by Pam Wetula
Lori Allen _ wrote:Pam,
I think whomever told you that Mr. Gilman recently re-activated his license was feeding you a line. I made a telephone call down to the Ohio Department of Public Safety - Division of EMS to verify what I saw online (in case it was out of date). The employee informed me that Ohio EMS has no record of Mr. Gilman having taken the paramedic exam recently or even signing up for the paramedic exam. She also informed me that Mr. Gilman's paramedic license indeed expired on 7/7/2007. His license is so expired that in order for Mr. Gilman to renew or "re-activate" his paramedic license, the State of Ohio would require him to take the entire paramedic course and exam over again.
Lori et al,
I stand corrected. Scott Gilman's Safety Inspector was renewed. He STILL is not certified as an EMS provider or instructor. I was told he was and took a quick glance at Lori's download and I misread the chart.
Your Fire Chief has no hands- On EMS training since 2004 and that certification expired in 2007.
Thanks Lori
Vote AGAINST 64
Re: SLH comments on Firefighters Union position in support of Issue 64
Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2016 7:25 pm
by m buckley
Pam Wetula wrote:
Your Fire Chief has no hands- On EMS training since 2004 and that certification expired in 2007.
Vote AGAINST 64
Oops!
Well that's awkward.
Re: SLH comments on Firefighters Union position in support of Issue 64
Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2016 8:17 pm
by Kate McCarthy
m buckley wrote:Pam Wetula wrote:
Your Fire Chief has no hands- On EMS training since 2004 and that certification expired in 2007.
Vote AGAINST 64
Oops!
Well that's awkward.
Just did a cursory look at area fire departments and have yet to find another fire chief that is not a certified paramedic.
Re: SLH comments on Firefighters Union position in support of Issue 64
Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2016 8:21 pm
by Bridget Conant
Kate McCarthy wrote:m buckley wrote:Pam Wetula wrote:
Your Fire Chief has no hands- On EMS training since 2004 and that certification expired in 2007.
Vote AGAINST 64
Oops!
Well that's awkward.
Just did a cursory look at area fire departments and have yet to find another fire chief that is not a certified paramedic.
Funny, you can say the same about our Finance Director. Virtually all area municipal finance directors are CPAs, or have extensive backgrounds and education in finance or accounting, except for Lakewood!
Hmmmm.
Re: SLH comments on Firefighters Union position in support of Issue 64
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2016 10:24 am
by Lori Allen _
Bridget,
You bring up a good point.
Lakewood has a Finance Director that is not a CPA.
We now find out that the mayor's medical and EMS spokesperson, Chief Gilman, is not even a licensed paramedic in the State of Ohio, and according to State EMS, is not qualified to be doing what he appears to be doing.
We hire convicted criminals.
I believe Summers and Extended Company hired some of these people for a specific reason!
Several of us here in Lakewood know first hand that the majority of our fire fighters and paramedics do NOT back the Mayor's and Gilman's plan. Some find it extremely dangerous! More than likely, it appears it was a forced issue with the threat of the loss of their jobs!
Re: SLH comments on Firefighters Union position in support of Issue 64
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2016 10:30 am
by Bridget Conant
Not forced, Lori. The rank and file firefighter was not asked for their opinion on the matter. It was a "leadership" decision, made for political expediency
Re: SLH comments on Firefighters Union position in support of Issue 64
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2016 10:37 am
by Lori Allen _
Bridget,
I have spoken with a couple of our paramedics and they feel that this CCF plan is a disaster and puts person's lives at risk. Will they be able to speak their minds for our local news stations? Are they allowed to put an Against 64 sign in their yards? Were they ever allowed to speak at a community event or at a City council meeting?
I believe that Summers, Gilman and others are allegedly extorting some of our city employees, which I believe, is against the law!
If city hall would like to challenge this, please bring tangle proof and documentation forward.
Re: SLH comments on Firefighters Union position in support of Issue 64
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2016 10:54 am
by Jim O'Bryan
Lori Allen _ wrote:Bridget,
I have spoken with a couple of our paramedics and they feel that this CCF plan is a disaster and puts person's lives at risk. Will they be able to speak their minds for our local news stations? Are they allowed to put an Against 64 sign in their yards? Were they ever allowed to speak at a community event or at a City council meeting?
I believe that Summers, Gilman and others are allegedly extorting some of our city employees, which I believe, is against the law!
If city hall would like to challenge this, please bring tangle proof and documentation forward.
Lori
I understand your passion, and you regularly prove me wrong.
But, how does City Hall prove they are not doing something?
I really believe the residents need the information, and have a right to know. But have you ever voted for something because some group of people you do not know backed it?
While you do underline a much larger problem, a City Hall that is out of control, and has little regard for residents.
I hate getting sidetracked on one small part of the larger problem.
.
Re: SLH comments on Firefighters Union position in support of Issue 64
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2016 11:09 am
by Lori Allen _
Jim,
I sometimes wonder just where you really stand on the issues that are facing our city. I don't really think you understand exactly all that is going on. Yes, I believe that there is alleged extortion going on within city hall. I was giving city hall time to come up with an answer. Butler will be having a pow wow this afternoon when the Mayor returns to see what their next move will be!
There is a group of us that have put countless hours into researching what is happening at city hall, and in most cases, have the proof. Apparently the mayor has put you in charge of questioning everything I say or do. Is he allegedly extorting you too? Perhaps next time I should let one of the men post!
I guess you will just have to trust us. We are much farther ahead in this investigation than most people think. Trust me, it isn't looking very pretty for city hall!
We will now hear from the macho men's society, the Observer's private group!

Re: SLH comments on Firefighters Union position in support of Issue 64
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2016 11:39 am
by Jim O'Bryan
Lori Allen _ wrote:Jim,
I sometimes wonder just where you really stand on the issues that are facing our city. I don't really think you understand exactly all that is going on. Yes, I believe that there is alleged extortion going on within city hall. I was giving city hall time to come up with an answer. Butler will be having a pow wow this afternoon when the Mayor returns to see what their next move will be!
There is a group of us that have put countless hours into researching what is happening at city hall, and in most cases, have the proof. Apparently the mayor has put you in charge of questioning everything I say or do. Is he allegedly extorting you too? Perhaps next time I should let one of the men post!
I guess you will just have to trust us. We are much farther ahead in this investigation than most people think. Trust me, it isn't looking very pretty for city hall!
We will now hear from the macho men's society, the Observer's private group!

Lori
Thank you for hitting and addressing all the correct pressure points for me.
Lori, I am not sure where I stand on many issues, and as I learn I sometimes I change my mind. I am not a fan of group think, though sometimes it makes sense. I am voting Against 64, because as you know far better than I, he has not been forthcoming in two years, and it is starting to look like there has to be something in there not right.
I am not voting against it because anyone is for it, or against it. It's a bad deal, covered by lies, misrepresentation, intimidation, and everything I loathe about Bad Government.
.