Skip to content


We Try Harder

No comments

SC-TF1 Demobilizing From Chalmette, LA after Hurricane Katrina, 2005.

I had the opportunity to be part of a test rehearsal for a web conference going on Friday. In one of the questions, we were asked, “If you had to give your department a grade, what would it be?” I was the only one who gave my department an “A”. Of course, when you see that you have made a choice like that, you immediately begin to second-guess yourself.

I was pretty self-conscious about that decision, even though nobody knew who answered each question and nobody would have known it was me that graded us so. I actually thought about it long afterward, in an attempt to understand in my absolute certainty with 10 seconds on the clock, that we deserved the highest mark on a standard grade. It was, frankly, a little presumptuous of me.

The quick answer is that we don’t deserve an “A”. We are definitely customer oriented and we are definitely aggressive firefighters who use best practices and manage our risk appropriately. We are definitely on the leading edge of EMS delivery and while we are not THE organization by which all should be measured, many would be doing pretty well to do so.

But while we are definitely making huge strides and we have many accomplishments, we aren’t where we feel we should be. That is universally agreed upon in our organization. There is just too much to do, and while we are hitting the high priority items, there are so many things we want to do, and have begun doing, but there are only 24 hours in a day and finite resources otherwise at our disposal.

It is for the same reason, perhaps, that I should instead embrace the criticism of some in the knowledge that the minute we stop reassessing our service we become complacent. Don’t believe for a second that I don’t take the criticism personally, because although I shouldn’t, I do. Just as you know all the idiosyncrasies of your own children, you’d never stand for anyone else criticizing them. And, after 29 years of being part of the core individuals who pushed, pulled and shaped what is now known as our department, I have very little patience for the particular individuals who have come along since with a lot of criticism and no substantive contributions. My personal take on it, in fact, is that we have a list of people who would be happy to take their jobs.

Our line of reasoning, however, should be to embrace the constructive criticism that can be drawn from some of the comments. We should always perform self-critique, but self-critique is not self-immolation. We should always be pulling lessons from where we are and where we want to be, and the reason why we aren’t where we want to be. But this isn’t an effort to tell us what a bad job we are doing, but ways in which we need to improve.

The minute we begin to believe we are Number One in the county, the state, the region, or the nation, and we begin to believe we are “The Best”, we (all of us) tend to believe we can’t learn from others or from ourselves. It also demeans the rest of those who do an excellent job providing service with the resources they have in the community they must serve. Of all things, though, it’s pretty presumptuous again to suggest that we are the best at anything other than delivering the emergency services on Hilton Head Island, because really, that’s all that matters.

My own personal vision for our organization is to be one of those departments that others hold up to say, “This is the gold standard. This is how we want to be”. We continue to make leaps in that direction. We are, though, our own worst critics. We need to always be looking out for better ways to improve. Daily, we must try harder.

The effort must be placed on continual improvement. “Zero defects” is a pretty lofty goal, but in our business, zero defects may be the difference between life and death, between going home in the morning or going home in the hosebed of the rig under a pair of crossed aerials.

Never get complacent. Never believe you are the best, at least not for longer than it takes to get to the desired result, then to take a breath, look around, and say, “Where to from here?” The moment we stop, we die. We should always resolve to do better each time we are presented with a new challenge and to dig out whatever lessons we can observe from our current situation. There is no time to dwell on it, though. Digest it, make the adjustment, and move on.

Power of Positive

No comments

I have heard it said that the only reason a bee can fly is because it doesn’t know it shouldn’t. And I am fully aware that this notion has been debunked because those beliefs were originally based on fixed wing aerodynamics, however, I wasn’t interested so much in that as I was in the quote.

I happened to be listening to a podcast of TEDTalks, in particular, the disabled activist Caroline Casey speaking about looking past limitations. It is really a motivating talk when you listen to it and I don’t want to spoil the surprise for you, but the point she humorously makes is that often, the limits on what we can do are ones we have put there ourselves. If we don’t know we have limitations, there’s really no saying that we can’t do something. This of course assumes that whatever it is that you are trying to achieve is possible within the laws of physics; for example, I don’t know if I can or cannot lift a Yugo because I have never tried, but something tells me that it’s not likely. I know I can’t overhead press a Suzuki GS750E, so logically I know certain limits.

But in achieving our dreams, the amazing thing about the human mind is that if we don’t know how to do something, and we are innovative enough and curious enough, we can take what resources we have and solve problems. After all, mankind has been doing this since the invention of the wheel, and our creativity continues to evolve daily with each new thing we know (and each thing we don’t).

As leaders, we have to not just eliminate barriers for our subordinates’ success, but to avoid putting ideas of failure in their head as well. I can think of a number of occasions in my life where I was discouraged from doing something because the individual themselves saw it as “impossible” or “unrealistic”. I know of times where my own vision was belittled by people whom I should have been getting encouragement from instead.

There is a difference between coaching or mentoring to consider timing and resource allocation, or simply looking at alternatives, and complete undermining of your dreams. In my own case, sometimes I wonder what those people say now that I have made some of those dreams possible?

Failure is something to be expected when we are stretching forward. We reach until we slip and fall. But success comes when you learn to recover from failure. If you have to be propped back up every time you get knocked down, it doesn’t build resilience, it builds dependence. A key secret to success is to appreciate the failures for what they are: a lesson. Develop ideas based on those experiences and get back on the road again.

We need to understand that dreams are what positive change is made of. If we aren’t focusing on the hurdles, we won’t be worried about clearing them. And if we happen to hit one of those hurdles, we keep our eyes on the goal and figure out what it takes to get there. Look to the finish line and reap the reward of success.

I’m With Stupid But Not Right At This Moment

No comments

Lifted from the Canyon Lake Fire & EMS Facebook Page

I’m afraid my strategy for capturing the interest of the uninitiated has fallen through, so I’m going to have to return to preaching to the choir.  I guess it’s just as well; I’m not sure I want the lunatic fringe stalking around on my site anyway. It just so happens that I’m in the heart of Texas as I write this, talking about leadership to a class of firefighters at Canyon Lake Fire and EMS.  There are also a few from the Bulverde and Spring Branch departments and they seem like a great bunch.

I have had the opportunity to speak a little about what we should be doing as leaders, as well as what we shouldn’t be.  But regardless of how impressive our team is, we are probably all cursed with at least one individual on our team who simply doesn’t get it.  By saying they are “on the team”, it’s really only in the sense that they are assigned to your team and you haven’t found the way to move them along yet.

There are people out there who are surprisingly reluctant to get with the program.  Its as if they have some delusion that if they buck the system long enough, regardless of their piss-poor attitude, archaic methodologies, or lousy work ethic, some sea change will sweep down and save them from the rest of us.

While in my early days I was not the officer that I am today, I still have always said, if you stay off my radar, we can get along just fine.  While that may be an invitation to the slackers to do what they do best, in fact, the slackers find ways to get right up there in my sights and hoist a billboard pretty much saying, “Come and get me.”

I believe that if we give people our expectations, provide them the resources necessary, and provide feedback as they move along, we can get excellent results.  There are those, however, who are more interested in seeing how far they can push the boundaries.

If we (that is, the team) have a shared vision of excellence and we have a good plan to get there, and doing so is for the benefit of those we serve, and we have the approval of those people as well, what on God’s green earth would make anyone otherwise think that it is okay to steer the team in another direction.  My take on it is that if you are that unhappy, just go.  Find some other idiots who want to sit around and be negative and hang out with them.  I can think of plenty of places to find people like that, if you are looking.

I realize that I don’t have the greatest ideas and to some, they might even sound crazy, but at least I HAVE ideas.  I think, therefore, I am.  Those of us who, instead of sitting around bitching, come up with ways to solve problems, while we may always be chasing at things, we are at least moving forward to do so.

This group here in Texas is very fortunate.  Chief Wherry and his staff seem engaged and professional.  They have a bunch of attentive people who are polite and respectful.  The Canyon Lake department is a relatively young department and they don’t have a lot of baggage.  That being said, they are a department with a lot of growing to do and while the foundation seemed to be intact before we got here and will hopefully be strengthened by the time we are gone, it really comes down to what they do with what we have now given them.  From the best I can tell, I think they will be just fine.

Haters Need Not Apply

3 comments

Sometimes we have to make decisions in a fog. But not always. Take the time to see the whole picture.

The brotherhood of fire and rescue is but a microcosm of the greater part of society.  In turn, a visit to any un-moderated site will reveal that the general public isn’t any better about being civil, so we probably shouldn’t put a whole lot of worry into the declining civility among people who profess to be part of a brotherhood.  It’s just become a norm of our victim society that it’s okay to be self-righteous and it’s okay to go after anyone who doesn’t think like us.

You would think a group of people who profess brotherhood as a redeeming value would be a little slower to throw one of their brothers under the bus when something goes wrong, but as I mentioned in the Tuscon post, that is obviously not the case.  In the event that an individual within our ranks does something completely against the grain of our collective morals, like set fires or engage in child pornography, I am entirely understanding about the emotion involved in that rage.  It is proportionate to the offense.  But since I’m sure you all have heard of cases where the other side of the story ends up being a compelling explanation, we need to take care and exercise caution about expressing our condemnation, because, as we command officers tend to say, the truth actually lies somewhere between Points A and B.

I’m not a hypocrite by any means; I am right there with you.  I just happen to also take a little bit of time to rein in my passions a little.  If you were standing next to me at the moment I got the news of a “firefighter declining to respond to an incident”, I’m sure you’d have seen another side of me.  However, the luxury of the internet is not only real-time event coverage, but the ability to pause before re-communicating your opinion, especially since unless you were there, it is your opinion and based on conjecture, not on tangible evidence.  You might not be able to take back what you just blurted out of your mouth, but you can certainly check yourself before clicking the radio button.  Very few of the stories I hear are actual prima facie cases.  Since these stories unfold so quickly, we often find that there is more to the story that doesn’t get revealed due to the emotions choking the lines of communication.

It brings up the topic of this page, however, since some of the e-mail (I typed in “e-mal” in my draft – was that a slip?) doesn’t seem to agree with me and of course, there are those who can hide behind their pseudonyms in the comments.  While I am sure the act of someone failing to go to an emergency challenged our beliefs in what was good and right about our profession, on lesser occasions, the anger and vitriol for say, someone not wearing their gloves in a picture, is a little over the top.  And I say “a little” in my most sarcastic tone of voice.  Some of the comments from the peanut gallery are also those who, given their profiles, probably haven’t seen too many incidents more challenging than a dumpster fire, and even then, they weren’t even in charge of that.

Individuals these days, in this moment of instantness (you like that?), are quick to react instead of reflect.  They simply don’t have the patience for the whole story.  They want their news, their blogs, their everything instantly and then they act on that information accordingly.  In a time-compressed environment, there is only a moment to digest what we have heard and then to regurgitate it so that we can be the first to make a comment.  The first to comment must be the best informed, right?  The self-appointed subject matter expert?  The one on the inside, right?

For me, I see it in the type of readership I get here at FHZ.  The comments are usually thoughtful and agreeable.  I post every comment, pro or con, so long as it isn’t spam.  And although I may not agree with you, I consider your perspective on the issues as valuable and enlightening.  But I get the impression that the few individuals who have seen fit to be trolls (with one notable exception) haven’t read farther than the first paragraph anyway.  Anything over 140 characters for a lot of these individuals is a lot of wasted time reading.

We don’t do controversy here on this blog.  We are interested in a bigger picture.  If it is an event that is truly worth discussing and there are alternate points of view, we engage in another time-wasting effort: dialogue.  We ask questions.  We pose thoughts.  We engage in critical examination.  We remain open-minded. It’s a little too much for some people, I am aware, but it keeps the riff-raff out.

The readers of this blog generally have proven to be those who I could sit down and have a beer with and talk about something other than the fire service, or have a conversation about the fire service in say, the context of a retail business, or a day care, or the University of Life.  They can see things for more than what is printed on the face.  They possess deeply considered ideas or are able to see that there are advantages to listening to the opposition.  The readers of this blog are those who I consider to be the hope for emergency services to evolve out of the tar pit of whackerdom and rise to the level of professionalism.

If you know of someone who operates on a different playing field than the norm, send them here and ask them to say their piece so we know they are here.  But most importantly, we are looking for readers (and commenters) who have ideas to share and innovative ways of looking at things.  Just because the issue appears to be obvious, it isn’t often the case.  We want to talk with REAL leaders, those of you who consider enlightened leadership to be a desired trait, not a hurdle to our position.  We need engagement, not brick walls. Haters and groupthinkers need not apply.

Strategy

2 comments

From Miyamoto Musashi, “Go Rin No Sho”:

It is said the warrior’s is the twofold Way of pen and sword, and he should have a taste for both Ways. Even if a man has no natural ability he can be a warrior by sticking assiduously to both divisions of the Way. Generally speaking, the Way of the Warrior is resolute acceptance of death. Although not only warriors but priests, women, peasants and lowlier folk have been known to die readily in the cause of duty or out of shame, this is a different thing. The warrior is different in that studying the Way of strategy is based on overcoming men. By victory gained in crossing swords with individuals, or enjoining battle with large numbers, we can attain power and fame for ourselves or our lord. This is the virtue of strategy.

FHZ On The Road – Upcoming Classes through Task Force 1

1 comment

I’ve been really busy getting the home ready for the holidays. In the meanwhile, though, here’s an update on where and when I’ll be in your part of the world:

February 19-20 – Command for Company Officers, Ballardsville FD, Crestwood, KY (near Louisville)

March 8-9 – Command for Company Officers, Canyon Lake, TX

March 10-11 – Incident Safety Officer, Canyon Lake, TX

March 26 (one day class) – Command 101, Johnson City, NY (near Binghamton)

I expect to continue working with Ron Richards and Task Force 1 to present some really dynamic programs.  There are also some real quality courses being presented that I am not teaching, and you can see those class offerings in this link.  and I even have one in the works that I’ll hopefully be offering beginning in late Spring 2011.  If you are interested in having me come teach or speak at your event, I’m happy to work with you, or point you toward Ron who can help set up some really nice programs with multiple instructors, if that’s what you are looking for.

I hope to have a nice post here in a few days when things settle down but it looks as if everyone else seems to be carrying the load right now just fine.  Until then, thanks again for reading and I hope you are having a great holiday season.

Perception

5 comments

We all have a job to do.

When it comes down to it, we don’t really know what’s in the hearts of anyone else, do we?  All we can do is read what people write and listen to what they say and watch their face to see if we are getting anywhere. The internet provides a place where anyone can feel brave and say what they want to say behind the anonymity of a computer terminal without fear of reprisal.

It’s those who feel the need to draw lines in the sand wherever they go that are probably the most disturbing.  Is it fire vs. EMS?  Career vs. volunteer?  East Coast vs. West Coast?  Rural vs. Urban?  European vs. North American? We all have a job to do and the job has different elements depending on where we are, what we are dealing with, and how we perceive the issues at hand.  Why fight about it?

If we were all the same, I could see being able to say who is better, but it’s the equivalent of comparing apples to elephants.  There are similarities in certain facets of the business, but really, as we have said on here a hundred times, emergency service delivery is a very specialized business in your unique community.  There aren’t too many tenders wandering the streets of Manhattan, and conversely, there aren’t many six-man truck companies in rural Arkansas.  Saying one is better than the other is ridiculous; they don’t compare.

Anymore it seems like the nameless and faceless just want to stir up controversy for the sake of stirring up controversy.  Of course, it’s easy to stir up controversy if you have no fear of reprisal.  There used to be a certain argument that the controversy was there to open up minds and to inject fresh ideas, and given some recent posts I have been watching, I am inclined to say that I saw no new ideas or the championing of best practices.  I didn’t see people fighting injustice with their secret identity.  Instead I saw bullies and provocateurs making illogical statements and specifically baiting others, just to get a rise out of someone.

It’s a product of our society, I guess.  We can all be intimately connected yet have enough distance between each other to feel safe.  People bemoan how uncivil society has become, but forget that when we were all cooped up in our little neighborhoods, if someone acted in a manner contrary to the social mores, they became quickly ostracized.  Living in a community with others you had to get along with meant that associating with provocateurs wasn’t safe.  Now we can align with people who espouse all kinds of wild ideas and don’t fear anyone, because really, how will anyone know?

Firefighting and other public safety personnel were always respected because honestly, these people were part of our community too.  We didn’t do things that hurt others because we felt a certain connection to them.  We went to school and church with them.  We were likely related in some form or fashion.  Our parents knew one another.  These days, there’s enough distance that you can be the bully you always wanted to be and hide your 95-pound weakling body behind the monitor.  If you treated people like that in your old neighborhood, you’d likely have the crap beaten out of you.

I believe there is a certain amount of merit to having a pseudonym, if it is used for good, and especially if you know that saying the right thing will have detrimental consequences.  But I don’t see so much of that these days as the other, the troll who just wants to make spurious statements and not have to back them up.  There’s nothing I love more than reading through a thread of meaningless diatribe to find out the idiot on one end is some Junior with the wacker-pack and a keyboard.

If you really want our industry to be recognized as professionals, it requires conduct that is professional.  It requires discussion and exposition of ideas, but it doesn’t have any room for intolerance or illogical thought.  We must remain open to the perspective of others, regardless of whether they are the aforementioned Junior or the saltiest jake on the truck.  But being respective and considerate of other ideas doesn’t mean that we have to lay down and sing Kumbaya if someone is being a troll.  Maybe we need to call some of these people out, or even better yet, ignore them, and perhaps they will go away.  We all have a responsibility to project what we desire in our society as a good example, and to guide the poor examples either toward enlightenment or toward the exit.  In either case, it requires action, not ignorance.

How Far Outside Your Box? Frontiers Around You

5 comments

When this was new, do you think they were saying, "It can't get more modern than this!"

I hate to borrow a line from a commercial, but it got my attention the other day: “People say there aren’t any more frontiers; but there are frontiers all around you.”  The challenge to “think outside the box” was a unique way to describe innovative thinking in the ’80′s, and it was so overdone that everyone cringes when you say that phrase now.  But when you are considering paradigm shifts and defining stretch goals, what better way to say that you are reaching out of the walls that confine your thought?

I was driving down the road the other day and thinking to myself, if there were a way to simply will ourselves from Point A to Point B, like the “Transporter” does on Star Trek, what need for roads?  We wouldn’t need a car.  We wouldn’t need sidewalks, or bridges, or doors for that matter.  Think about being in the road construction business or the bridge building business, or in the auto industry, and one day, there were no need for your service.  Your skill set, once valuable, was useless.  What then?

There are a certain amount of people who advocate EMS as a method to save firefighter jobs when fires cease to happen.  Conversely, there are those who say there will always be a need for firefighters, because fire will always be a problem.  Perhaps instead of limiting our vision to these options, consideration must be made for what will we do to reinvent our industry wholesale.  What if robots could be trained to do our jobs?  I’d bet that as late as ten or twenty years ago there were people in the auto industry who thought that there was no way a robot could produce a decent automobile: Now we have robot-assisted surgery.  How much father off do you think it will be before they are making interior attacks?

Anyone who demonstrates an obsession for the status quo and fails to think about the future with an open mind is only setting the table for their eventual obsolescence. Even what might sound like a stupid idea isn’t always too far-fetched.  If you fail to consider the opportunities, you are missing a piece of the puzzle.

From the technical aspect, you might be able to guess at any number of possible eventualities.  I’m interested in the nuances of leadership and command and what changes are in store for us there.  While many think about the possibility of fighting fire without water or providing radical prehospital medical interventions, perhaps you should consider what would happen if we turned the way we lead upside down.  Or if we were MORE of a military-style agency, like if we were brought into a branch of federal government.  Or if everyone was paid.  Or if everyone was volunteer.  There’s no end to “what if…” because while the first few answers might not be plausible ones, they may lead to a prize-winning innovation.

Instead of making statements, every day you should be asking questions.  And while not all change is good, if you don’t consider the effects of certain factors on your organization as they might occur, you might be surprised when they change despite all your best efforts.  As leaders, if we fail to keep an open mind and reconsider every approach to what it is we do, while we may not fail today, we do a disservice to our organization.  Doing things the same way day after day may seem “good enough”, but if you are caught flatfooted when things change overnight, don’t be surprised if you are left standing in your box while everyone else is running around outside it.  Where are the new frontiers?  They surround you, if you reach far enough.

Stuck In The Past

5 comments

The definition of something “world-class” years ago led me to consider what we mean in the fire service when we say “world-class” in the same breath as “progressive” and “professional”.  The use of these terms is truly in the eye of the beholder.  Given the evidence that continues to mount in the Charleston incident, many people in that community are struggling through the nightmare of believing their fire department was the definition of excellence only to find that the leadership mentality was still operating in the past.

I guess its all in how you frame your reference as to what is acceptable versus what is “excellent”.  It certainly sounds as if that culture is evolving into a better place with Chief Carr at the helm.  But across the entire fire service, while exposed to so many ideas, we continue visit the same problems within our own organizations that other organizations have been experiencing for years.

Professionalism or progressiveness isn’t defined by experiencing the same problems over and over again. Being effective doesn’t include repeating mistakes that others have made, got the t-shirt for, and moved on from. If learning isn’t occurring from all of the rhetoric, then what use is it?  When your organization is experiencing such dysfunction that it is obvious even to the newest recruit, then how clueless are you to insist that everything is coming up roses?

The sad part is that this lesson has to come on the backs of dedicated firefighters and the deaths of our brothers.  While it appears our friends in Charleston are moving forward, we continue to read story after story around the rest of the nation of lessons that continue to be learned the hard way.  After all, how many unbelted firefighter LODDs need we read about before deciding once and for all that using our seatbelt is a smart idea?

Instead of reading the news and saying, “Wow, that’s incredible”, perhaps we should be saying, “Wow, how do I make sure that doesn’t happen here?”  Be an agent of productive and progressive change.  Set the positive example and show others what the real definition of progressive and professional is and be a real leader.

What Does It Take To Be A Firefighter Anyway?

4 comments

Being a firefighter is real work and not for the faint of heart. If dirt bothers you, go get another job.

We should make getting into the fire service at least as hard as trying to get into the NFL. If everyone wanted to be a firefighter when they were growing up, most of us also probably wanted to play football. The NFL has all kinds of hurdles to cross to get a job there: the Wonderlick, the combine, scouting, etc. In some fire departments, all you have to do is fog a mirror, and even then, I wonder if that is even a requirement.

When all hell has broke loose in our lives, who better to see than the fire department?  If the people we are recruiting can’t even solve the simplest of daily problems, what makes us think that at 0200 with the roof falling in on us that there will be sudden improvement in judgement and reasoning?  It again goes to my post of the other day about being cognizant of what we do and don’t know.  Some of these folks are so sure of what they think they know, that it makes them dangerous to those of us who know that we can’t possibly know everything.

Thus the survival instinct of the crustiest among us: situational awareness.  We know that with Murphy lurking around every corner and maintaining a skeptical eye on most every situation, we aren’t entirely surprised when things go wrong, because we figured that they would anyway.  It’s like some of the newer guys I talk to think that just because they studied it at the Fire Academy, it is going to go like the plan at every incident.  I don’t know how you teach someone to be a little less optimistic, but if we can figure out how to do that, we might get some of the problem licked.

But that isn’t all; there’s something to be said about the mentality of “heavy lifting” that escapes some of our new hires around the nation.  They seem to think that the problem is solved when we arrive and that it’s all going to be blood and glory.  Then they become disenchanted when they’re mopping up vomit off of Mrs. Smith’s kitchen floor after the rig has taken her to the hospital.  Our job requires us to tough it up and do what is necessary, whether we like it or not.

A little less bitching and a little more effort would go a long way.  Your truck isn’t running perfectly?  Well, sorry: For years I held apparatus together with duct tape and superglue.  Suck it up and do your job.  If something doesn’t work, roll with it.  I took a lot of pride in knowing that I could do whatever job necessary with whatever I had with me, or at least knowing where I could make something work in the meanwhile.  Nowadays it seems like if the least little thing goes wrong, people are throwing their hands in the air and giving up.

So here’s what it comes down to: We must figure out a way to test individuals for resiliency and determination, while also measuring their ability to understand that if they want the glory job, they should have probably worked harder for that baseball scholarship. There is no glory in our job.  Put away the wacker lights and the Bad-Ass Firefighter t-shirt and know your role.  If you aren’t out running calls, be grateful that you get to have a night of sleep and that no one became homeless last night because their house burned.  And if glory and fame is what you want, go form a posse and hang out with Lindsey Lohan or something.  We’ve got a job to do.

Where Were You That Night?

12 comments

I probably can’t tell you anything about the Charleston incident that you don’t already know, except the incident from my personal perspective, and I have never shared that with anyone except my family and some close friends until today.  And despite the statements bashed around in the days afterward about why things were the way they were prior to that night, there’s no amount of warning, yelling, or cajoling that could have happened before that day or after that day to really change things, because honestly, you can’t change someone who won’t listen.

As was quoted by at least one of my friends from the CFD prior to that night: “We’re the FDNY of the South.”  When your fire department has a Class 1 ISO rating and homes aren’t burning into the dirt on a daily basis, the public is just fine with whatever it is you are doing.  Whether your organization is using the most modern equipment and techniques, or whether they are utilizing tactics thrown away in the 70′s, there are much more important things on the public radar.  Things like whether or not the garbage will get picked up, or who the next contestant is on The Bachelor, or which rehab facility Lindsay Lohan is skipping out of.  The entire community of Charleston and the fire department itself, prior to that day, was fine and happy with the status quo.  Just like any disaster, it isn’t until people die that questions begin to be asked.

This isn’t an indictment of the department, its culture, or anyone in particular.  All I know is what I know and the things that were said before, on and after that night.  A big reason why I have never said anything really about it until now is that I wasn’t asked (I was this time).  But nothing I care to say would be intended to disparage the reputations or the character of the brave members of the CFD.  I simply believe that the charismatic style of their leader at the time led them down a primrose path.  He thought he was doing the right thing, everyone else there thought he was doing the right thing, and nothing seemed like it could go wrong, until it did.  Catastrophically.

I wasn’t at the incident in the beginning and frankly, in retrospect, there were many disasters converging at that exact location that evening.  It was inevitable that something bad would happen, given some of what we knew before, and of course, given what we know now.  I had to shake my head in wonder when I saw that one poster on a blog page wanted to know, “Where are all the chiefs in SC?” on the issue.  ”Why wouldn’t they do something before this disaster?”  Well, let me tell you a little bit about fire departments in the United States: Unless the public or their elected officials detect a problem, there is never going to be any change, no matter WHAT the chiefs in the neighboring communities or the state have to say about it. After the disaster, it is true, the collective anger and frustration not only from within, but from the overall fire service community was instrumental in causing a change, but really, it took the deaths of nine brave souls to make that change manifest.

All we can do now is honor the lives of those who go before us, pray for the families and help them deal with this tragedy, and hope we all learn from the events that evening.  Senseless doesn’t begin to describe the loss suffered by the principals of this story, and although I chalk up a great deal of what happened to hubris and over-confidence by the Fire Chief, and by default, the organizational culture, I don’t take anything away from the extremely fine and dedicated brothers who serve the community of Charleston, SC.  I can only pray that we don’t experience something like this again anywhere else on the globe.  In my heart, however, I know there are departments out there who learned nothing from this, therefore, we are only a heartbeat away from repeating these mistakes again.

I was lying on the couch in my living room when I got the first call.  The power was out at our house, so I was just working on my laptop, having just put the children to bed.  At the time, I was the Acting Director of the South Carolina US&R Task Force and awaiting our hiring a full-time Director to take my place in Columbia.  One of my Task Force Leaders rang my cell phone and asked if I had been briefed on what was going on in Charleston.  He said that there were several firefighters unaccounted for in a fire at the Sofa Superstore.

I am intimately familiar with Charleston.  I did the majority of my paramedic clinical time there in the 80′s and fell in love with the place.  My mother-in-law grew up in Charleston and we would go up there to visit her family, especially her well-connected sister and brother-in-law, often.   And when our second daughter, Caroline, was born, she developed complications resulting in a helo ride to the Medical University and a subsequent six-week stay in the neonatal ICU.  In response, my wife and I literally moved to Charleston and lived at a friend’s second home at King and Broad for the entire time.  We go back often and have developed many close friendships there.

I am also friends with a number of Charleston’s firefighters, although I never had the honor of meeting any of our brothers who passed that evening.  But at the time, no one really seemed to know who was involved, much less who was missing, so for all I knew, it could have been any one of the people I had grown to know over the years of interacting with the department.  And yes, I knew Rusty and many of the command staff who were there that evening, much as a result of my capacity with the Task Force and the ultimate oversight of their regional response team’s interaction with the State US&R Plan.

There’s really not much you can say when you get one of those calls.  I’ve been called for others like it before and several hours later find that the news was completely distorted from the original message.  You know, everyone ends up accounted for, or there was a mistake in transmission, or something like that.  And although I had every reason to believe what I was being told was true (this TFL has always been a good friend and dependable officer), I have to admit I was a little skeptical.  I told him to call me if he had any other information, and I’d call the State Fire Marshal, John Reich, who as the ESF-9 coordinator for the state, I technically reported to, and give him a heads-up.

When the power came back on a little while later, I clicked over to the Charleston news station and saw the coverage, and was immediately swayed by what was going on: an active search and rescue incident looking for multiple companies of missing firefighters.  Needless to say, things began to move pretty quickly, and it was really pretty much a blur after that.  Multiple phone calls between multiple state officers and the next thing was, the State Fire Marshal was asking us to represent the state at the incident and to offer whatever assistance was needed.

I can tell you this, given any State agency’s relationship with local entities, we were instantly cognizant that what we DIDN’T want was one of our incident support teams (IST) rolling in there and announcing we were there to take over, because we weren’t.  Not only would that be extremely callous and insensitive to the situation, we have no statutory authority to do so, short of a gubanatorial declaration of disaster (and that wasn’t coming).  So this was going to be a mission of extreme delicacy and an offer of assistance from the State Fire Marshal’s Office, and as such, I felt like it would be best if I went personally, even though we had an IST sitting across the river in Mt. Pleasant.

I called up Ed Boring and Jason Walters, who at the time were both Task Force command officers and work with me at Hilton Head Island, and told them I was heading up to Charleston on direction from John Reich.  Ed and Jason continue to work with me and over the years have become two of my closest friends not just because of our shared interests, but also because we served together at Katrina.  Nothing like a disaster and riding around in a dark-colored Suburban to create a bonding experience.

On our arrival, we were each stupified by the absolute desolation on the scene.  We got there before midnight, and at that point it was still not clear how many souls had been lost.  Everyone was in shock, or so it seemed.  The fire was still burning in places, but everyone seemed to be moving like their feet were in concrete.  Not in a slow, poorly organized way, but in a stunned, defeated, bewildered way.  It was definitely the scene of an enormous and horrendous event.

We delicately announced our need to report to the command post so we could speak to the incident commander, and kept getting pointed in a direction until we were finally pointed toward an empty pop-up tent with a single fold-up chair in the middle of the parking lot.  No one was there.  So we began to again poke around a little bit more, until we found Battalion Chief Robbie O’Donald, over by the ladder truck, which was still in the air.  Robbie, who was a member of SC-TF1 and also a member of the Charleston command staff, had very obvious burns across his hands and arms, but was standing at the front of the building with a portable radio.  I remember very softly calling to Chief O’Donald, because I honestly believed he was in total shock.  The burns on both of his arms were pretty graphic, with skin literally falling off of his arms, but here he was, still at his post.

After a brief discussion about who was in charge and where he was at, I asked Robbie if he realized his arms were burned.  He just kind of nodded and made a quiet, brief comment about trying to get someone out.  I asked him if he wanted to get his burns checked out, he just said he’d be okay.  Ignoring my suggestion, he led us over to a nearby gas station where the police had set up a command post of sorts, but no one was there either, so we went back over to the front of the store and stood around for a little.  Finally, I said to Robbie, “Hey, John Reich sent us up here to see if there’s anything we can do for you.”  Without answering me, he began to detail out for us where all the firefighters were lost at, including two on the other side of the wall from where we were standing.

I remember there was a back hoe sitting in front of the store.  ”You aren’t going to dig them out with that, are you?” I asked.  Given the state everyone was in, I didn’t quite know what to take for granted.  ”Man, I can bring you the entire task force down here, or just trucks and equipment if you guys want to do this yourselves, but you tell us what YOU want, we’ll do whatever it is YOU want.”  Trying to push him a little, I gave him my official business card, to indicate the official nature of my being there, and told him to take it to Rusty, and to let him know that whatever he needed, we’d get it there, just name it.  So Robbie took the card and went into the building and out of our sight, which was where Chief Thomas was.

After a while, Chief O’Donald came back out and told me, “Chief Rusty says we’re fine.”  Something in his face told me differently, and I’ve had enough experience to also know that things weren’t fine.  But I wasn’t going to argue.

“Robbie, we’ll be right over there,” I pointed to the street, “if you guys change your mind.”  He was staring back into the building again and I put my hand on his arm to let him know we were serious.  ”I don’t have the authorization to make a decision for Hilton Head, but given what’s going on here, if you need people up here to cover you guys, I know we can get a bunch of guys up here to cover you at least on a volunteer basis.”  He shook his head again and said, “Chief Rusty said we’ve got it.”

So we just wandered back to the road and got out of the way.  I called John Reich and gave him my report and said that we needed to send another representative later on when some of the shock wore off.  Then Ed and Jason and I stood by the road and watched as they carried the first five or six out, I don’t even really remember because at that point, I felt like this was something they needed to do themselves, and I wasn’t going to push the matter.  If they were my people, I’d want to be the one who carried them out, so I understood.  I also felt like our presence there, at that point, was more of a bystander than being of assistance, so we made our offers again, and with them saying once again they had everything under control, we left.  The ride home was pretty quiet.

I look back on that night with a certain amount of disbelief.  Did a department who fought as many fires as Charleston did really think they were going to make a knock on a commercial building fire with a single 2 1/2 inch supply line from a distant hydrant?  Did they really think an attack on a heavily-loaded big box with booster lines was a sufficient attack strategy?  Did they completely forget about the thermal imager sitting on their apparatus?  Did their hubris really lead them to reject the notion of calling for outside resources early into the incident?  Did the idea that “we fight these fires every day” with no semblance of modern command and control overwhelm the logical need for a coordinated rescue supported by protective lines?  Rather than trying to attack a fast-mover without opening up the overheads, might we have not approached this with a more defensive attack once it was realized that a victim was trapped in the rear of the building?

We can “what if” this incident to death, but it doesn’t reverse the past.  I personally know many of the key players in this saga and I can reassure you, none of them went to work that morning thinking, “Hey, I think I’ll kill off a few firefighters today”.  But that’s what happened and no matter how sure you are of yourself, when you lose nine firefighters and someone asks you, “Given what you know now, would you fight this fire differently?” and you say, “No”, you have got a serious problem.

Resources will always be a problem in the fire service.  We never have what we really need to do our jobs and we are always going to be understaffed.  We will always be questioned by the public as to why it takes so many of us to fight a fire and why does it all cost so damn much.  Then when all hell breaks loose, if we don’t make things happen, the public will scream that we didn’t do our job.  It’s the never-ending dichotomy of public service.  But to look at the lessons learned that evening and ignore them, well, it’s tantamount to killing your people.

It’s this simple: if you can’t fight the fire without killing your people, then why bother?  If a rescue were being made, it’s one thing, but the men who lost their lives weren’t in any position to mount a defense for the rescue teams; they were in attack positions and eventually retreat positions with nowhere to go.  They were actively trying to seek out a hidden fire while the whole time they were playing a game stacked against them.  There WAS no “Plan B”.  I’m not sure there was a “Plan A”.  If you drive by there today, it’s a big vacant lot.  These guys gave up their lives for their community, they gave what is identified in the Bible as being the greatest gift one can give to their fellow man: their lives.  But just like the 343 men who died in the World Trade Center, the public has a short memory of these people and their mission.  And when we ask for more funds, more manpower, or more equipment, more training, more support, or more apparatus, unless the stain of blood is still on the hands of the civilians from the latest disaster du jour, they have moved on to the next media extravaganza of the week.

Me, I have an obligation to my family to come home in the morning.  I have an obligation to the families of my personnel to make sure they leave in the morning as well. If I don’t keep sharp, if I don’t fully comprehend the situation I am sending companies in to engage, and if I don’t have the means to put the tools in their hands they need, then I am failing them.  No amount of pride, a patch, a label, or honors will do you any good when you are carrying out your dead and for what?  If we can’t be there for each other, what have we really got?

Where were you that night?  You may not have been there, but the lessons are all available for us to read and to learn from.  If we fail to address the deficiencies, or short of that, at least identify methods of modifying our approach, or even less, realizing we simply don’t have the appropriate resources and stating: “we’re going to let it burn”, then we are ignoring the legacy of these fine men, these Charleston Nine, who have gone on before us.  As leaders, we have a responsibility to learn and not make the same mistakes again.  Honor these men by perfecting our craft and striving for positive change in the fire service.  I never knew them, but I’ll bet that’s what they’d have wanted.  Let’s keep them forever in our memory and insure they are never forgotten.

Command Presents

4 comments
Hilton Head Island Fire Station 7

Hilton Head Island Fire Station 7

It’s that time of the year that we hear the word “presents” often enough to make your ears bleed, so I was wondering if my misuse of the word “presents” got your attention. Apparently it did, or you wouldn’t be reading this now.  Or maybe you didn’t notice.   If you didn’t notice, go and look again: when we speak of “command presence”, we speak of the characteristics of the person in charge to lead from a strong, visible, and decisive point of view, not “presents” like a gift.  Having strong leader-like characteristics  as part of your daily personality could be a “present”, if your job is to be a leader.  It also could be very annoying to the people around you.

According to my family and friends, acquaintances, and the Myers-Briggs (and every other psych profile I’ve ever gone through), I exhibit decisive, directive behavior as part of my normal personality.  More often than I care to, my “command presence” comes out when I’m talking with my wife (she doesn’t like it), my kids (they’re not crazy about it either), or my colleagues (they probably think I’m insufferable anyway).  This just goes to show you there is a time and place for everything.  Explaining to your daughter the intricacies of math, for one, is probably not a good time to be strong, visible and decisive.

Likewise, when you are leading firefighters into emergency situations, it is not a time to be easy-going, reserved, and willing to compromise.  There are those out there who are; they are also the ones with crews free-lancing, poor accountability, mixed commands, and poor coordination.  These are also the ones who get people hurt and killed.

While you don’t have to be the second coming of Field Marshal Rommel, you should understand that the fireground or rescue scene is the place where only one person can be in charge.  Coupled with the observation that leadership abhors a vacuum, you can probably understand that if you fail to establish a clear picture of who is in charge, someone else will.  It’s not the act of having a fist fight to decide who that is; the only person who can be in charge is the legally responsible incident commander.  How that decision is made is pertinent to the laws of your jurisdiction, but if you have someone who can’t command, they probably shouldn’t be in that position.

All too often, I see failure in company officers who are “best buds” with their troops on a daily basis, and then can’t understand why there’s so much chaos on their incident scene.  It is simply because those people don’t necessarily see you as the “alpha dog”.  To them, you are just another “member of the pack”.  Other members of the pack don’t call the shots, the alpha dog does.  And like I said, if you aren’t filling that role, someone else is.  That person will also be the one that when things go south, everyone turns toward for the answers.

In this time of giving, give your subordinates a lesson in leadership.  Your leadership should set a positive example, a role model, if you will, for your aspiring officers.  Command and control is important on the emergency scene and failing to work with that does not instill confidence in the abilities of the IC.  It is essential that not only do your charges see you as a leader on the scene, but in the station as well, for if they do not, on the scene is a bad place for them to convince them of that.  Make it a “present” to the people you are responsible for teaching and watching over.  Give them the tools to lead others, and they will hopefully show you that they trust your leadership, and when the time comes, they will walk on that path as well.

An Atmosphere of Trust

2 comments
webMen of Iron BW 2

You want that hole WHERE?

Having worked my normal 24 hour shift, I got up at 0530 and went to the station’s kitchen to make a pot of coffee.  As I stood there, filling the pot with water, I realized that the crew’s dinner kitty was still sitting there on the counter.  Although it wasn’t much, it made me think about the trust that you find (or don’t find) in some firehouses.  It contrasted with a discussion I overheard about one shift raiding the other shift’s fridge just the day before.  Now while most of our stations are “hardened” facilities and require an ID card for entry, I remember when we could leave the place wide open and never have to worry about anything being touched.  In this day and age, not only do we need to worry about some mutt walking in while we were on a call and stealing a laptop (it happened to one of our guys), we have to worry about the criminal elements who want our ID, uniforms, or even a vehicle, so they can pose as a firefighter.

Trust, however, is a pretty interesting concept of its own.  As a leader, you have to earn the trust of the troops.  And as I pointed out, twenty years of being their buddy can go right out the window if you hose them on one thing.  I’ve found that it’s better to be circumspect than to lie to another firefighter.  If you just can’t talk about it, you might as well lead off by saying that, because if you try to act like you are bringing them in on “the scoop” but you can’t tell them the full details, your credibility is shot.

I look at the way my crews trust me in differing degrees.  Do they trust me to command them going into a burning building or to guide them at a building collapse or a confined space incident?  I’d guess most of them do since I’ve never had them second-guess me on a scene.  Do they trust me on most things?  I’d guess they do.  Do they trust that I’ll get the roster right in the morning.  I’d bet much less so (I’m notorious for having to re-send everyone the “amended” roster).  But whatever you do, you had best build credibility in the areas you want them to find you credible in, because if you don’t, your word is crap.

I know company officers (and chief officers) who simply aren’t trusted.  The guys may like them, they may have a beer with them, but get them aside and they’ll tell you, “This officer isn’t trustworthy”.  They may feel like the officer has got their back on daily things but just can’t trust them to make the right decision on the fireground.  And on the fireground, when people have the possibility of being injured or killed, you’d better bet that if you are leading a crew, a section, or the entire incident, you’d better have some credibility.  Because do you know what happens when you don’t have credibility?  No one will listen to you.

When elements of mistrust exist on a regular basis between the troops and the brass, those factors simply add to frustration levels that always exist anyway between these two dynamics.  If you are an officer trying to increase team morale and trying to slow down the rampant rumor mill, you’ll find that deep at the seat of these sentiments lies that mistrust.  Be it that the previous leaders were untrustworthy, or that others have continued to fuel the conspiracy theories for their own amusement, in any case, so long as your people fail to trust you, no amount of money, new trucks, etc. will stop the train.  It requires making that leap to show them that you can be trusted.  In exhibiting your faith in them, hopefully they can begin to have some faith in you.

Maintaining this kind of relationship requires a lot of work.  From first-hand knowledge, it can often be frustrating.  I am a “firefighter’s firefighter” (or at least I hope that’s how my people see me) and I still walk the walk as much as talk the talk.  Yet when I pinned on those chief’s bugles, it didn’t matter that some of these individuals have known me and what I am about for decades: I’m a chief now.  The whole element of trust seemed to have to begin from scratch and work its way back to the same level it was at when I was a Captain, I guess.

The problem is that for as much as you try to show these people that you are only interested in doing the right thing, because of years of mistrusting anyone in a white helmet, they don’t feel comfortable putting their trust in you.  Firefighters pride themselves in being a cynical bunch; show me one firefighter worth his or her salt and I’ll show you that they have a skeptical eye about pretty much any subject that presents itself.  It’s a survival mechanism.  While others pride themselves in seeing a half-full glass, we fully expect that the glass is half-full alright: with an unknown toxic.  Firefighters require everyone and every incident to prove it is safe to trust first, and only then will they dip their toes into the pool.  So an understanding of that culture requires actually living it because the lack of “street cred” automatically targets you as being an outsider and unable to be trusted.

We as leaders must work hard to develop a space of trust.  Of all of the qualities of a leader, trust is most important.  Frankly, no one is going to follow you if they don’t trust that you’re going to take them someplace they want to go.  While you may have all kinds of degrees and certificates, there’s nothing other than setting an example for your troops that is going to teach them that they can follow you and that they can trust that they’ll survive the experience.  If you are trying to change your organizational culture and continually meeting resistance, chances are that your either personnel aren’t mature enough to appreciate that individuals are different and new  leadership isn’t automatically to be distrusted (until you’ve done something to break that trust already), or because no one has ever given them a reason in the past to let go of their fears and follow you.  In both cases, it’s going to require you to stand in front and establish that relationship or understand that you need to develop a thick skin, because the sniping will never end.  Standing up and setting an example seems to be the most productive means of accomplishing the mission.

Science Is Your Friend

1 comment

While taking Honora to school a few days ago, Bob Edwards was speaking on NPR Radio with Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum, the authors of the book, “Unscientific America”.  While the book apparently discusses “scientific illiteracy”, some of the commentary seemed applicable to what we currently endure in the fire service; clinging to tradition for tradition’s sake and the global ignorance of scientific findings that can improve our efficiency and safety.

The authors, in discussing their premise, suggested that the general populace isn’t stupid when it comes to science, they’re just disengaged.  The idea that they put forth is essentially that science needs to discover a way to get people to re-engage on the issues, which is not as easy as it might seem.  While the scientific community as a whole might not necessarily agree upon the ways to communicate their issues, for scientists and supporters of science to simply dismiss the “emotional side” (my quote) of others when it comes to scientific issues is turning their back on the problem.

In the early to middle parts of the last century, scientists were looked at as heroes.  Science brought us protection against disease; it brought us innovative fabrics and materials.  Science ushered in a nuclear age and took us to the Moon.  Science, however became pedestrian or became background noise.  Although Mooney and Kirshenbaum didn’t suggest it, I suggest that maybe we all began to take these accomplishments for granted.  Consider that every other time I upgrade my computer it becomes a third smaller and four times faster (and I seem to have to upgrade these bad boys about every two or three years).  While the laptop I am typing this on has 500 GB of storage, my first work computer back in 1988 had MAYBE a 120 megabyte hard drive.  Since I wasn’t so computer literate back then, I couldn’t even begin to tell you how much RAM it had.

While these technological miracles happen almost daily, maybe they’ve become a little too commonplace.  And of course, the unintentional wall established between science and the rest of us (maybe I’m a bad example) doesn’t afford any converts.  In fact, the authors discussed that Carl Sagan suffered considerable stigma from the scientific community because of his efforts to put science in a context others could understand.  The result was that he was considered to have “populist” (their quote) views and was somehow, not worthy of inclusion into the supporters of science.

What has happened is that science just isn’t as popular a subject.  Mooney stated that if you read the newspaper, “Science doesn’t beat the horoscope or the sports pages” among most people.  Along with the theory that your political view influences your perspective on science (I’d agree with that), especially in this day of deeply divided emotions about our nation and the people who run it, I’d bet that the thought of discussing some of these scientific endeavors (stem cell research, evolution, etc.) with some of your friends or family probably makes you uncomfortable, regardless of where you stand.  So it’s no question that science in many circles, isn’t exactly a hot topic of conversation.  In fact, unless you are surrounded by a bunch of like-thinkers, you might well avoid scientific discussion altogether.

So just as goes science as a discussion for us all, so goes the fire service for those of us within it.  Go to any firehouse and you’ll see some strong feelings on certain fire service topics.  For any of us to discuss deeply held beliefs about our fire service brings up some pretty raw emotion.  Depending where you sit on many of these issues, sometimes it is better to sit it out and watch the fighting than it is to engage.  Why is that?  Well, I know personally, while I don’t shy away from conflict, I am not interested in engaging in an all-out battle with anyone who just can’t see any side of the issues except the one they are on.  If I choose to remain open-minded and civil, so must you.  That doesn’t seem to prevent people from acting like assholes though (yeah, I said it).

Blogging and posting is a little unique.  The anonymity of being online seems to permit some of the less enlightened individuals to pipe up when they should probably just stick a sock in it and slink back to their corner.  Especially when I’m being lectured by some moron who has two or three years under his (or her) belt and all of a sudden, they are the subject matter expert du jour.  Since the privacy of the internet protects cowards and psychos from getting popped in the mouth if they cross the line, I’d just as soon focus on positive discussion, but it doesn’t seem to stop some of them.

The emergency service industry, as does the scientific community, must remain objective while considering the deeply held beliefs and traditions of those who came before us.  While it seems that logic should overturn any voodoo, the scientific community can’t be dismissive of the emotion attached to these beliefs, because they can be equally as powerful, and no scientist has really been able to explain that.

I’ve said before that I love the traditions of the fire service.  I come from four generations of firefighters and I am proud of that heritage.  But just as my grandfather and my father were renegades and agitating for change and improvement, so do I.  I’m happy to keep a roto-ray on the front of my engine, but I’m not so keen on rushing so quickly to a fire alarm that I flip a rig.  I guess that’s a tradition that seemed to occur a lot in the past that I’d just as soon leave behind.  And yes, there are some who still think that this is acceptable behavior, as do those who think risk/benefit analysis is for sissies.

If we really want change, we have to understand that it scares some people.  Being dismissive of their fears or their preconceived beliefs doesn’t bring them to us in harmony, it creates division.  Understanding how and why things do the things they do is just as important as understanding who we are and where we came from and how we got here.  Since most of you reading this already get “IT”, I’m probably preaching to the choir, but perhaps we can do a better job of reaching out to the dinosaurs and conveying our respect for the way things were done, as well as educating them on safe and effective practices.

Understand that although scientific exploration may bear out an idea and that idea is as right as rain, that same idea will remain locked up in your head somewhere if you’re unable or unwilling to frame the idea into something everyone can understand and eventually, embrace.  If I had the universal answer to all of our problems, I wouldn’t be sitting here asking you open-ended questions.  But it seems that the questions keep getting asked and we aren’t hitting on the answers.

As a brotherhood, we need to band together and discover what others have found before us.  That together we can work toward improving public safety while striving for our own safety as well.  That tradition is important, but it doesn’t supplant common sense.  And that science, in reaching out to find answers to our questions, has achieved a method of achieving logical approaches to many problems, but we have to sometimes choke back emotion and realize that improvement sometimes means walking away from the treasured, but flawed, reasoning of our past.

Ambition

1 comment

At Mass today there was a reading from the Letter of St. James that got me thinking: “Where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there is disorder and every foul practice.”  It goes on to say, “Where do the conflicts among you come from?  Is it not from passions that make war within your members?”

It reminded me of several passages from the Tao Te Ching, one of which says: “Those on tiptoe don’t stand up, those who take long strides do not walk; those who see themselves are not perceptive, those who assert themselves are not illustrious.”

These are some teachings that have lasted centuries and what, exactly have we taken from them?  When I was younger, I wanted it all.  When I grew up and could have it all, it was hard at first for me to understand, but I realized that it wasn’t altogether worth it.  Power comes from within and can’t be seized.  If you let it come to you, it will.

Conflict comes from people wanting something.  The amusing part of that is those who have power will say all day long, “If you really want it, you have to let it come to you.”  I’ve found that to not exactly be true.  That concept relies on enlightened leaders seeking people who are also enlightened, and not on surrounding oneself with “yes-men” and deceivers.  Had I waited my whole life for people to come to me and ask for my help, I’d probably still be waiting.

Thus the neverending struggle between seizing opportunities and creating them;  I have put a significant amount of research into what it would take for me to get from Point “A” to Point “B” and in some cases, made it happen.  I’m happy to say, however, that a lot of what I have accomplished has actually come about because I didn’t walk up the backs of others to get where I am at.

Ambition is not necessarily a bad thing; being deceptive, manipulative, and doing things contrary to the good of the team and the public we serve is.  What we individually have as a vision of our organization is proper if it involves service to the people we are charged to protect and assist, and not if it involves the “benefits” of public service.  By those, I mean the “perks” of having a badge, importance in the community, and the ability to lord over others and speak down to people.

There is such a thing as being an advocate for those who have no power, for standing up and doing the right thing, even when the right thing requires going out of our way to do so.  The other day I was driving down the road in my chief’s wagon and saw a family broken down on the side of the road.  I also saw several other official vehicles (not ours, thank God) pass these people by.  Had I been going somewhere in a hurry, would I have stopped?  Maybe those other official vehicles had places to go and people to see.  I stopped and helped them out.  They were grateful but I didn’t do it for their gratitude, I did it because it was the right thing to do.

As leaders, are we interested in the chase for power?  Or what we can do with the power once we have it?  I was talking about money with my oldest daughter today and explained to her, what good is money if you already have what you need and you are more interested in accumulating “stuff”?  Wouldn’t it be a better idea to help others who are in need, or at least taking the time to do something nice for others?  Once we hit the mark we desired, as a company officer, or a chief officer, what will we do with that newly found power?  Will we share it with others and empower them?  Or will we use it to beat others down and tell them what to do and where to go?

Hypocrisy

1 comment

When a man will condemn others but will not subject himself to the same ethical standards, that, my friends, is a hypocrite.   We talk about people living in glass houses and the logic for their not throwing stones, but we often fail to hold people to their statements that they made to get them to where they are today.

When a man will say that a project is a waste of time, yet take credit for it when the project is being hailed by the media, that, my friends, is a hypocrite.  Likewise, there are “leaders” in this world who like to trumpet their budget cuts and their saving of taxpayer funds, despite being warned that their efforts could prove dangerous, but when things do go badly, they slip free of any blame, and those people are also hypocrites.

When a man will make claims that he has accomplished something spectacular, but won’t permit scrutiny of his claims, is that man a hypocrite?  Shouldn’t we, if we have indeed done an amazing deed, be willing to permit people to look into our claims, to see just what it is that we have done and how we can replicate that “success”?  Hypocrisy is claiming you are all about something, when really you are not; so if you make claims of expertise, shouldn’t you expect critical review of your work?  If it is truly what it is, it will stand up to the examination.

When people go around pretending to be leaders by making claims of their honesty, they should in fact be honest.  If they are about being a good steward of taxpayer funds, they too, should be actually doing just that.  If they think that their cost-cutting efforts are actually beneficial to the community and they prove to be wrong, they should be willing to take that heat.  And when we say we are professionals in what we do, we should permit others to review our works and determine if they hold up to a critical examination of the content.

Change freightens the entrenched and the hypocritical; the entrenched because of their anticipation of loss and the hypocrites, because they will be exposed for what they are when the light of truth shines in.  If you are one who embraces change, it’s probably because you know you don’t have anything to lose.  If you are what you are and you do what you do, and you practiced your art and you learned from the masters, you have nothing to lose and everything to gain from change.

The Case for Credentialing – Answering Your Comments

No comments

I hate to break free in the middle of this series like this, but there were some comments made that I wanted to discuss.  Since one is on one post and the other is on another post, I felt the need to tie them together and talk really quickly to the issue.

On June 15, Steve said:

Yes, credentials would help but WHO is the final authority on issuing them? WHO sets the standards? How are you going to avoid the age old paid vs volunteer bias in any credentialing agency?

My quick answer: I am against the bias in the career vs. volunteer.  If you can meet the standard, you can meet the standard.  I think there is plenty of room for volunteers, especially in disaster response.  So some career guy is going to tell me my docs can’t be part of the team because they aren’t career guys somewhere?  And I have said in regard to SC-TF1, where I do have some pull, if one person in a one-station volunteer department down the road wants to be part of our team, we need to let him if he meets our criteria (background check, physical agility, etc.)  As Ray Wilkinson, our past Director once said, “I can teach someone to break rocks, what I can’t teach is desire.”  If someone wants to do the job, and goes through the requirements to meet a position, why should I care if he’s a member of FDNY or of Acme Fire Department?  So Steve, I’m with ya, brother.

On June 16, Kevin said:

I live in a state where there is no agency tasked with certifying or credentialing Search and Rescue dogs. I have seen (many times) where someone will buy lights for their POV and load their pet dog into the truck and call themselves a SAR team! If I didn’t know better, I might think all volunteer SAR teams were like this. However, there are a number of excellent non-governmental SAR teams in my state as well. I myself and a member of a volunteer K9 team.

Kevin goes on to say that they have a volunteer K9 SAR team because there isn’t an existing asset and law enforcement has asked for it.  Well, Kevin, as they say in Australia, “good on ya”.  You have identified a need and you have tried to meet that need.  No one else has that asset and it sounds like you have tried to do a good job of using accepted industry standards to meet the need.  THAT is good stuff.

However, I just went to discuss the concept of “those of us who want to do this right, but there are people with authority screwing things up so we can’t get in”, and realized that the post I wrote for that last week never posted as scheduled!  So that is now on the post schedule and I hope it does discuss some of the feelings I personally have in that regard. 

On June 16th, SAR Volunteer also commented:

I totally agree with your points. Please understand this are a handful of small volunteer K9 SAR teams in the state of SC who do NOT self deploy, do NOT work for anyone but the proper state or municipal authorities, train hard, carry their own liability and workmenscomp insurance, align their standards with NIMS Resource Typing, and are working to ensure they meet the proposed credentialing requirements.

And to you too, SAR Vollie, I applaud your efforts.  I think there is a place for the small volunteer K9 teams at the table as well, if they meet a standard.  Let’s take SC-TF1 again for example.  I have said over and over again, if we have people out there who want to do this stuff, let’s get them involved.  But not being a canine guy, I have some difficulty understanding some of the things the canine types are telling me.  So when I get national experts telling me one thing, and some guy with Rover in a pickup truck (or Expedition, as it were) saying his dog can detect live scent, cadavers, lost pets, and get a beer and catch a frisbee, understand that I am skeptical.  And the self-deploying thing is just purely bad in my book, but that’s a whole other issue as well that doesn’t stop with canine SAR teams, and DOES include career guys, departments, and organized teams, etc.  Frankly, if you (SAR Vollie) or anyone else in SC have dogs trained to find LIVE HUMANS in collapsed or damaged buildings, and feel like you can meet a standard, send me an e-mail.  I’d love to hear from you.  But anyone who calls themselves “Urban Search and Rescue” and they are running around doing wilderness searches, well, go back to my box of rocks comment.  Be what you say you are.

Anyway, I hope this illustrates some of the issues considered so far and we’ll get back on track with the next post (which should have published before the last one- go figure).  Please continue with your comments.  I certainly appreciate your perspectives.  Stay safe.

The Argument for Credentialing – Moving On

2 comments

crimson-060aNow that we have discussed the four major players in the argument against credentialing, lets talk about the argument for it.

A credential is only as good as the standard by which it is issued.  The point of having a credential should be to identify an individual or other resource as a certain type and kind.  If there is no standard, you might as well tell the carrier of a credential, “just stand over there until I can find something you can’t screw up.”

A worthwhile credential should also have some security associated with it.  After all, if anyone could get one, what good would it be?  So there are issues of validation involved as well.

In disaster after disaster, free-deploying individuals and “organizations” (and I use that term very loosely) go to “help” and in many cases, put a drain on an already over-taxed system and cause the diversion of legitimate resources from going to areas in need.  And while there is obviously some merit in the use of bystanders for certain aspects of disaster response, that has to be weighed seriously against the risk of their involvement, including the risk to themselves and the affected community, as well as the risk to rescuers, who ultimately must rescue the well-meaning if things don’t go according to plan.

There is no way to eliminate the truly altruistic in their quest to render aid.  Nor should there be.  But likewise, the civilians must understand implicitly that there comes a point when they must be diverted from the scene so the professionals can take over, especially when it comes to the extremely hazardous parts.

The standards in themselves seem to be quite the sticking point with some.  Standards utilized for the purpose of credentialing should be consensus standards and all keyholders included in the development of those standards, versus the exclusivity of some of the currently suggested drafts.  But once these are done, ratified, and chosen to be the driving force in identification of the qualified, there needs to be the embracing of the concept.  If organizations can’t agree on and use a standard that has meaning, then the credential is useless.

Like anything else, the change in this concept might be painful for some.  There are departments out there who are struggling with the unfunded mandates.  I can also sympathize with the organizations who want to become part of a greater plan like a National Mutual Aid Box Alarm System but don’t seem to know where to start or how to get involved.  I guess my first order of business, then, is to tell you how to get involved.  If there’s anything I can do, it’s point you in a direction toward activism.

Change will only come about if we work together to make it happen.  If you won’t stand for change, you don’t stand a chance to change.  Our industry is going through some important times but as you might notice (as I do all too well, sometimes), these initiatives take off for a while then they lose momentum.  Of course, that’s just until the next disaster.

Let’s work together to make something move.  In the next post, I’ll talk about opportunities to get involved.

The Case for Credentialing – Opportunists and Profiteers

1 comment
SC-TF1 in Chalmette, LA during Katrina ops.

SC-TF1 in Chalmette, LA during Katrina ops.

And then, there are the profiteers.  My intent with Firehouse Zen is not to use it as a place to vent, but as a place to enlighten.  Venting may be entertaining for some, but for the most part, productive it isn’t.

So let’s talk about why opportunists would be against credentialing, which should probably be obvious.  The reason is because for most of them, it would require them to validate their claims of expertise, and thus exposed as not having the skills or knowledge, would blunt their mercenary motives for financial reward. 

These are not “buffs” or “whackers”.  I have heard some of my colleagues use the term “buff” when referring to these groups, but I feel that this gives the real fire buff community a bad name, since there are so many out there who genuinely have a deep interest in the fire service but are unable for whatever reason to gain membership, (or just don’t care to be IN the fire service) and many really do contribute in their own way either by helping operationally, or contributing to the body of knowledge about the history of the fire service.  And although I wonder if those who choose to call themselves “whackers” really get that we aren’t laughing with them, we are laughing at them, the “whacker” mindset might be annoying and mostly about self-esteem issues; they act on more of an emotional reward for their ego, and still don’t come close to the opportunists I am referring to.

Opportunists are those who profit financially from being associated with response to a disaster.  How does this work?  Those who attempt to profit by defrauding the response community do so either by direct effect or by diverting attention from legitimate organizations. 

Profiteering also comes in the form of using the event to establish credibility, despite the individuals questionable contribution toward the outcome (and again, detracting from the actual attempts to mitigate the event), which also often comes through self-deployment to an event.  In doing so, these groups divert attention from the real responders.  While they were taking short-cuts, the ones who did all the hard work of meeting requirements and responsibilities given to them by their legal authority were not able to get the legitimate message out.  Likewise, these individuals and groups intentionally or unintentionally siphon off donations and community support from groups that legitimately could use that support.

In one way or another, these opportunists find ways to profit from their involvement in the disaster, be it reinforcing their claims for injury or from “credibility”, despite their lack of official involvement.  It should really go without saying that credentialing will help keep these people away; if forced to produce a recognized credential, most of these people would have been stopped at the door.  In the case of others, it would allow us to at least force them to affiliate themselves with a legally authorized responder, hopefully requiring them to undergo some background check and examination of their reason for obtaining credentials (“Why do you want to be a disaster responder?”). But by requiring the credential it also causes them to be placed in a group of some sort for accountability and would keep them from wandering off to do their own thing.

I wrote an article in 2002 for withthecommand.com discussing even back then, accountability in regard to disaster resource management.  Accountability doesn’t stop at causing you to know where people are, as you know, it keeps people from freelancing and doing things outside of the operational plan, as well as eliminating the unauthorized from accessing the scene.  Control and command of an incident requires that you isolate and deny entry to anybody that doesn’t have the authority to be in that hot zone.  These types of people clearly have no business being where they are and the negative things they bring to this type of incident don’t even begin to scratch the surface against requiring credentials, in fact, they reinforce the argument. 

In the next installment, we’ll talk about the final area of concern with credentialing, which really isn’t a valid argument against credentialing, but the concern of who determines who gets credentials and how they go about measuring the KSAs of people who genuinely desire to help.  After that, we’ll talk about the pros and cons and discuss other initiatives that also benefit from credentialing.

Update to the Series – Spontaneous Bystanders Unite

No comments

I guess I had an idea ahead of its time, even if it was only 48 hours ahead.:

There are indeed a few challenges with this kind of emergent response, problems that if resolved, would go a long way toward goodwill with the community in general (it seems like everyone’s got some kind of beef with FEMA in every disaster, despite their extraordinary efforts to educate people that they need to be more self-sufficient and less reliant on the government), and provide resources to the jurisdictionally responsible agencies that seem to be strapped for bodies when the big one rolls around to their neighborhood.

What am I talking about?  This announcement, from FEMA’s Craig Fugate, which came out in today’s Washington Post, advocates the idea that the public could effectively be used.  What a concept.

The Case for Credentialing – Organizations That Need to Go Away

9 comments
HHIFRD Truck 6 working a grinder.

HHIFRD Truck 6 working a grinder.

Here’s one for you; a subject near and dear to my heart and the reason why we have standards.  As a matter of clearing up any legal challenges, I have to make an official statement here as a result of some of the positions I hold:

My opinions and views as expressed here and throughout the Firehouse Zen blog site, are not, nor shall ever be, an official statement representing the Town of Hilton Head Island, Hilton Head Island Fire and Rescue, the State Urban Search and Rescue Alliance or its board, the State of South Carolina and the South Carolina Emergency Response Task Force, the National Fire Protection Association, and the committees on which I serve.  If I have missed someone, I’m sure I’ll hear about it. And if I do have something official to say from any of them, it’s not likely going to come out on here, but you’ll be the first to know if I do.

The reason for all the disclaimers?  Because I happen to work with a few bodies who get taken to task when we start talking about making people do things they should be doing anyway.  When we do these things, you know, make standards, the inner libertarian in some people comes out with a vengeance. I mean, really, who do I think I am, telling people that you should have a means to measure what you are and how you do it? 

Well, you can begin by blaming organizations and people who currently hold jurisdictional responsibilities and fail, for whatever reason, to adhere to consensus standards.  Why is the failure to uphold a consensus standard such a big deal?  Well, first off, when we break down what standards really do, they are really more of a definition than anything else.  Yes, a standard can be a way to tell you how to get to that defined place, or standards may be in place to define how something should be developed or occur, but the case of professional qualifications and those operations and training standards, the standards say, “you must achieve THESE things to be THIS”.  It is a label.

It doesn’t hurt that there are people or groups or things that want to wear that label, for whatever reason.  In most communities, people or groups or things require a label.  The label is there to make asking for that thing easier, but it also tells you what it is you are getting, especially if the standard has any acceptance at all.  If you went to the store and bought a box of Cheerios, and you opened it up at home and it was a box of rocks, I’ll bet you wouldn’t be happy.  But at least at the store, when you picked up that box of what should be Cheerios, and it was full of rocks, the weight would probably give it away that you had a problem.  The difference is, when I’m at a command post in the middle of Disasterville, if you tell me you are a box of Cheerios and the box of rocks shows up, how am I supposed to know that until you get there and I can see it for myself?

Then of course there’s that little thing called negligence that can be found at the intersection of: 1) duty; 2) breach; 3) causation; and 4) damages.  Why do we care? Standards are created to define what a competent person would do.  It defines their capability and provides not only the user and the teacher and everyone else an objective benchmark to measure against, but provides the lawyers a ruler to hold up against a case and say, “was what happened here considered to be an industry standard?”

But before we kill all the lawyers (I have friends who are lawyers and they’re actually nice guys, or at least these guys are), let’s pause for a little putting ourselves in someone else’s shoes.  I think I said it before in another blog, but it merits repeating.  A well respected South Carolina jurist once said this to a group I was with about lawyers:

“Lawyers are like vultures – most people look upon the vulture as a vile creature, eating carcasses and garbage, reprehensible to watch.  However, if there were no vultures, think about all of the roadkill that would rot on the highways, in the forests, and elsewhere.  Vultures take care of the messes we find distasteful.  If people would just get along and deal with each other in a civil manner, we wouldn’t need lawyers.” (Judge Thomas Kemmerlin, in a Leadership Hilton Head session)

Standards, too, are just that; if people (and subsequently, organizations) did their job the way it SHOULD be done, we wouldn’t need them (standards, that is).  But there are plenty of people and organizations who don’t.  And like I said, looking at standards as some sort of evil developed to help the legal community is actually a pretty cynical way of thinking.  The best (but certainly not the ONLY reason) for standards are that they give us a benchmark to measure against, they provide guidance for where to shoot for, they allow us to call an apple an apple and an orange an orange.  And this is where the discussion comes in regarding credentialing, and those agencies that should go away.

In all of this, the credentialing reinforces the idea that you put on the label, and you are what you say you are.  I don’t mean to suggest for a minute that a firefighter from Ajax Fire Department in Podunk, Saskatchewan has the same experience as a firefighter working a busy truck in North Philadelphia, but if they both carry credentials saying they met a minimum standard, at least you can trust that if they are both certified and credentialed through the same standard, that they both will be able to tell you which end of the ladder goes to the roof.  Does one have more firepower than the other?  You bet.  But we all at least know they started out on the same footing.

Of course, we have the organizations who are made up of people who are not comfortable with credentialing.  The agencies who insist that their organization is the rightful responder to a given incident, by way of statute or whatever legal standing that empowers them.  They then, for the means of deception, because that’s really what it is – you are deceiving others or deceiving yourself – you make the claim that your group/jurisdiction/etc. is equipped, trained and has a plan. At least that’s what you do when you declare, “I am Task Force so-and-so”, or put a patch on your jacket, or a sticker on your car, or wear the t-shirt, and then open your doors for business.  And you aren’t. 

Case in point:

Years ago, I was given the responsibility to do some research about the claims of an agency who purported to be an “urban search and rescue task force”.  In fact, there were two really interesting statements made to me (and even put in writing):  ”FEMA said that when the next teams are brought into the system, we will be the next one”, and “We finished in the top two teams that will be brought into the FEMA US&R system”.  So it was my responsibility, as given to me by an emergency management agency, to find out just what it was and wasn’t that this organization could really do.  To be short and sweet, it only took me a half-day.  Despite the presence of a patch, I was unable to find a plan, funding, or a cohesive legally authorizing document to even declare they were what they were. 

When I was serving in Horry County, SC during Hurricane Floyd, and before my current status as a pointer-of-fingers, I was impressed even then at the variations in type and kind that came waltzing into the staging areas.  Why is that a problem?  Just for example, let’s say that you have declared you and your pound hound a “US&R Canine Task Force”.  You then put it on the side of your car along with red lights and a siren, and you quickly get to be the guest of honor at several 11:00 news shows, saying that this is your label.  Well, if I’ve got ten stories compacted into about three, and I declare an incident, and I’m on the RECIEVING end, I’m gonna be pretty pissed when I call for a “US&R Canine Task Force” (whatever that is, anyway), and a guy, Fido, and a well-lit vehicle show up.  Because right off the bat, and I’m no genius, but a task force is at LEAST a multiple of SOMETHING and if this label is attached to an asset, then I am at least expecting a pick-up truck and maybe another dog (maybe).

So that label, then, well what does it get you?  Well, a label is only as good as the standard that defines it.  I’m not going to beat the old drum on here (it’s been roundly beaten), it would seem to me that if you (a credentialing authority) had some agency that got your highest mark and that agency was indisputably so far off the track of using modern incident management, currently accepted strategies and tactics, personnel accountability, etc., well, you’d probably change things pretty quickly to give your credential some real meaning.  I mean, if you don’t, it pretty much points the measurement out to be unreliable, doesn’t it?  But that measuring stick continues to exist in the same form, and yes, people are trying to change it, but the progress is slow.  You tell me- what kind of damage does that do to the argument in support of credentialing when currently existing measurement and validation processes we commonly use are such a joke?

There are plenty of organizations out there who claim to be doing the job that they were tasked to do, and they are simply squandering the taxpayers’ funds.  There are organizations out there who don’t get a dime of tax money that are taking up space and interfering with trained and equipped response assets.  There are people out there who wear a sleeve of patches saying they are this and that and they’re the last person I’d pick in a kickball game, much less to extricate my family out of a wreck.  So why do I want these groups to just go away?  Because there are those of us who genuinely want to provide the best service to my community (and yours, if I am deployed there) and when these clowns show up, they’re wasting my time and yours.  When I call for a “Type II Collapse Rescue Team” as defined by NIMS, then I’m expecting two six-man squads with a team leader and a logistics officer to show up, with equipment, trained and self-sufficient to a point.  If you show up with three bubbas in a pick-up with a tool box, just save me the energy of telling you to leave.  If we had credentialing, it would be easy to say, “THIS is what I am”, but right now, we have to take your word for it.

Who is against credentialing so far?  Well, the “Good Samaritan” has been, or at least many have made that satement clear to me.  I’m of the opinion they shouldn’t be worried about it because we really SHOULD incorporate them in somehow, but they’ve got to understand that if we can’t be sure of who they are or what they can do, we can only trust them to do things like direct traffic or man a chow line, and not run a track-hoe. 

Secondly, we have the people and agencies who are against credentialing because it’s going to point out to everyone that they aren’t exactly what they purport themselves to be, or are measuring themselves with an inappropriate, or ancient, or idiotic standard.  Like I said with them, they need to get with the program, do the right thing, and either step up to the 21st Century, or get out.  If you are advertising yourself to be a box of Cheerios, be the tastiest and crispest Cheerios anyone ever poured into a bowl, and not a box of rocks.

In the next installment, let’s talk about the thrill seekers and glory hounds.  If you thought I was hard on this last group, guess again.

The Case For Credentialing – The Argument

11 comments
SC-TF1 in Chalmette, September 2005

SC-TF1 in Chalmette, September 2005

As discussed in the last post, there are those who are against credentialing, for their own reasons.  Because I have had plenty of discussions about the subject, I think I have the discussions channeled into four groups (and if you have a different argument, let me know, because I don’t want to miss anything on the subject).  I plan to talk about each of these in a little more depth, but I wanted to at least put the parameters of the argument out there.

First, we have the genuine thing, the spontaneous bystander, who sees a need for action, then does something about it.  The discussion I have heard so far from this camp is that there should be nothing that would stand in the way of people who just have a desire to help their neighbors and do the right thing.  Quarantelli discusses the social aspects of emergent response from spontaneous bystanders in Katrina, but also in the Guadalajara gasoline spill and fire.  Plain ol’ people like every other neighbor you ever had saved lives, and were not agents of the government, had no training, and only did so in the effort to help others.  There’s something very beautiful in that, but call me skeptical, I see a lot of response from people who claim that is their motive, but I’m not seeing that altruism coming out when they’re out operating the video camera or taking souvenirs, rather than manning a sand-bag line.  More about THAT kind of person later.

We also have the disaffected group/person I call the “outsider”.  Having been one on a few occasions, I can certainly empathize with their cause, but I don’t necessarily sympathize with their way of handling things all the time.  Often, these are people who have a lot of training, or maybe come from somewhere where they had a lot of training and experience, and the place they are now in life won’t make room to allow them in.  There are dozens of reasons we will discuss, but there are also some issues regarding the credentialing side of things that would STRENGTHEN their position if they were in fact, truly qualified but being marginalized.

Then there are those who are currently the jurisdictional responder but are afraid the light of truth will expose that their organization/agency is not following industry standards, or that they are not ready, or are failing in any number of reasons.  These people really don’t have much sympathy from me in regard to their argument against credentialing.  However, there might be some discussion that merits a look.  I’ll reserve my judgement for now.

And finally, there are the thrill and glory seekers.  They might be there for the attention, they might be there for the notch in their gun, or they may be there to profit by defrauding the response community.  So as of now, this is where I stand and these are the arguments I want to discuss at first.  There are in some, compelling ideas.  There are in the others, no possible way you’ll be able to get me to support their theory.  But we’ll talk about them and I’d love to get your thoughts on the subject.  See you in a few.

Firefighting as Asymetrical Warfare

2 comments

2005-1139There used to be a day when warriors considered it less than chivalrous to take cover or to shoot from a prone position.  Most of us in this millennium probably would never consider it a good idea to stand up and march forward upright into a withering hail of bullets unless we were certain we wanted to end it all right there.  While Napoleonic tactics continued to be used on the battlefield well into the 1900′s, for centuries, experts in the art of warfare were aware that when fighting a battle with an enemy that had a decided advantage, less than conventional tactics had to be applied.

As anybody who has ever been in the military knows, the one of the least preferable places to engage the enemy is on his own ground.  This is especially true in urban warfare, where going house to house can bring on any sort of undesired surprise.  Again, marching down the street in perfect formation, wheeling into position to the left or right, and moving forward to the center of the contested area is likely going to result in a heavy body count.

The advantage for the opposing force utilizing unconventional tactics is surprise; your force doesn’t know where or when the attack will come, you are unfamiliar with the terrain, you are unfamiliar with the weapons that will be used against you, and the attack is most likely going to come where your units are concentrated and have little ability to maneuver or escape.

Likewise, as we engage a fire in a building, especially in commercial occupancies, we have a disadvantage in that we are relatively unfamiliar with the layout, we may or may not be familiar with the fire load and the construction, and we don’t know for sure how long the fire has been burning, where it has extended to, or what components have been impacted.  We can get good reconnaissance when we do our preplans, but even then, unless it is a building you are in routinely, you probably aren’t going to have a good feel for the “terrain”.

Nonetheless, we have some holdouts in the fire service who continue to embrace the romantic image of the valiant firefighter, bolt upright, dashing into the flames with no regard for his own safety, and emerging unscathed with babe in arms, to the cheers of the crowd.  And before some of you haters out there begin to judge, realize that I come from four generations of these, of whom I am extraordinarily proud to be descended from.

And although I’m okay with that image in my heart, there’s a point where my head takes over.  Because while there is a certain amount of adrenaline surge in the glory of headlong engagement with the enemy, my years of education and experience kick in and I realize that I am locked in mortal combat with an enemy that has a decidedly favorable advantage.

If I choose to ignore the risks involved to the point that only the mission matters, if we had an unlimited amount of resources with which to throw at the enemy, maybe that would be okay (stick with me, now).  I don’t know about your department,  but in my department, we would have a limit of about one dead firefighter before things get a little crazy on scene (I’m being facetious; I hate to spell that out, but I’m heading off the hate mail).

There is nothing wrong with that image of valor I discussed before, but as I said in my earlier post, misusing the resources we have been allocated, of which losing personnel would be probably the most severe (at least it would be in my department), is a seriously poor contribution to minimizing the disaster and bringing it under control.  In fact, in most cases, it exacerbates it.

In no way should my opinion be construed as being against taking risk.  Risk is part of my job and if God strikes me down while taking what I considered to be a good risk versus an appropriate return, than so be it.  But risk to the exclusion of common sense isn’t valiant, it’s stupid.

Most of the firefighter deaths in this nation don’t come from valiantly charging into a burning building to save a life.  Most of them come from preventable issues, like cardiac-related incidents and motor vehicle collisions.  And while I mourn my fallen brethren just as terribly whether done on scene or in training, my job as a responsible emergency service leader is to insure that we aren’t throwing away souls toward lost causes or through poor judgement.  I know my family is appreciative when I come home intact, and so should yours be.

Saying you are for doing the job regardless of the safety aspects isn’t manly, it’s irresponsible.  Being cognizant of safe working practices doesn’t mean I stand outside a building and tremble when I roll up on a structure fire, but it does mean that I look at the fire progress, the extent of involvement, the building construction, and the likelihood of interior tenability (among other things) before committing my personnel.  Realize that this comes from a guy who has charred several helmets off the top of his head in his day and has had his share of hairy saves.  And I loved riding the tailboard just as much, if not more, than any of you out there as well.  But there comes a time when you look at what you are doing, and remember how close you came to throwing everything you had at the fire, only to have the insurance company write it off and be out there with a track-hoe the next day, hauling your “saved” building into a dumpster.

As Chris Naum says in his post on The Kitchen Table, there is a place in between overly cautious and overly aggressive that the good firefighters take their place in the line.  I ask that you consider that location and mark it out, and strive for the use of thorough size-up, sound tactics, and reasonable safety measures while remembering that there are more out there who depend upon you than just that victim.  Don’t throw everything you have at a situation you can’t win.  Choose your battles through knowledge and skill, and do the best you can do.

Let's Take an Unemotional Look at the Problem

2 comments

webimg_0912While I have been pursuing the discussion on The Kitchen Table only peripherally as I have been very busy lately, I noted an undertone of something that I guess has nagged at me for quite some time.  After thinking about it for a few days, I realized that the issues could actually be approached from a very pragmatic view which I’d love to share with you all today.

Let’s just clarify some statements.  I was not at FDIC for the big discussion, so I am only acting on what I am reading.  But let’s just say that the argument that some organizations are too worried about safety and are not pursuing fires aggressively enough, and are therefore doing a disservice to their communities is a valid one.  And let’s also bring into play another thing I keep hearing, that it is ridiculous to refer to the people we serve as “customers”, as also valid, although I think that customers is a better term for them than some of the other names I have called them under my breath at 0400.  But I digress.

So then, what are they?  Well, I guess the best thing to say is that they are “taxpayers”.  After all, our service is largely supported by tax revenue in one way or another, so I think that is probably a pretty accurate definition, although I could argue that some of them aren’t paying taxes and maybe should be deserving of no service, but then again, I digress.  Let’s say that even in a community that supports a robust volunteer response agency by way of donations only, the citizens and other potential users are in some form or fashion, paying for a service in which they expect some competency, timeliness, and efficiency.

As users of funds that don’t belong to us (they belong to YOU, the taxpayers), I would expect that you probably hold us (the emergency service providers) to a higher expectation, simply because on a daily basis, you don’t use our service.  Therefore, you continue to pay fees, taxes, and donations in the hope that, God forbid, if you needed us, we would come.  And if we did come, we would be prepared, equipped, and with sufficient resources to bring the disaster to bear.

Furthermore, I would expect that as a taxpayer, you expect any funds expended would be done so in a responsible manner.  You would expect some financial discipline, that the agency would be responsible and accountable, and that any real property and other assets would be lovingly cared for and maintained, just as if it belonged to someone else.  Because you know what, THEY DO.  Those red trucks and your uniforms and everything else was paid for by someone else (in most cases).

Likewise, if I, as a taxpayer, saw you doing something irresponsible with those assets, I’d be upset, regardless of how right you thought it was.  If you were using those assets recklessly, I’d suggest that perhaps you should consider that I worked very hard to acquire the funds with which I surrendered to you for the purpose of protecting my community, and I’d rather that you used good judgement in how you used that asset.  Just as I’d hope none of you would drive an engine into a burning building to put the fire out, I’d ask that if you did see some compelling reason to do so, that maybe you would share it with me so I too, could be enlightened and could understand.

Therefore, when I (as a Battalion Chief for the organization I work for) am given a certain number of assets, paid for by you the taxpayer, entrusted to care for and to use prudently, efficiently, and competently to provide emergency service, I take it VERY seriously.  I am, believe it or not, a pretty conscientious guy.  And when those assets include, but are not limited to, a station, an engine and truck company, a bunch of expensive equipment, and most importantly, the eight people assigned to those companies, I am called upon to use the best judgement and skill to bring those assets together to create a life-saving, fire-kicking, roof-chopping machine.

However, if I (as the BC), fail to take a reasonable assessment of each situation in hand, and determine the real problem, the cost involved, and the efficacy of the plan using the assets I have, I am negligent in my duties as a steward of the public trust.  I would hope that the fire service has come far enough that you all see yourselves as better than cannon fodder, but I really think that sometimes, the thought that we aren’t anymore, troubles some of you.

If I have a life that needs to be saved, I will risk a lot to save a lot.  If I have a reasonable expectation that to take a little risk, I can make a significant difference in the outcome of the emergency, I will weigh my options against the risk and put my plan into effect if so moved.  But I absolutely refuse to believe that in this day and age, with insurance companies condemning a structure in which firefighters died saving, that this is a GOOD thing, well, if not for the emotional attachment I have to my brother firefighters, as a steward of taxpayer funds, I’d suggest that it is neither wise, prudent, efficient, etc., etc.  In fact, now that I have opened us up for the possible long-term care of injured firefighters, the possible loss of civilian lives, the possible lawsuits, the unbelievable amount of time that will be required investigating the loss, and the mounds of paperwork, my decision to do so would be such that any reasonable individual would take one look at it and say, “What were you thinking?”

Again, taking the emotional aspect of it out of play, people screamed bloody murder about a plane flight over New York that cost the taxpayers over a quarter-million dollars (not to mention the sheer stupidity of the decision, but again, I digress), think of how angry taxpayers would be if you said that you just chucked several million dollars out the window in insurance claims, medical bills, replacement personnel, and overtime to deal with this problem? 

Hey, if you don’t want to approach safety from an emotional and traditional standpoint, then don’t.  But as a responsible supervisor of taxpayer funds, failing to approach this from a purely pragmatic standpoint, is more than just foolish, it is irresponsible.

Let's Take an Unemotional Look at the Problem

2 comments

webimg_0912While I have been pursuing the discussion on The Kitchen Table only peripherally as I have been very busy lately, I noted an undertone of something that I guess has nagged at me for quite some time.  After thinking about it for a few days, I realized that the issues could actually be approached from a very pragmatic view which I’d love to share with you all today.

Let’s just clarify some statements.  I was not at FDIC for the big discussion, so I am only acting on what I am reading.  But let’s just say that the argument that some organizations are too worried about safety and are not pursuing fires aggressively enough, and are therefore doing a disservice to their communities is a valid one.  And let’s also bring into play another thing I keep hearing, that it is ridiculous to refer to the people we serve as “customers”, as also valid, although I think that customers is a better term for them than some of the other names I have called them under my breath at 0400.  But I digress.

So then, what are they?  Well, I guess the best thing to say is that they are “taxpayers”.  After all, our service is largely supported by tax revenue in one way or another, so I think that is probably a pretty accurate definition, although I could argue that some of them aren’t paying taxes and maybe should be deserving of no service, but then again, I digress.  Let’s say that even in a community that supports a robust volunteer response agency by way of donations only, the citizens and other potential users are in some form or fashion, paying for a service in which they expect some competency, timeliness, and efficiency.

As users of funds that don’t belong to us (they belong to YOU, the taxpayers), I would expect that you probably hold us (the emergency service providers) to a higher expectation, simply because on a daily basis, you don’t use our service.  Therefore, you continue to pay fees, taxes, and donations in the hope that, God forbid, if you needed us, we would come.  And if we did come, we would be prepared, equipped, and with sufficient resources to bring the disaster to bear.

Furthermore, I would expect that as a taxpayer, you expect any funds expended would be done so in a responsible manner.  You would expect some financial discipline, that the agency would be responsible and accountable, and that any real property and other assets would be lovingly cared for and maintained, just as if it belonged to someone else.  Because you know what, THEY DO.  Those red trucks and your uniforms and everything else was paid for by someone else (in most cases).

Likewise, if I, as a taxpayer, saw you doing something irresponsible with those assets, I’d be upset, regardless of how right you thought it was.  If you were using those assets recklessly, I’d suggest that perhaps you should consider that I worked very hard to acquire the funds with which I surrendered to you for the purpose of protecting my community, and I’d rather that you used good judgement in how you used that asset.  Just as I’d hope none of you would drive an engine into a burning building to put the fire out, I’d ask that if you did see some compelling reason to do so, that maybe you would share it with me so I too, could be enlightened and could understand.

Therefore, when I (as a Battalion Chief for the organization I work for) am given a certain number of assets, paid for by you the taxpayer, entrusted to care for and to use prudently, efficiently, and competently to provide emergency service, I take it VERY seriously.  I am, believe it or not, a pretty conscientious guy.  And when those assets include, but are not limited to, a station, an engine and truck company, a bunch of expensive equipment, and most importantly, the eight people assigned to those companies, I am called upon to use the best judgement and skill to bring those assets together to create a life-saving, fire-kicking, roof-chopping machine.

However, if I (as the BC), fail to take a reasonable assessment of each situation in hand, and determine the real problem, the cost involved, and the efficacy of the plan using the assets I have, I am negligent in my duties as a steward of the public trust.  I would hope that the fire service has come far enough that you all see yourselves as better than cannon fodder, but I really think that sometimes, the thought that we aren’t anymore, troubles some of you.

If I have a life that needs to be saved, I will risk a lot to save a lot.  If I have a reasonable expectation that to take a little risk, I can make a significant difference in the outcome of the emergency, I will weigh my options against the risk and put my plan into effect if so moved.  But I absolutely refuse to believe that in this day and age, with insurance companies condemning a structure in which firefighters died saving, that this is a GOOD thing, well, if not for the emotional attachment I have to my brother firefighters, as a steward of taxpayer funds, I’d suggest that it is neither wise, prudent, efficient, etc., etc.  In fact, now that I have opened us up for the possible long-term care of injured firefighters, the possible loss of civilian lives, the possible lawsuits, the unbelievable amount of time that will be required investigating the loss, and the mounds of paperwork, my decision to do so would be such that any reasonable individual would take one look at it and say, “What were you thinking?”

Again, taking the emotional aspect of it out of play, people screamed bloody murder about a plane flight over New York that cost the taxpayers over a quarter-million dollars (not to mention the sheer stupidity of the decision, but again, I digress), think of how angry taxpayers would be if you said that you just chucked several million dollars out the window in insurance claims, medical bills, replacement personnel, and overtime to deal with this problem? 

Hey, if you don’t want to approach safety from an emotional and traditional standpoint, then don’t.  But as a responsible supervisor of taxpayer funds, failing to approach this from a purely pragmatic standpoint, is more than just foolish, it is irresponsible.