Skip to content


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.

Protect Your Loved Ones

1 comment
Give your subordinates a chance to succeed while you watch them closely.

Give your subordinates a chance to succeed while you watch them closely.

There’s been a lot of talk about death in my family lately.  I have been coveting a tortilladora for a while, a relatively heavy device for making homemade tortillas.  The other day, I bought one (they’re cheap, but I had to make a side trip to the supermercado to buy it).  Of course, when I did, my daughter Emma, who is my kitchen sidekick and sous chef, got attached to it.  At dinner, we were joking around and I announced that when I died, I would make sure I specifically left her the tortilladora in my will.

Of course, my three-year old, Honora, took this to mean that my death was imminent, and for the last week everyone in our family has been getting quizzed as to when we are going to die.  Explaining to Honora that I had no immediate plans to die wasn’t cutting it, and explaining to her that everyone will eventually die, but not necessarily over the weekend wasn’t doing it either.  All we can do, I guess, is to be reassuring and hope the discussion evolves to something else soon.

Heartbreaking as it is, however, it brings to mind that our life on this mortal coil isn’t forever and just as I tried to reassure Honora that it wouldn’t be within this pay period, we really have no guarantees that it won’t.  Interestingly enough, our buddy the Fire Critic was just reflecting on this very same subject the other day, while blogging about firefighter wills being offered to personnel.

As good as this sounds, and our department approaches this from a different angle, by providing a one-time benefit to all employees for $300 toward a will or financial counseling, I was hit with something a few years ago that made me spend that much and more as a result of our daughter Caroline having special needs.  Having a “regular” will drawn up would only exacerbate the problems for Caroline; we actually needed to have a specially trained attorney draw up our wills to include the creation of a special needs trust in order to keep the government from taking away any benefits that Caroline would have coming to her as a result of her having Down syndrome.  So the objective discussion is that not only do we need to plan, but we need to know what we are planning for.

The point of my post today is one of leadership, believe it or not, and it goes to the heart of your legacy.  While you may be doing the right thing by your people on a daily basis, there’s also the consideration that we need to prepare them for the event when we are no longer with them, for when we retire, or move to another position, or for any other reason (we’ll leave the realm of death out of it, but that’s another contingency, of course).

If you are a transformational leader, rather than simply a transactional leader, your personnel will already be understanding the need to engage themselves intuitively, to participate and stretch their comfort zones (with you nearby as a safety net), and to identify the areas they need to improve.  You should also be taking this time to coach these people- encouraging them, redirecting them, and allowing them to take small leaps, like leaving them in command of some incidents (like I said, though, with you at their side).

At the company officer level, this sometimes gets a little challenging, since you can’t necessarily turn over command of your company at the next worker to the new guy (there’s usually not enough of those to go around), but there are plenty of other learning moments.  Put them in charge of the company at training, or better yet, have them teach a few classes to the company.  Get them used to being in front.  Let them handle some alarm activations or medical calls or even some service calls as the CO.  Surprisingly enough, we probably had all kinds of training on how to handle fire, medical, and rescue incidents, but how about the critical thinking involved in solving a ruptured water heater call, or a public assistance request?  There are needs for the CO to not only solve for X, but also to be able to provide effective interaction and communication with the complainant to help them through the situation.

While you may have subordinates who can achieve this learning on their own, it is important for you to not only facilitate it, but to monitor it to insure that what these individuals are doing is what meets your criteria.  Coaching and mentoring involves your oversight; you just can’t leave it to chance that they will have absorbed what you have been demonstrating over the years.  While you may have looked upon your own mentor for years and figured out what he or she was doing and understood how they approached situations, not everyone has the same understanding level and while your subordinates may seem to have figured it out, there’s a good chance they are just parroting your moves as well.  Thus the need to have these folks achieve understanding and a deep appreciation for the nuances of each decision and how they came about.  It’s one thing to have someone do what you tell them to do, it’s a different thing to have them think through the situation on their own.

What do you want your legacy of leadership to be?  Do you really want to leave it to chance that your students absorbed the lessons?  Insure that you prepare your personnel for the future by realizing the entire situation and make preparations now to support them in the days to come.

Taking FHZ to Wayne County, PA

1 comment

taskforceone logoAs a quick aside, if any of you are interested, I’ll be in Wayne County, PA on January 30-31, teaching at the Browndale Fire Department.  I don’t know if there are any open spots left, but contact info is on the flier.

Whether you are a seasoned officer, one newly promoted or just are aspiring to become an officer, this program will provided
you with the tools you need to meet that challenge. A company officer’s job is difficult, especially if you have not
been prepared for the transition from firefighter to company officer. This program, through a series of interactive exercises,
role playing and problem solving activities will provide you the tools needed to succeed in the station and on the fire
ground. Through computer simulation exercises and other interactive activities, students will have to opportunity to participate
in several emergencies under the watchful eyes of our instructors. Our faculty will share their “best practices”
showing the way it is really done in today’s challenging and ever changing fire service.

The course will be “Command for Company Officers” and as Ron Richards, of Task Force 1, Inc. describes it:  ”A company officer’s job is difficult, especially if you have not been prepared for the transition from firefighter to company officer. This program will provide you the tools needed to succeed in the station and on the fire ground.”  So if you’ve got the time and you are in the neighborhood, come on by.

Taking The Plunge

No comments

webIMG_2005Happy New Year!

Recently I was on my way to work and marveling at the sunrise (I get a good shot of it going over the Cross Island bridge on the way to my station) and got to remembering one call where a person dove off that very same bridge.  I was thinking, if you’re going to pick someplace to move on from, that’s a pretty scenic spot to do so.  It also brought up to me the dichotomy of risk vs. reward.

While the individual I was remembering had a reputation for making daring but risky decisions, you have to understand the motivator for someone like that.  If you can pull it off, you’re a God.  A stunt like that makes for a lot of interesting conversation later in life.  The downside, however, is when you fail, you fail catastrophically.

When we choose to forgo a risk/benefit analysis, we do just that.  In fire/rescue, the risk we take also involves death-defying heroism if you can pull it off, or grave consequences if you don’t.  While diving off a bridge seems to be the start of interesting cocktail party conversation, failing to appreciate the impact when you hit the water (literally) or the swiftness of the current below indicates a lack of total understanding of the problem.  When we plunge headlong into a fire with no idea of the conditions or into a rescue without considering the hazards that exist, we aren’t being professional.  We are choosing bravado over intellect.

I’ll keep it short because I’m juggling a few projects, but appropriate risk/benefit analysis requires a total understanding of the situation.  Failing that, at least a brief contemplation of the major risk involved is required.  There are people in our business who don’t even think when they go into harm’s way.  How many times in a media interview with “the hero” have you heard someone say, “I didn’t even think about it”.  I’d be curious to know if we were able to interview those who didn’t make it; would they say the same thing?

Understand your situation and make intelligent decisions, not irrational ones. It’s the difference between the steadfast and respected commander and the impulsive private.  If you want to be a leader, act like a leader.

Playing With Sharp Objects

No comments

webIMG_1668Recently I was dwelling on an inventory of stupid and dangerous things I have done in the past. Since the list was way too long to go on about, I began to wonder why I did those things.  While some of them were from my youth (like jumping off a roof with an umbrella), and some were from my bachelorhood (getting my Suzuki GS750E up to very unsafe speeds), it occurred to me that a lot of them occurred during my adolescence after watching the movie “Hooper“.  At no time during any of those periods did I have a suicide wish- I didn’t WANT to die- but in my mind, I hadn’t really given it much thought.  I hadn’t fully considered the consequences.

You can put the dangers out in front of someone in back and white.  You can paint the picture for them in classes and education.  You can bore them to death with your blog, like I do.  I think that what it really comes down to, though, is that unless you have a very graphic experience with death and understand not only the implications on you, but on others, I don’t think most people can really grasp the message.

There is a lot to be said for working in our business.  I have seen my share of people ejected from vehicles to convince me that wearing a seatbelt is a good thing.  I have seen enough burned homes to understand that being fire safe will head off a lot of heartache.  But no matter what, we have people who ride in fire apparatus without seatbelts and won’t keep their fire station free of hazards, and then they wonder how they end up on the national news wire.  Risk vs. benefit doesn’t have to be limited to the fireground.

I enjoy fighting fires, but some of the fires I used to fight still baffle me.  I have literally put everything on the line for an unsavable building before and to what end?  They tore down the building later.  But we still have people charging into fires, like they just want to roll in it for a little while.  Well, the excitement of the fire is one thing, but I’ve actually seen what a fire can do to someone, so you’ll have to excuse my reluctance to get up close with it and get to know it better.

As emergency service leaders, we need to remind ourselves that just because we used to play in the street when we were kids doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.  Riding on tailboards and charging into unsafe buildings was fun until we saw people dying from those decisions.  Be the grown-up and help point out to your personnel that just because things used to be one way, we have actually learned from our mistakes and it only makes sense to avoid these problems in the future.  Revisiting them for experience’ sake isn’t fun, it’s just stupid.

Declarative, Imperative, Interrogative and Exclamatory

8 comments

I was helping my oldest daughter with her English homework and we were having a discussion of the four kinds of sentences: declarative, imperative, interrogative and exclamatory.  In light of all of the rhetoric lately on a few items, (you know, the Chester Flag Incident, the DCFEMS Live Burn Incident, etc.- and it is just by sheer coincidence each of these are on STATter911, okay Dave?) it seems that maybe we need a little lesson in the different types of sentences in order to help everyone through these crises.

As a little refresher for some of us, here is what I’m talking about:

1. Declarative sentences make a statement.  They end in a period.

2. Imperative sentences can end in a period or in an exclamation point.

3. Interrogative sentences end in a question mark.

4. Exclamatory sentences end in an exclamation point, or for some of you out there, ALL CAPS.

Now understand, these are pretty general.  There are always exceptions to rules (like my sarcastically phrased interrogative statement that is actually an imperative statement; Standing in front of an obviously open compartment door while the driver is not paying attention to the fact that he has left the compartment door open, saying, “You did remember to shut that door, didn’t you?”).

Now for the most part, we here at FHZ like to use plenty of the interrogative when discussing items with you all.  I am really not in any position to discuss things with you declaratively, because I am not an expert on anything.  I do, however, have a lot of experience, so I like to use the Socratic method of teaching, that is, to throw out open questions to you like softballs and let you think about them as you slam them into the outfield.  Very rarely will you see me word anything in the exclamatory.  I’m an old-school kind of officer; I like for you to realize I am yelling at you without necessarily having to raise my voice (although from my earlier post about yelling, I’m sure you understand that this isn’t feasible all the time).  When writing though, I consider myself a master of the deftly-worded semi-sarcastic statement that makes you read it, then go back again and say, “I wonder if he’s calling me an idiot?”

Think of it as a little verbal Aikido.  If you know anything about the art of Aikido, you know that the underlying concept is to use the attacker’s momentum and redirect it, while also having deeper concern for the well-being of the attacker.  Most of the time when someone is being nasty, I really don’t wish you bad, I just wish you’d go away.  And while you’re at it, take this broken humerus as a reminder of this lesson.

But one thing I really can’t stomach is a bully, and for some reason, the internet brings them out of the closet in droves.  Honestly, to me, I think it has been said repeatedly (and I am in full agreement) that the relative anonymity of the internet gives some of these trolls courage.  It’s really the same way with society in general.  It’s when you know these people, I mean really know them, like they are your neighbor, or your co-worker, when you find a lot of that “courage” goes out the window.  Just like your basic road rage; while we are all probably tempted to flip off that terrible driver, it’s a whole different ballgame if you see him four pews over from your family in church every Sunday.

These bullies like to speak in the declarative and the imperative and often in the exclamatory, when really, they should be listening and speaking in the interrogative language, especially when we find out the “resident expert” has been on the job for three and a half years and has run a hundred calls in that time.  When someone like me, who has plenty of cred to back up anything I would like to proclaim in this business, says to you, “I’d like to hear what YOU think about it”, maybe some of you blue-light bandits or red-light raiders, or whatever you call your resident whacker, should take that as a hint that even with thirty years on the job, I’m still learning, and I take pride in saying that I can learn from anyone and on any day (sometimes its what NOT to do, but you see my point).  And it’s not a vollie thing or a career thing, it’s a “professional” thing.  I know plenty of vollies that can eat the career guys up on a fireground, but I know of plenty of vollies who like to talk a good game but can’t back it up when the excrement is flying, if you know what I mean.

When everyone in our business starts realizing that they don’t have all the answers, maybe then we’ll be a little more civil to one another and stop pontificating like some blowhard hypocrite politician or preacher, not that there are any of those out there.  But until then, plan on more of the same every year around the fire service, where something blows up and forty guys and gals sit around Monday Morning Quarterbacking it, not ever having actually faced that situation themselves.  And in the event that the day comes, those same trolls will probably be standing out by the engine with a wet spot in their bunkers, watching the rest of us doing our thing.

We need a little more understanding, not just in our business, but in society.  I’m one of the worst cynics there are out there, but I’m trying, I mean, I’m really TRYING to give people the benefit of the doubt, and some of these trolls just make it damned difficult.

Let’s just try to make one of those buddy pacts; like if I find myself getting ready to flame someone, I can call on you and you’ll talk me out of it, and vice-versa (“Hi, I’m Mick, and I’m a cynic.  I’ve gone 45 minutes without swearing under my breath and calling someone a total idiot.”).

It’s time we work together in our industry and work harder to educate everyone, not just in the basics of firefighting or rescue or EMS, or even in incident command, or anything fancy like that.  Just educate everyone in being better “brothers” and better co-workers and asking more questions and less telling people what to do or how they should think.  When you have unbelievable access to authors and bloggers like the ones here in FireEMSblogs.com and all over the internet (and in your library, etc.), why not take advantage of it?  There’s a lot to be gained from looking at different approaches to the same problems and learning if there is something we have in common, rather than shooting each other when things go wrong.

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?

1984

4 comments

I woke up very early this morning with some reflections of how the last week has gone and was thinking back to how much easier it was in the “old days”.  While the year 1984 has certain significance to many (you know, the book), the year has certain significance for me because it was my last year to be “one of the guys” and in 1985, I earned my first promotion.

In 1984, things were relatively easy.  I only had to worry about coming to work and making sure my Captain was okay with the things I did, and making sure I didn’t screw anything up.  So long as I did what I was told and tried not to overthink things too much, I could blend in with the team and work together, not worrying too much about how my individual issues affected anyone else. 

When I was hired in 1982 I already had some experience in rescue and I was already a certified EMT.  So in 1984, with my prior experience and the two additional years, I had some credibility that I brought to the team.  My job was to drive the squad, which in our department, carried all the rescue and medical tools we had in those days.  If we had a structure fire, I would slide over to drive the ladder truck instead and my officer would drive the squad.  The rest of the crew was on the engine.  That was pretty much the extent of my decisionmaking responsibility.

In 1984, we hadn’t embraced the computer as a tool.  Alarm and routine information was entered by hand into the station log book, so one of my most important tools was one of those Bic multi-color pens.  Alarms could be entered in red, other stuff in black or blue, and I can’t even remember why we used green, but we did.  Now that was technology.  Things changed in 1985.

By the end of 1984, we had the beginnings of huge changes.  We were adding fire stations and personnel.  The numbers of occupancies in our jurisdiction were growing by leaps and bounds.  We were going through Fire Chiefs as fast as they could be replaced as our commission was being challenged on issues.  We unionized and I was elected the Vice-President of the local.

But my main focus was on the changes in the national industry, because they intrigued me.  As the guy who brought in updated rescue technology from my previous department, I struck forward with the effort to train personnel in confined space entry and rope rescue, in advanced extrication techniques and in the techniques used for structural and trench collapses (when I went through Rescue I and II in Montgomery County, PA in 1981, we were creating tripods, gantries, and a-frames from hemp rope and timber, but the technology went through the roof in a matter of four years).  I got involved on a deeper level and at times, took a lot of heat for it from my colleagues and my superiors as well (nothing like being teased with “Calling Dr. Mick, calling Dr. Mick” because you decide to get your paramedic; ah, but those were the days).

I talked about Heifetz and Linsky in an earlier post and their observation that with change, there is danger.  If you are an agent of change, you will undergo attacks and even character assassination (or ACTUAL assassination: just ask MLK and Gandhi) because you represent a shift from what is comfortable and safe, to unstable and experimental.

Now that we have global access and reach we can share ideas that can both be widely popular and widely challenged.  We have a much more diverse audience and what seems to be understood as a logical solution to an issue may not even be feasible in a different culture or under a different circumstance.  To us, what may be the obvious might be the unreal.  Therefore, it is our responsibility, no matter how surreal the situation, to at least listen and try to comprehend, in an effort to achieve understanding.

That all being said, we all, from our differing viewpoints, carry a responsibility to accept what is right – and by right I mean understood to be realistic and applicable as a result of scientific evaluation and confirmation of our theory, as well as what is right by our fellow man – and not rely on innuendo and supposition.  But when we confirm something to be fact, we need to appreciate it for the change it represents, and regardless of our views on the subject, consider embracing change for the sake of doing what is truly right; that is, what is considered efficacious and for the betterment of our fellow human beings.

Just because someone claims to be the expert, or has insinuated that they should be followed as a result of their experience, fails to understand that what is accepted today is not necessarily the reality, nor is it the ultimate.  Things change.  When someone makes spurious claims, they should back them up with evidence.  Evidence isn’t someone saying “this happened”, evidence requires substantiated proof.

Things have changed a lot since 1984.  We now have expectations in the emergency service field that require us to challenge the people who say “this is true” not for challenging their authority, but to prove that what it is we take for gospel is correct, and that the service we provide based upon those theories are accurate and for the best of the people we serve.  Failing to operate in a transparent manner is only asking for trouble.   We have to accept criticism for what it is and understand that if we put emotion aside, there might be a grain of truth in what is being said.  By being introspective and realizing our faults, we achieve enlightenment. ‘Nuff said.

The Case for Credentialing – Those Who Can't Get In

No comments

sctf1-333My final group of people who are not happy with credentialing efforts are the “outsiders”.  To me, they are the ones with the most logical and compelling concerns about credentialing.  Ironically, these people are often those already with some responsibility for response, or they are in the process of trying to improve the capability.  In more than one case I am aware of, these efforts went about to fill a vacuum where poor or absent service existed.  And interestingly enough, the people working hard to improve the service have been effectively kept out of the loop by those who guard the credentialing development process.

Now to those who I hear constantly venting that they can’t understand who comes up with “these standards”, I tell these people all the time that as far as the NFPA standards go, THEY have an opportunity to write them if they were to just apply.  The NFPA standards process is very transparent and open to anyone who cares to get involved.  If you’re new to the process, sometimes it takes a little of help navigating the process, but there are people (like me) who help people find the information they want and point them in a direction on a regular basis.  Even if you aren’t on a committee, you are still encouraged to comment on proposed standards.  The public can attend NFPA committee meetings and the public and interested responders can discuss standards with principal members. 

However, there are groups making standards that may very well be used for credentialing purposes where I, and many in my same position, have no idea how the committees got picked.  When pushed for information, there have been slow or no communications in response to the standards being created. When asked, the individuals involved in these standards aren’t so forthcoming with their process or their logic.  In fact, in some cases these groups have ignored the people who aren’t in their “circle”. So I can certainly understand the frustration, because I’m one of you.

There was a time in my early career that I wanted to get involved in improving my chosen profession and interestingly enough, met with resistance from those in control.  One situation I am referring to was while dealing with a committee appointed by a training institution for the purpose of developing curriculum that frankly, was teaching information and skills about ten years behind the existing technical rescue methodology.  The excuse?  “That’s not how we do it HERE”.

In fact, there have been times in the US&R industry (and this is occurring literally, right this minute), where players that have political power but no clue about US&R are actively pushing for control of that “legally authorized responder” designation for their own ill-prepared organizations, despite the presence of already qualified and genuinely proactive individuals who are already leading efforts.

So to me, here is the place where the credentialing talks meet resistance and an extreme amount of concern. I am not interested in a credentialing process that excludes individuals from contributing to the development of the standards used.  The concern is especially strong when in some cases, the standards are slanted toward keeping people in positions rather than in insuring qualified people have the qualifications.  There is a fine line between saying we require you to maintain certification from a certain agency and permitting equivalency in order to permit other certifications that meet the intent of the certification.  The easy way would be to simply identify objective criteria for people and organizations to meet and to certify to that standard, but then there comes the difficult (and expensive) method of evaluating that capability.

Really, where do you draw the line on “equivalency”?  If the Acme Fire Department issues a certification as a Rescue Technician, should that carry the same weight as someone with a certification from their state fire academy?  Or from a third-party provider?

These are hard questions to answer and the chief argument against credentialing.  It’s because there are those of us in the industry fighting against those who have drawn a line benefiting a few to the exclusion of many.  My inner skeptic says that these standards have been established simply to promote someone’s agenda.  Now this is an argument that has been inappropriately used against NFPA standards for a while- that a certain interest group would control the standards in order to further their own agenda.  If there is anyplace where that is less true, it would be in NFPA committees.  Especially in professional qualifications committees, if a certain balance isn’t achieved to avoid self-interest, there are marked efforts to re-balance the committee.  I can’t say that to be true about some of the credentialing proposals I have seen.

We do, however, have to insist not necessarily on adopting a certification from a certain agency to be credentialed, but instead to insist on adherence to evaluation and confirmation of knowledge, skills, and abilities that meet the needs of a certain position, or in the case of organizations and teams, meeting objective criteria that define a type and kind of response asset.  From here, this is where we will transition into the argument in favor of credentialing.  See you next time.

The Case for Credentialing – Those Who Can't Get In

No comments

sctf1-333My final group of people who are not happy with credentialing efforts are the “outsiders”.  To me, they are the ones with the most logical and compelling concerns about credentialing.  Ironically, these people are often those already with some responsibility for response, or they are in the process of trying to improve the capability.  In more than one case I am aware of, these efforts went about to fill a vacuum where poor or absent service existed.  And interestingly enough, the people working hard to improve the service have been effectively kept out of the loop by those who guard the credentialing development process.

Now to those who I hear constantly venting that they can’t understand who comes up with “these standards”, I tell these people all the time that as far as the NFPA standards go, THEY have an opportunity to write them if they were to just apply.  The NFPA standards process is very transparent and open to anyone who cares to get involved.  If you’re new to the process, sometimes it takes a little of help navigating the process, but there are people (like me) who help people find the information they want and point them in a direction on a regular basis.  Even if you aren’t on a committee, you are still encouraged to comment on proposed standards.  The public can attend NFPA committee meetings and the public and interested responders can discuss standards with principal members. 

However, there are groups making standards that may very well be used for credentialing purposes where I, and many in my same position, have no idea how the committees got picked.  When pushed for information, there have been slow or no communications in response to the standards being created. When asked, the individuals involved in these standards aren’t so forthcoming with their process or their logic.  In fact, in some cases these groups have ignored the people who aren’t in their “circle”. So I can certainly understand the frustration, because I’m one of you.

There was a time in my early career that I wanted to get involved in improving my chosen profession and interestingly enough, met with resistance from those in control.  One situation I am referring to was while dealing with a committee appointed by a training institution for the purpose of developing curriculum that frankly, was teaching information and skills about ten years behind the existing technical rescue methodology.  The excuse?  “That’s not how we do it HERE”.

In fact, there have been times in the US&R industry (and this is occurring literally, right this minute), where players that have political power but no clue about US&R are actively pushing for control of that “legally authorized responder” designation for their own ill-prepared organizations, despite the presence of already qualified and genuinely proactive individuals who are already leading efforts.

So to me, here is the place where the credentialing talks meet resistance and an extreme amount of concern. I am not interested in a credentialing process that excludes individuals from contributing to the development of the standards used.  The concern is especially strong when in some cases, the standards are slanted toward keeping people in positions rather than in insuring qualified people have the qualifications.  There is a fine line between saying we require you to maintain certification from a certain agency and permitting equivalency in order to permit other certifications that meet the intent of the certification.  The easy way would be to simply identify objective criteria for people and organizations to meet and to certify to that standard, but then there comes the difficult (and expensive) method of evaluating that capability.

Really, where do you draw the line on “equivalency”?  If the Acme Fire Department issues a certification as a Rescue Technician, should that carry the same weight as someone with a certification from their state fire academy?  Or from a third-party provider?

These are hard questions to answer and the chief argument against credentialing.  It’s because there are those of us in the industry fighting against those who have drawn a line benefiting a few to the exclusion of many.  My inner skeptic says that these standards have been established simply to promote someone’s agenda.  Now this is an argument that has been inappropriately used against NFPA standards for a while- that a certain interest group would control the standards in order to further their own agenda.  If there is anyplace where that is less true, it would be in NFPA committees.  Especially in professional qualifications committees, if a certain balance isn’t achieved to avoid self-interest, there are marked efforts to re-balance the committee.  I can’t say that to be true about some of the credentialing proposals I have seen.

We do, however, have to insist not necessarily on adopting a certification from a certain agency to be credentialed, but instead to insist on adherence to evaluation and confirmation of knowledge, skills, and abilities that meet the needs of a certain position, or in the case of organizations and teams, meeting objective criteria that define a type and kind of response asset.  From here, this is where we will transition into the argument in favor of credentialing.  See you next time.

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.

Multiplicity of Command

No comments

2005-10111How many more times does disaster have to strike before responders finally learn the lesson of the need for unified command?  How many times do agencies need to experience a tug-of-war over resources, slow response to needs due to poor inter-agency communication, and lousy coordination all because the “powers that be” refuse to put their egos aside and agree to play nicely together?

As evidenced by disaster after disaster, when jurisdictions experiencing wide-spread disaster fail to work together to coordinate, their problems become exacerbated.

I know there are plenty of responders out there who have their own little bit of heartburn over NIMS.  Sometimes it is a little too clunky, and the feelings have been documented by researchers like Buck, Trainor and Aguirre.  Decision-making in disasters has been a problem for long before we began to study disaster management.  An interesting paper by Thomas Drabek in the 1983 International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, “Alternative  Patterns of Decisionmaking in Emergent Disasters“, indicated several qualities found in disasters that influenced decision-making.  The disasters were multi-organizational in that they exceeded the capabilities of locals and thus required outside assistance.  The disasters had a diverse array of resources needed, therefore there was much in the way of technical understanding that needed expert overview.  There were “loose couplings”, in that the players often had little to no interaction prior to the event taking place, therefore unfamiliarity with personalities and capabilities.  The organization that emerged from the disaster grew over time, often overwhelming the initial responders.  Finally, the disasters still retained much in the way of local control and for whatever reason, the AHJ maintained that control even when faced with being overwhelmed by the incident.

I found the last point to be an interesting one; while in my opinion it is important that the AHJ retain control over an incident, the incident commander must have the courage and the intelligence to determine when and at what point the incident is overwhelming his/her ability to manage the incident, and to not be afraid of developing a unified command.  With rare exception, local managers are generally lacking in the experience of confronting a managerial problem of this complexity, and instead of riding it out and insisting everything is “just fine”, they need to reach out to the assistance being offered from regional and state (and federal authorities, if indicated) to provide advice and resources to bring the suffering of their community to bear.  Failing to do so is tantamount to abandoning your community.

The basics of NIMS are sound; the principal tenets revolving around division of labor and the unity of command are borne out on a daily basis on firegrounds and every other kind of emergency we can think of.  Multiple “commands” at a large, wide-area incident, absent the coordination of a local emergency operations center and a more centralized command structure, will only end up in the waste of valuable resources, time, and patience.  One unified incident command managing several Area Commands works.  Doing so will minimize the confusion and add to the  proper allocation of resources, and insure that the overall incident is managed.

When you don’t play the game, you are saying that it is your world, and we’re all just living in it.  I realize the intense pressure of having to deal with a rapidly deteriorating condition and the inability, sometimes, to just get your hands around it.  When I have had this happen, I have found that sometimes its best to take a step back, look over the situation, and take it one bite at a time.  But when you have entrenched yourself and refuse to plan in advance for disasters, thinking that you are going to handle everything yourself and that your community doesn’t need help from the outside, well, you are setting yourself up for a fall.  And when you stray from the basics of incident management, something will eventually give.

Don’t be afraid to let others help, especially in areas where you may not be as experienced.  If you have resources being offered to you to help manage things, consider them a tool to use, not a crutch.  And realize that in the face of a major disaster, it’s not just about you; your community has neighbors and they too may need assistance. It’s a good idea to work with them ahead of time so you know where everyone is coming from.  Realize that all resources are limited and that’s a good reason to be talking with everyone involved, because each of these stakeholders have a lot to contribute, but as stakeholders, they also have a lot to lose.  A unified command at a major incident is definitely the way to go.