Letters to the Editor
Priority Evaluation
State College, Pa.
It is from concern that I write this letter; it is not criticism, it is a personal observation and apology.
The National Commission on Fire Prevention and Control was a dedicated and authoritative body representing the citizen. Early in the Commission’s existence, it set a guideline against which each issue was to be weighed—significant reduction of life and property loss from destructive fire. The health, welfare and happiness of the American public was the concern. “American Burning” was addressed to these issues.
Current fire literature speaks with gloom as it assesses the prospects of Federal Government support is even a threshold fire program. It is my view that the less than enthusiastic support by the public’s representatives (executive and legislative branches) is justified.
Why justified? Because I find no clear testimony, goals or objectives that argufe on behalf of the citizen.
For instance, a recent publication lists the following priorities: the National Fire Academy; the fight to reduce arson; fire fighter safety; fire fighter manpower and utilization; and the residential fire problem.
With the exception of the last item (which strikes me as an add-on), the remainder appear as vested interests and products on internal compromise.
Perhaps we should present a public oriented program aimed to help the citizen if we want to compete for support from the taxpaying citizen.
So my concern—the public well-being. My observation—our priorities tend to be self-serving. My apology—to the members of the National Commission on Fire Prevention and Control for an apparent weakness and to the citizen who pays the government’s bills.
Richard E. Bland
