How Citizens Evaluated Joplin, Mo., F.D.

How Citizens Evaluated Joplin, Mo., F.D.

How do laymen undertake an independent study of a municipal fire department, and what kind of a product comes out of such an endeavor?

Joplin, Mo., which survived a mining boom with a traditional mix of commercial properties to protect, may have plowed some new ground for small cities that might be thinking about a management review of its fire service.

A nine-member committee appointed by the city council completed a study of the Joplin Fire Department at the end of 1979 and its report included a long list of recommendations aimed at upgrading the fire force strategically, tactically, and administratively.

Criticism of consultants

There was a feeling at city hall that the city government had wasted money on previous studies of other municipal departments conducted by professional consultants. Therefore, with City Manager James Berzina pushing the suggestion, the council appointed a committee of local people to make the study, a study required by a home rule charter amendment approved by voters in 1969.

The committee of nine included two members of the nine-member city council and the immediate past fire chief (retired). The six other committee members, from the business and professional community, had no direct ties to the municipal government.

General charge given

The governing body, through the mayor, gave the committee only a general charge at the outset in March 1979, but it ruled out as areas of study: personnel, union affiliation (a current controversy tied up in the courts), the work week, and compensation.

The committee met with some regularity (every two to three weeks) at the outset, but began to bog down in putting together a report in the late summer and farmed out the chore of writing the report to a drafting subcommittee. This group did not meet until late November and then only after the mayor urged the full committee to report by the end of the year.

Procedural difficulty

With no text available on how such a committee should function, there was some thrashing about on procedure, and initially the work load on fact-finding was assigned to subcommittees by subject matter (stations, apparatus, manpower, etc.).

It soon became evident that the committee membership represented a considerable spread in level of knowledge of the fire service in general and the Joplin Fire Department in particular. The retired chief (Dwight Vaughn) was well versed on the development of the department over a long span of years. A member of the state judiciary was appointed to the committee because of his interest in the fire service, having been a buff for many years. This writer, also a buff, asked the mayor for an appointment.

Other committee members were a safety director for an electric utility company, a retired manager of the local natural gas utility, a management-level employee of a long-established major industry, an insurance agent, and the two council members, also had business backgrounds.

Split on increased costs

When it came time to submit a final report, the committee generally agreed on most housekeeping recommendations, but it tended to be less than unanimous on some big ticket recommendations involving increased municipal spending. A proposal to recommend a fifth fire station was turned down on a split vote, but a proposal to recommend about a 20 percent increase in shift manning carried in a split vote.

Most of the recommendations were along the lines of further modernization of the department in terms of training, fire flow, communications, and coordination with the franchised private water company.

Some members favored brevity, but those who favored a detailed, comprehensive report of facts prevailed. The report dwelt extensively on the elements of a paid fire department of 68 men, working three shifts of 21 men each, out of four stations in a city of 40,000 that covered 30 square miles.

Little change since ’56

The department had not significantly changed since 1956, when the fourth station was opened and an engine company was added. None of the department’s front line apparatus (six engines and an elevating platform) was less than 12 years old in 1979. There was no extensive training program, and inspection activity had fallen off, the committee found.

Members of the committee also gained the impression that in recent years, Chief Rex Marshall may have been forestalled in obtaining significantly larger appropriations until at least after the outside review was undertaken. The fire and health departments were the last two city departments to undergo outside studies. Previous studies (by consultants) included the public works, police and finance departments. The charter requires such reviews at least once each 10 years.

Report on schedule

Although the committee had to learn how to make the study and one person had to do most of the writing of the first draft, the committee presented a 48page report with 48 recommendations on schedule.

Committee members worked at keeping fire department personalities out of the review and concentrated on determining how the department, which has enjoyed a good reputation in the community, could be improved.

There appeared to be more pitfalls on procedure than on work product. Cities considering similar citizen committee reviews or management audits should develop formal procedures to attain specified goals. This would save committee members both time and headaches.

While this writer is not fully convinced that the committee review method is superior to employment of a knowledgeable fire service consultant, one fact is certain in Joplin’s case—the job was financed with a near-zero expenditure of municipal funds.

Time will tell if Joplin got its money’s worth.

Four Firefighters Hurt in Fire in Abandoned Harlem (NY) Building

Four firefighters were injured battling a massive fire that tore through an abandoned Harlem building where jazz icon Billie Holiday reportedly once lived.