LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Fire Services Caucus shows promise
I want to express my appreciation and gratitude as well as some “random thoughts” to you and the publisher of Fire Engineering for inviting me to be your guest at the Hire Services Institute dinner in Washington, D.C. on April 12.
It was a tremendously rewarding personal experience to be present along with so many others from the fire fraternity and to witness this tremendous ground swell of much-needed support for the objectives of the caucus. The attendance of President Bush and Vice President Quayle were the jewels in the crown of the entire event.
Personally, I felt an enormous emotional uplift at the remarks of President Bush when he expressed his desire to see that the original mandate of the National Fire Prevention and Control Act is carried out. However, in a more pragmatic sense, I thought to myself that we have been down this street before, only to find that it was really something of a blind alley. I fervently hope that Mr. Bush was not merely paying political lip service to the hearts and minds of the large crowd in attendance. Since Nixon, every president – Ford, Carter, Reagan, and now, Bush, has indicated his support for the “cause,” and yet we have seen OFPC shrink and be gobbled up by FEMA as though it were a participant in a Pacman video game. Perhaps with the impetus and vigor of this important, new congressional caucus we will witness some real progress in diminishing the horribly awesome toll that the ravages of fire exacts from our society.
It is my opinion that the caucus will very soon be put to its first real test during the attempt to move the Hotel/ Motel Safety Act through both houses of Congress and get it signed into law by the president. If the caucus is not successful with those efforts this year, then it means that it is merely a paper tiger without real political strength. If the Fire Services Caucus is successful with its first major legislative effort, however, it will certainly be one positive sign that it possesses the political clout to get things off the proverbial dime. It will also be a signpost that this country is progressing toward President Bush’s “kinder, gentler nation.”
On a less cynical and more positive note, my impression of the entire process of pulling this event together was that the caucus has demonstrated it has the ability to muster widespread support. 1 also felt that it was a long overdue awakening of the sleeping giant of the fire community. The caucus has enormous potential to get the good and necessary things done. It was fabulous to see the melding that took place, the coming together of the so-called “movers and shakers” of the fire service interests in the United States. To see equipment and apparatus manufacturers, suppliers, insurance companies, fire chiefs and firefighters, fire administrators, academia, training officers, instructors, labor organizations, consultants, publishers, and yes, even some editors, all participating in a unified effort to get the ball rolling was really gratifying. I humbly pray that it is an indication that the fire service finally has its very own political voice in Washington and that real progress will emerge as a result.
John J. O’Rourke
Chief of New York City
Fire Department, retired
A manufacturer challenges the fire service
When your immediate family members disagree, do you air your differences in front of your holiday guests? Probably not, if you can help it. We all prefer to present a united front to the outsideworld.
The fire service family hasn’t followed this rule. The result is that Congress and interested members of the public perceive the fire service as fractionalized and, therefore, impotent. Very few groups have ever had favorable legislation adopted by presenting anything other than a united front to the legislature.
This is not to say that there is no place for healthy disagreement. Without some internal arguments, the industry would never advance. But when approaching a legislative body, the fire service must speak with one voice. This already occurs with respect to fire issues that help the public (e.g., sprinklers). But it does not occur with respect to issues that affect the fire service itself (e.g., funding, burdensome recordkeeping, useful federal programs).
The opportunity now exists for one voice to speak to Congress. Congressman Curt Weldon’s (R-Pa.) formation of the Fire Services Caucus could provide a direct communication channel. Let’s not screw it up with multiple, conflicting signals.
Many of the fire service trade publications have noted the formation of the caucus and have encouraged all of you to contact your congressmen about joining and actively participating in it. We believe there should be an even more important goal than expanding the size of the caucus. The fire service must meet outside the presence of caucus members and determine an agenda.
It will do no good simply to dump dozens of ideas on the caucus without first coordinating with each other. Such activity will result in the transmission of confusing messages, none of which will appear to have universal, grass roots support.
Once a tentative agenda is established, individuals should be charged with the responsibility to
- feel out caucus members as to the feasibility of the agenda;
- do the necessary survey and research work to ensure that the fire service is behind the agenda. No one should assume he or she already knows the views of individual fire departments without substantial research;
- publicize individual top priority agenda items to ensure that fire departments all over the country focus on these items;
- establish a liaison or ombudsman organization to hear the comments of interested individuals and recommended changes in the agenda accordingly.
Only after these matters are addressed can the fire service designate representatives to speak for the fire service to convey the final agenda to Congress. Fire service spokespersons must be selected carefully and taught how to address Congress. (We’ve read the transcripts of some of these exchanges and can clearly use some help here.)
The Joint Council of Fire Service Organizations would be a good place to start. But this is not a matter that can be meaningfully addressed by the Joint Council alone, as currently populated. Each organization in the Council should certainly poll its constituency regarding their views, but these views should be augmented by the views of others who have an interest. A complete list will be left to those with sharper political wits than ours, but it would seem that the editors of the major fire trade journal publications should be invited to participate (both for input and to help promote an organized front) and fire service vendors should participate (both for input and to help fund the effort). Representatives from state offices, significant state and regional groups, and many others should be considered as well.
Once a first meeting is convened, we propose one ground rule: the object of each meeting should be to find common ground-to agree. It will be no time for egos. There are common needs that affect all departments regardless of whether they are big or small, volunteer or paid. All self interests should certainly be expressed, but none should be allowed to stand in the way of a final agreement.
There is a difference between a caucus and a lobby. A lobby works from the outside; a caucus works from the inside. Just because we now have a caucus, don’t think for a minute that magic will happen absent a strong and unified lobby.
It’s a little like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz. We had the power to go home (or in this case, to the House and Senate) all along. We simply never elected to click our heels before this.
Wayne Bennett
FireSoft
Washington, D C.
What it takes to recruit young volunteers
I have often listened while people in the volunteer fire service, both nationally and in southeastern Pennsylvania, have commented about the difficulties in recruiting new volunteers. While a cyclical problem that has been reoccurring throughout my entire 20-year career in the volunteer fire service, the comments seem to be more frequent and expressing more frustration at this time.
The National Volunteer Fire Council, in its recent study on volunteerism in the American fire service, seems to portray a picture that is far different than these frequent comments. According to the council, most volunteer organizations are not reporting a recruiting or a retention problem. It seems to find the recruiting and retention problems concentrated in areas of rapid development.
Why do we find this dichotomy between the feelings of the officers and senior members of volunteer organizations and a respectable and well-done national study? One reason to consider is that there’s a significantly smaller group of people in the 16to 20-yearold age group (that constitutes entry level for activities) than there was 15 to 25 years ago. Also, in economically developing areas there’s a shortage in the labor pool, providing opportunities for them to work and make respectable wages. There’s a need in economically disadvantaged areas-such as in the socalled “rust-belt”-for people from this age group to work because the major breadwinner of the family may not be able to find employment. Finally, there are far more choices for the young age group than in the past. Whether it be the fascination with cable TV, the unfortunate and reprehensible involvement with drugs, the need or opportunity to work, or involvement in school or other community groups, our 16to 20-yearolds are finding themselves in demand.
Fire and emergency services will only recruit these young people if they can provide them with an incentive to join. Too often, we interpret this incentive to be some form of employment. However, it is clear that many volunteer organizations do receive involvement from our target group.
It appears to me that volunteer fire and emergency services have to analyze the successful techniques used by volunteer organizations in their immediate area, and use these to recruit the appropriate new personnel. So, too, must the career fire and emergency services determine what recruiting techniques are working for equivalent organizations and businesses. It may be important to note that we may not be looking at the same target group for volunteer and career fire services. One can argue that some form of post-secondary school employment may be a valid prerequisite for career employment in the emergency services field. It is clear, however, that this probably would not be a prerequisite for enrollment as a volunteer.
Only by identifying the successful recruiting techniques of one’s area can a successful recruiting campaign be developed. And it is only the active recruiting effort on the part of local emergency services that will produce positive results.
Timothy R.S. Campbell
Director, Emergency Services
County of Chester, PA
More thoughts on decon
I would like to comment on an article in your March issue, “Definitive Decon.” After reading the article, I was appalled at the manner in which decontamination was to be carried out. One of the first rules of hazardous-materials mitigation is to limit product migration as much as possible. What is being recommended is a 180° turn from this practice. Decontamination operations should be carried out as close to the incident site as possible. By returning to the fire station to perform decontamination. you are contaminating your own living area. The outcome of such an action could lead to disastrous health and safety problems for the personnel who must spend long periods of time in the fire station.
One alternative would be to have a semi-trailer brought to the site with provisions for heat and lighting established. Water should never be a problem, as it is carried on all pumpers and may be warmed to at least some degree by churning it in the pump. A second possibility is to use a warehouse or other building that people don’t live in. This type of building would be much more appropriate for decontamination operations than using one’s own fire station.
This letter is written not to find fault with the article, but rather to offer alternative sites to accomplish a safe and effective decontamination operation without bringing it into the place where many firefighters must spend one-third of their lives.
Raymond E. Haring
Hazardous Materials
Technical Systems
Virginia Beach, Virginia
Preach safety, save lives
I just received the April issue and I haven’t finished with March yet. It seems that every article had something worth learning in it.
After 9 years on the line, I just became the training officer for our 90-man department. Going from the 24/48-hour schedule to eight hours a day, five days a week put some serious demands on my time. I only have time for one trade journal, and Fire Engineering is it.
Don’t stop preaching safety. I agree with you-we don’t need to kill any more people to learn lessons. When we prefire plan now, the first question that is asked is “What’s holding up the roof?” More often than not, it’s lightweight steel or wood trusses. Being aware of these roofs should help keep us out of situations like Hackensack.
Andrew Vigueira
Training Officer
St. Bernard Parish (LA)
Fire Department
Sprinkler articles fill the bill
I congratulate you on the April issue! Your two articles on sprinklers fit exactly into a case I am working on in Chicago. The cycling of the flow switch retard is the secret in a $25 million lawsuit. Your article explained it better than I did in a deposition last week.
A.K. Rosenhan, P.E., SFPE
A.K. Rosenhan Consulting
Engineers, Ltd.
Mississippi State, Mississippi