THE FUNDING DILEMMA: ARE YOU PREPARED FOR IT?
BY DENIS G. ONIEAL, Ed.D.
The national elections in November have sent a message to all of us: The government we once knew is about to change. Among the biggest changes are those associated with funding. The federal government will be giving funds to state governments to allocate as they see fit. The states, of course, will earmark and distribute these funds based on state government priorities, not the local government`s. As a result, local interest will focus on those agencies that generate the most state funding, and budget pressures will be further brought to bear upon local services in which the state has no interest. You can be sure that the local fire department will be among them.
Presume for a moment that you have been appointed chief of your department. One week into your new position, the city`s business administrator informs you that, as a result of declining state aid, your municipality must cut funding for certain departments and that the fire department is at the top of the list of departments that will suffer budget reductions.
The scenario may not be new, but this question may be: What in your career, so far, has prepared you to respond to this organizational threat? What professional texts or periodicals have you read or skills have you developed or courses have you taken to prepare you for this challenge? For most, the answer is probably none, for that is not our career path. What is currently professional development for the fire service is the promotion of the best and brightest, up through the ranks, to increasing levels of command responsibility. Finally, and ultimately, someone rises to a position for which he/she may have never been prepared.
Unfortunately, to a large degree, our professional literature is (rightfully) concerned with preparing for and managing emergencies. Open competitive promotional examinations in career departments typically test for subject matter and content that are validated for the manager of a group of firefighters and officers. In volunteer departments, the selection criteria range from merit to popularity. Neither technique prepares the political neophyte for life in a large administrative pond. In those few progressive departments that require a series of both line and staff assignments for advancement, the typical fire department manager may still be insulated from the high level give-and-take that so typifies the municipal budget process.
We can only anticipate that the demands for budget reductions will intensify. From the perspective of a municipal manager, the easiest cuts to make will be in departments without large constituencies or in organizations with leaders who are intimidated, ill-prepared, or without budget-negotiation skills. Fire departments may be among them.
BE PREPARED
As a professional, you had better be prepared to respond to these demands for reduced services long before they hit your town. The days of predicting doom are over because if your dire predictions don`t come true immediately, the public will soon forget you made them. There are limits to the public`s memory. And, even if your worst nightmare materializes, how are you prepared to demonstrate that the disaster was directly related (causal) to whatever cuts were made?
Understand that this is, first and foremost, a power game–state power vs. fire department power. The “winner” will be the side that had the ability to place the argument within its field of expertise. Fundamentally, your response, with whatever evidence you decide to develop, should be framed within the proper power argument. The improper use of power in an argument (or presentation) will doom you to an early defeat. You cannot argue in someone else`s arena of power and expect to win.
Power and/or politics is simply the ability to accomplish something. The use of either is neither good nor bad; it simply is. It is good when you accomplish something you want and bad when others accomplish what they want at your expense.
BASES OF POWER
Depending on the text you use, there are about six bases of power:
Legal or legitimate. Power granted by the law. Police officers, elected officials, firefighters and officers, and judges exercise legal power, almost always within the scope of their employment.
Reward. Power exercised through the use of rewards. The granting of favors or special treatment is an example of reward power.
Coercive. The ability to punish or take away privilege.
Expert. The power granted to someone by virtue of education, training, or recognized expertise in a given subject area. This is the type of power exercised by physicians and attorneys.
Charismatic. Power exercised by someone through the strength of personality. This is the type of power typically exercised by elected officials or celebrities.
Referent. The power exercised by someone through contact or affiliation with a powerful individual. This type of power is usually exercised by someone with an appointed position in government (as opposed to being elected or having permanent civil service status).
For the purposes of illustration, imagine a situation in which a police officer stops a motorist for a minor traffic violation. The officer has wide discretionary powers within his/her scope of authority. The officer can decide whether to simply warn or cite the motorist. In this situation, the officer clearly has expert and legitimate powers and may exercise reward (no citation), coercive (citation), or charismatic (kind lecture) power. The motorist also may decide to employ certain powers in an effort to get the officer to exercise his/her reward or charismatic powers–for example, the motorist might say, “Officer, I am the mayor” (legitimate, reward, coercive, charismatic). Another motorist might say, “Officer, my father is a police officer” (referent). The motorist who will surely receive a citation (coercive) and a lecture (coercive) is the one who argues within the police officer`s bases of power–expert and legitimate: “Officer, I wasn`t speeding” (expert) and “Who do you think you are?” (legitimate).
From the prospect of state or local government, elected and appointed officials are exercising expert power–expert “budget” power, not expert “fire” or “safety” power. To a lesser degree, they are exercising deferent and legitimate powers, but neither is their strongest suit. Elected officials may, from time to time, exercise charismatic, coercive, and reward powers; that should be self-evident. What are your power tools? The strongest are expert “fire” and “safety” powers, and you are the expert.
STRENGTHENING YOUR POWER BASE
How can you strengthen your expert power base?
First and foremost, perform and document a risk analysis. These are the types of data to which officials respond. In these types of situations, they may even be on your side; but, unless you give them sufficient reasons to side with you, they will side with someone else at your expense.
The analysis is a fairly straightforward format; but it must be complete, thorough, and written. Your risk analysis must be completed before the budget study is completed, or it will appear that you developed it simply in response to the officials` fire department cut recommendations.
Prepare a media campaign to disseminate the results of your risk analysis. Prepare a few short statements that encapsulate the essence of your argument. (Please, no more: “The politicians are playing Russian roulette with the public`s safety.”) Recognize the human limitations for assimilating new information, facts, and figures. Too much information is as bad as too little. When presenting information to elected officials, particularly neighborhood or council officials, explain your findings as they would affect their individual area, not the municipality as a whole. Council officials (legislative) are generally better “ears” than mayoral (executive) officials because councils generally exercise more budget control. Moreover, they are more concerned with their “turf” than anyone else`s.
Do your homework. There are sufficient studies out there. Read them. Absorb them. Know them inside and out. A few that may help you are the following: “In Response to the Demand for Fire Department Cutbacks,” Fire Engineering, August 1993, 45; NFPA Standard 172: Training Standard on Fire Attack; NFPA Handbook of Fire Protection, 17th edition; NFPA Standard 1500, Fire Department Occupational Safety and Health Program; the Columbus (OH) Fire Department Study; the Seattle (WA) Fire Department Staffing Study; the Seattle (WA) Fire Department Injury Study; the Dallas (TX) Fire Department Staffing Study; the Phoenix, Arizona, study; the Clark County, Nevada, OHS decision; and the Metropolitan Fire Chiefs statement, 1992.
Use your power appropriately. The officials are going to argue budget power. That is their strength. You should argue that they indeed are making a budget argument, but this isn`t a budget decision; it is a safety decision. This is a decision that affects the safety of the entire public. The arena is safety, not budgets. They are making decisions in the inappropriate arena with inappropriate tools. Therefore, you and your knowledge, your studies, your research, and your experience hold more relevance to the issue than theirs. Do not argue budgets with them; you will lose. They are better at understanding budgets than you. Get them to argue public safety (your power base), and you`re in a much stronger position.
Refrain from recommending cuts in your own department or others. Solutions to the budget problem are not yours to develop. In my opinion, it would not be in your best interest to agree to lower apparatus staffing levels to prevent the closing of fire stations (if it should come down to that). When the public sees a closed fire station, they get upset because they know that help is not as close as it once was. On the other hand, they feel they are protected when the station is open even though it may have fewer firefighters on the apparatus. It “looks” as if they are protected. They see a truck inside the door. The public does not understand the impact of staffing levels on fire company performance, and it is next to impossible to get that message across in a short time. Staffing to them is a labor problem–you want more, the city wants less. Closing a neighborhood station is clearly a safety problem–their problem. You, as the expert, should not recommend lower staffing per apparatus because it already has been demonstrated that lower staffing increases firefighter injuries and decreases fire company effectiveness. Your knowledge of the above studies shows that.
Clearly, it would be counterproductive to lay out the specific arguments, chapter and verse. Someone on your city management team is reading this article. That individual and you know that the best defense is an offense.
The funding squeeze is not going to go away. This is only the beginning. As state and local governments begin to succeed with their power arguments within their power arenas, they will become better at what they do. They will begin to take on bigger and bigger targets. Don`t wait. Act now. Prepare.
DENIS G. ONIEAL, Ed.d., is the superintendent of the National Fire Academy in Emmitsburg, Maryland. He previously was a career line deputy chief in the Jersey City (NJ) Fire Department and an assistant professor at New York University`s Graduate School of Education. He has a master`s degree in public administration from Fairleigh Dickinson University and was named the university`s 1990 “Alumnus of the Year.”
