THE VISION THING
CAPITOL CONNECTION
FDR’s “New Deal.” JFK’s “New Frontier.” George Bush’s “New World Order.” In Washington these days, it’s called “the vision thing”—the ability of leaders to see, clearly describe, and move toward a better world. A great vision is an idea that brings people together, excites them, mobilizes them, and stands the test of time.
America’s fire service periodically tries the “vision thing.” Fire service leaders have little trouble agreeing in general terms when they are herded into conference rooms to “brainstorm” and record their ideas on large sheets of paper taped to walls. Again and again, these sessions produce inch-thick volumes that set forth a vision—a big picture for the tire service. To the extent that they are conclusive, they say: “fewer deaths and tires, safer jobs, less bureaucracy, more resources.” It all reminds me of a story
Two men in a hot-air balloon suddenly were blown off course by a terrible storm. When the storm cleared, the men had no idea where they were. One of the two leaned over the side of the balloon basket and yelled to a man on the street below, “Hello down there. Where are we?” The man yelled back, “You’re 100 feet in the air in a hot-air balloon.”
The man in the basket turned to his partner and said, “Just our luck. A lawyer.”
“How do you know that?” his friend asked.
“Because he’s exactly right and lie’s no help at all.”
As visions go, “fewer deaths and tires, safer jobs, less bureaucracy, more resources” is exactly right and no help at all. It’s no help because beneath those “apple-pie-and-motherhood” sentiments are layers of conflicting values and priorities. And until those conflicts are explored and somewhat resolved, “fewer deaths and fires, safer jobs, less bureaucracy, more resources” are just words.
Sifting through those layers can be a big, messy job. So 1 asked six individuals who represent different points of view and experiences to help. Each of the six was asked the following questions: What problems do you expect the fire service will face in the year 2000? and What are your hopes for the fire service in the year 2000? Each was instructed to speak only from his own experience.
1 spoke to a congressman, a federal agency official, a small town fire chief, an international union president, an expert on fire trends, and a businessman. 1 wanted to include a big-city fire chief, but the one I selected —Ray Alfred of Washington, D C —had his mind on other challenges the week I was writing this column. Not only had Washington’s new mayor, Alfred’s boss, recently refused to honor a pay increase for firefighters, but she also was considering removing the EMS from the fire department’s jurisdiction even though the medical service had been steadily improving under Alfred’s direction, it struck me that Washington’s present dilemma may be other cities’ futures. And so perhaps Alfred’s “statement” may be the most prophetic of all. You be the judge….
Hon. Curt Weldon, US. Representative, Seventh Congressional District, Pennsylvania, chairman and founder of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus: Federally, the ’80s was the decade during which we rebuilt our defense capabilities and our military might. Based on Desert Storm, 1 would say that was a good decision.
THE VISION THING
The ’90s will be the decade during which we rebuild our domestic defenses, our fire service—by that I mean the full range of services fire departments now offer—and our lawenforcement resources.
Politically, the fire service has the potential to accomplish anything. Firefighters are in every community. They are respected and honored. Their sole job is to protect lives and property. And nearly 90 percent of them are volunteers. When they come up to Capitol Hill, who’s going to argue with them? My colleagues in the House and Senate regularly call here for information to include in speeches to be given to local fire groups. We’re seeing many more congressional town meetings in firehouses. I’m very pleased.
The fire service could be a morepotent lobby group than senior citizens or veterans. Firefighters are wellorganized, determined, and mostly young and active.
Just a few years ago when we started the Caucus, some people believed it would be a one-man band. Well, I was flattered, but they were wrong. The whole idea is based on teamwork. Ultimately, certainly by the year 2000,1 see 50 to 75 members of Congress actively involved in the different issues that are of concern to the fire service.
It really started last year. Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) took on the issue of reunification of the U.S. Fire Administration and the National Fire Academy. Claude Harris (D-AL) got results in the area of wildland fires, Elton Ciallegly (R-CA) took on urban search and rescue, Sherry Boehlert (R-NY) and Doug Walgren (former DPA) got the first federal sprinkler statute passed. And there are a lot of others. Cardiss Collins (D-1I.) has really gotten into the haz-mat issue.
Hey, when Doug Walgren lost his reelection bid —and that was a real loss to the Caucus and Congress, which is hard for me to say as a Republican—Steny Moyer (D-MD) took over the cochairmanship of the Caucus. Steny is in the Democratic leadership, and those guys generally don’t have time for caucuses. This was a real honor and a sign of the strength of the Maryland firefighters.
My greatest hope is that by the year 2000 the fire service will be on a playing field comparable to the fields of the other major special interests.
I am a strong supporter of environmental causes, but I do not think that the environment necessarily is more important than life safety. There needs to be a balance.
I am a strong supporter of the military, but defense decisions should be made with concern for life safety squarely in mind. As a Republican, I am very concerned about government spending, but is cutting costs more important than life safety? I don’t think so.
We can achieve that level playing field by being politically smart and by recognizing that the day when firefighters just put fires out is long gone. We must tell our story. It is the American story of people helping others in a selfless, generous, and brave way.
THE VISION THING
If the fire service sits back, it will be stcamrollcd. Right here in Washington, D C, it hurts me to see what the fire department is up against. Payraises have been cancelled; the department is expected to respond to everything. They’re out on shootings, drug busts, heart attacks—you name it. The mayor may pull emergency medical services away.
Polities. We need to fight back. We must tell our story and let government know that it must stop making problems—almost all of the fire service’s problems are of the government’s making—and start solving some.
1’he fire service is unified on the major issues. Regionally there are some differences in focus, but I am not concerned about the differences. We believe in the political process, and in the next 10 years the fire service will have a golden opportunity to learn the political process and make full use of it.
Olin Greene, administrator. US Fire Administration: M greatest hope for the fire service 10 years from now? I sure hope they have far fewer fires to suppress and fewer lives to save. But as that occurs, fire departments must begin to see themselves more as service organizations providing a range of assistance to their communities. It already has started with so many departments offering emergency medical service.
Firefighters by the year 2000 should be routinely involved in the building-design process and then in building inspections. Public education should be one of its major functions; it now has a minor role in too many places. That will mean different leadership as well as a major change in our recruitment philosophy.
In the past, the road to chief was through suppression. In more recent years, fire prevention and code enforcement experience was added. 1 suspect that the next generation of chiefs are today’s emergency medical services coordinators.
Chiefs will be better educated. When I entered the fire service “100″ years ago, it was rare to find a chief with a college degree. Now many have master’s and some have doctorate degrees. Some are engineers, some are architects, others have public administration degrees.
We will need to recruit more wellrounded firefighters. Traditionally, the people we attract are prone to act quickly. We have had to slow them down to put on that SCBA. wait for their buddies, and think of their own safety. With the incredible increase in infectious diseases, they must take a very hard look first, take precautions, and then act. Beyond that, we will need people who will spend much more time inspecting rather than saving buildings and educating rather than rescuing people. All this depends not just on training but on the type of people we attract; we may have to make a very big change in the way we recruit.
My greatest fear for the future is being built right now. I can head in almost any direction in any city and sooner or later come upon row after row of townhouse and condominium developments. Very few of them have the type of fire walls 1 would demand in my home, and only a few have sprinklers.
If we don’t get busy and start passing residential sprinkler ordinances, our future fire losses will come in large numbers. Today, a house fire kills three, and it’s front-page news. When one of these townhouse developments goes, we will see scores of deaths at a time.
Al Whitehead, president, International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO: I am sorry to say that I see a continued lack of resources in the future, caused in large part by the revenue-limiting measures—which generally target property taxes—now in place in almost half the states and many individual communities. More than 90 percent of a fire department’s budget is personnel. When cuts are made, they usually are made in personnel.
1 would like to think that life safety is a priority in most places. But, obviously, it is political priorities that matter, and we are not always among them.
The cuts often are deepest in places like fire prevention and some of the specialty details like haz mat. But as you eliminate integral parts of a department. you stand the risk of affecting the method and quality of response. The number of fire deaths and the amount of property losses can only increase. Some politicians believe that this sort of statement is a scare tactic. It’s nothing more titan an observation about cause and effect.
THE VISION THING
1 wish this was some sort of pendulum and that in time we could see it swing back in our direction. I am not sure that it is. At the state and local levels, politicians respond to disasters after the fact, but it takes something on the scale of Desert Storm to affect our national priorities.
The lack of resources over a period of years has affected many aspects of fire departments. Training immediately comes to mind. Many departments in this country are without adequate training, apparatus, or proper protective gear to respond safely to a hazmat incident. 1 read the newspapers and know that the United States is about to go through a more aggressive round of cleaning up toxic waste sites. That means firefighters—including many who aren’t properly preparedare the ones who will arrive first on the scene. That they show up at all is a testimony to the dedication and bravery of firefighters. What kind of public policy allows this to happen?
Another effect of inadequate resources likely to affect fire departments in the year 2000 is their being spread too thin. I call it the “l.et’s-callsomebody” approach to emergency services. Firefighters roll on eventiling because folks want them at the scene “just in case.”
The continuing lack of resources also has made it impossible for the fire service to properly monitor—much less deal with —the health of firefighters. We are exposed to everything. We are just learning about the health effects of some of the agricultural chemicals, for example. It may be that firefighters involved in wildland fires are being exposed to some dangerous substances. The synergistic effect between chemicals is not yet fully understood. Yet we keep sending people into situations that may kill them in future years.
I think we will face many of the same problems 10 years from now, but this international union doesn’t intend to stand by and let adverse conditions occur without a fight.
Part of the answer lies in more productivity, which may not sound like a word that comes from a union leader, but 1 mean it. In many departments, firefighters can be crosstrained as paramedics. It is a logical combination of responsibilities—1 am all for it. There may be other possibilities for combining related responsibilities.
Much of the answer is in making sure that everyone pays his/her fair share. Our people can’t and won’t duck their responsibility. Industry can’t either, but many businesses arcdoing little more than they are required to do.
Property taxes alone will not do the job in the future. They aren’t doing it now.
Philip Stittleburg, Esq., chief, LaFarge (WI) Volunteer lire Department; chairman, National Volunteer Eire Council Foundation: Maybe I’m the eternal optimist, but I think the problems we have will be solved by the year 2000. Time is at the base of every one of a volunteer department’s problems. The solution is better and different methods for recruiting and training personnel. I think it is that simple.
The guys in my department are as dedicated as any 1 have met around the country. But when I ask them to take more training—which they must take—or I ask them to help with fundraising or record keeping, I hear some grumbling. I don’t blame them. Most of us joined the department to put out fires.
But the demands on us are incredible and are increasing. We are being held to standards that are getting higher all the time. Being a volunteer department doesn’t exempt its members from complying with OSHA requirements or standards pertaining to hazardous-materials incidents or administering to someone with an infectious disease. Most of these standards are there for our own good.
It comes down to time. First, we have to open our eyes wider and start recruiting a greater variety of people.
There are people out there who wouldn’t set foot in a burning house but who might do a great job with record keeping. Do we ever need help filling out record forms on personal health, maintenance of equipment and apparatus, and training!
We need help with fund-raising. Frankly, if we had people who specialized only in raising money, we probably would raise enough for our needs. We need people to run our public education programs. Do we need young, athletic people? Sure. But many of these jobs could make great use of the elderly and handicapped.
I’m not sure we’ve made much of an effort to recruit minorities in many parts of the country. How can we complain that we don’t have enough volunteer firefighters if we haven’t asked our black, Hispanic, and Asian neighbors?
Retention also is a big problem. From my experience, we lose people when we wear them out and burden them down with extra duties such as training and record keeping. If we free them from those jobs, we should hold onto more of them. But I also think that some of the retirement benefit programs now available would be a strong incentive for volunteers to remain on the job. I am amazed by the number of 23-year-olds who see the value in a retirement benefit. They realize that they can put enough time in to get something back.
THE VISION THING
In some places—particularly the fastest-growing suburbs—traditional all-volunteer departments are changing. It’s necessary and probably desirable. The move toward combined career-volunteer departments is providing the around-the-clock coverage that’s needed.
When government is asked to pitch in, it really must. Volunteers have taken a major burden off taxpayers for a long time.
Will there be a volunteer fire service in 10 years? No question about it. In part, there is absolutely no choice—certainly no better choice. There isn’t enough money to replace it with an all-career fire service. From a geographical perspective, the thousands of 30-person all-volunteer departments out there are really the
only efficient way to do it.
Mark Sueval, president, Fire Suppression Systems Association, business manager, Performance Chemicals, Great Lakes Chemical Company: 1 see two possible scenarios for the year 2000. One represents my hope, the other my fear.
In the worst case, life safety will be considered less important than environmental concerns. In particular, fire suppression chemicals—from foam to dry chemicals and carbon dioxidewill be tightly regulated or removed from the market. We already are seeing this phenomenon with halon.
There will be no “clean agents,” since none will meet environmental standards; and the technology of the special-hazards business will be forced, back to what it was in the 1950s.
Corporations will buy additional computers as backups because clean fire suppression (to replace halon) no longer will be available, and publicsafety will be seriously compromised.
That is my fear. In part, it stems from the speed with which halons arcbeing removed from the market without any real regard on the part of environmentalists for whether acceptable alternatives are available.
But my fear also is based on what I see as a trend that fingers foams and dry chemicals as major contributors to ground water contamination and carbon dioxide extinguishers as contributors to global warming.
We must conduct ourselves in an environmentally responsible way, but the environmentalists must recognize that society has a multitude of serious needs—and few are more pressing than fire.
My second scenario is the samestory with a happy ending. In it, industry, public officials, and environmentalists make an ongoing effort to balance all needs. Special-hazards technology flourishes. Costs comedown, and special applications artdeveloped for the residential market. After all, that’s where America’s real fire problem exists.
Investors sense the excitement and the spirit of cooperation. The codemaking and standard-making processes are made more efficient to allow for rapid technological advances, and improved training programs churn out adequate numbers of increasingly skilled personnel.
So often, what starts out in the research labs at NASA ends up in an appliance in the home. That should be the special hazards protection industry story in the year 2000.1 hope it is, because I plan to be there.
THE VISION THING
Philip Schaenman. president. TriData; former associate administrator. I S. lire Administration: I believe tlie lire service is likely to face many of the same problems in the year 2000 that it struggles with today. There will be movement in the right direction, but progress will be slow.
The largest issue, in my opinion, is the degree to which fire departments are successful in expanding their prevention strategy and the proportion of resources devoted to prevention, (liven municipal budget pressures to reduce suppression forces, it is the only hope in holding the line and the main strategy adopted by the rest of the world.
Second, and related, fire officers will find that a lack of technical education will affect their ability to deal with the question of equivalency addressed in the type of performancebased codes that are becoming more prevalent. The fire service must be able to evaluate architects’ and engineers’ newest ideas of fire safety trade-offs and have the authority to require them to furnish the proof so that more fire safety is built into structures.
In Great Britain, they are piecing together a comprehensive technical curriculum for fire officers from an assortment of programs available from various sources About 10 years ago. Dave l.ucht at Worcester Polytechnic Institute suggested this very approach. It s time we revisited it.
The Dutch fire service has the authority to require that the private sector prove that alternative construction approaches are safe and to encourage business to use quasi-government fire research laboratories to certify the new approaches.
A third related problem—which I hope 1 am totally wrong about—will be a number of large life-loss fires in unsprinklered multifamily dwellings, offices, exhibition halls, and other places where many people congregate. No doubt these fires will lead to debates and legislation, as hotel fires have done in the past. We always react to disasters. We always wait until they occur. I believe that a percentage of these fires will result from some of the code trade-offs being allowed today—trade-offs whose impact may not be fully understood.
A fourth problem may be difficulty in maintaining the all-volunteer fire department. In Europe it s increasingly common to hire part-time firefighters—people with other jobs who are paid to respond to calls. They aretrained to near-professional levels and use professional equipment. This may even be a solution for the cutbacks we are seeing in so many cities.
Fifth, more lawsuits. It really disturbs me to see courts allowing fire departments to be sued. We have at times wanted firefighters to he more cautious. The lawsuits might make fire chiefs and firefighters too cautious. The pendulum really could swing too far here.
Sixth. I would expect the expansion and strengthening of the European Common Market next year to have a major impact on any product subjected to fire codes. That’s a long list. Certainly, it could affect many American exports, from fire trucks to wall coverings. It may not be good. The British have very stringent flammability standards for upholstered furniture. If they are criticized as an “unfair trade barrier,” those rules might be rescinded. That would be a blow to fire prevention worldwide.
On the positive side, I see an accelerating shift to prevention—which may offset some of the problems related to an aging population: The elderly population has the highest fire death rate.
We certainly are seeing some better-trained and more highly educated fire officers, although there still arcmany who are being dropped into management positions without additional training.
I think the slowly developing trend toward regional consolidation of departments is good from the standpoint of efficiency, training, and better career paths for the best qualified people. There were more than 1,000 firebrigades in Great Britain before World War II. and there are just 66 today. They believe it was one of the most valuable things done this century for their fire service.
Whatever happens between now and the end of the century, I’m sure of one thing: The men and women of the fire service will be as brave and committed then as they are now-. For that, we all should be thankful.
Six points of view, six visions, from individuals who must deal with their own corners of the fire service in a serious, although different, way every day.
I have heard it said that “fire service unity” is the goal, and at almost every fire scene we accomplish it. But as a political reality, “unity” of thought will never be achieved—and I’m not sure that it’s even desirable. Once you dip down into the real issues, below the “fewer-deaths-and-fires” rhetoric, there are important, valuable differences.
The day-to-day give-and-take between labor and management on worker-safety issues, the negotiating between the public and private sectors on codes and standards, the competition for resources—these are the strengths of America’s fire service. If there were unity on issues of this magnitude, we would have complacence: and we would learn and achieve little.