LOOSE ENDS

LOOSE ENDS

EDITOR’S OPINION

• No questions for the “First Lady”? Officials gushed at the April 21 Senate confirmation hearing of Carrye B. Brown as administrator of the USFA. Representative Curt Weldon, founder of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus, dubbed Brown “the First lady of the Fire Service.” Senator Richard Bryan remarked that the hearing was “more like a coronation than a confirmation… I had a list of questions outlined to ask Mrs. Brown, but I am not going to ask them.”

Firefighters should have many questions for the “First Lady,” among which should be, Do you have a plan specifically to assist local fire service entities across America to elevate the training, safety, and firefighting capabilities of firefighters? Are you aware that America Burning called for the 1 SFA to “provide bloc | sic | grants to State government units for disbursement to local governments’? Will you visit our fire stations and watch us work in Bismarck and Mobile and Santa Fe and Montpelier and the little places and big places in between, and will you champion our training, equipment, and safety needs in Washington?

Now that the coronation is over, voice your needs to the administrator and work to improve the federal support mechanism for the fire service.

• Maintain the presence… The annual Congressional Fire Services Caucus dinner was a success, though fewer firefighters attended than in past years. One attendee was President Clinton, who delivered a brief but positive speech and stayed just tong enough to receive an award from the Caucus— for what. I must ask?

There are several reasons For firefighters to attend the dinner, but remember the most important: It is a notice to Washington that the fire service is a force to tx listened to and reckoned with. Maintain the presence, year in and year out.

• No “raise” for the fire service Director James Lee Witt ‘s requested I99S budget For FFMA’s Fire Prevention and Training activities, which include the operation of the USFA, National Fire Academy, and the Emergency Management institute, remain unchanged front 1994, at $31.3 million. Fire people in Washington are relieved tltat the federal fire programs budget likely will breeze through unscathed.
• Mune cold, third cash The Congressional Fire Services Caucus is axhiugton’s largest caucus But its size is not indicative of its weight, based on history It’s time that the fire service, with its many Washington allies in the Caucus and elsewhere, took some action that would lxfelt by all the “little guy s ” on the line and on the drill fields and on inspection tours We need cold, hard cash for firefighter training and equipment and prevention service s We need it to lx elisbursed through a simple system with simple guidelines unfettered by federal bureaucracy through the state and to the local levels.

Administrations and Congresses have been high on praise and symbolism and short on dollars Federal monies directed for municipal firefighter training and education and equipment—including the CSFA/NFA/EMI and the Department of Agriculture’s Rural Community Fire Protection program-total less than $36 million in the past sit years there has been no significant federal legislation targeted specifically to support and enhance local firefighting capabilities.

llx fire service, history say s, is a small-change interest group. Consider that the proposed anti-crime bills in the House and the Senate call tor S28 billion and $22 billion, respectively Crime is a very high priority, undoubtedly but a little proportional balance is necessary let us assume— purely arbitrarily—that on a priority scale firefighting is one-tenth as “important” as crime fighting. Using the America Bunting recommendation. this would make about S2 billion (approximately one-tenth of the Senates anti-crime allocation) available to the states for disbursement locally—or >8 million a y ear for five years to each state in the Union. That would go a long w ay tow ard improving firefighter training and equipment. I dare Congress to tell the fire service that firefighting is not at least one-tenth as important as crime fighting

• Malpractice insurance for paid fire officers? The COSHRA bill (Comprehensive Occupational Safety’ and Health Reform Act) under congressional consideration watuld widen significantly the civil and criminal liability of managers/supervisors found negligent in cases of employeedeaths and injuries. Under the “new OSHA, ” a paid fire officer (or nonexempt volunteer officer under a more stringent state OSHA plan, if applicable) is more likely to lose his property, be imprisoned, and have his. salary garnisheed for the rest of his life should the worst happen on the fireground or in quarters and a prosecuting attorney argue successfully that a firefighter injury or death occurred because of his negligence.

If your department training effort is lacking, if you think ICS stands for Implementation Cramps my Style,” if your SOPs are invisible and you snub your nose at national recommended standards, if you think you don’t need a fireground accountability system, if your department doesn’t pursue a mastery of the basics, then the COSHRA bill should be a real incentive for you to get your house in order, once and for all. Be forewarned and forearmed.

Increased worker safety and health is a righteous endeavor, but these broad-sweeping federal regulations must be tempered with a liberal dose of reality. Overregulating the fireground is bad for firefighters and the public. Continually hacking away at private and public sector businesses is risky business. From where in municipal governments will the money come to comply with and protect you from OSHA? Will municipal fire departments be able to increase the budget tor the level of programs necessary to protect personnel front criminal liability (will taxpayers render their imprimatur)? What is that level? Some day, not too far into the future, that level will be tested Queue up for your malpractice insurance before the premiums get too high.

• Volunteers exempted from C.OSHRA.. The COSHRA bill was amended to exempt volunteer fire departments entirely . The logic was twofold: Its costliness would be beyond the reach of volunteer departments and would virtuallyforce a switch to paid departments, which, according to one study, would cost American taxpayers in the neighborhood of $40 billion: and, as described by Michael Begland, executive director of the National Volunteer Fire Council in a quote from tire I AFC On Scene newsletter, “ We don’t want the person who would be in a supervisory position to be deterred from making a difficult decision in a stressful environment’ out of fear of an OSHA citation.”

The cost issue is understandable, but excuse me—am 1 missing something here? Is fireground decision making less stressful for paid firefighters? Arcpaid firefighters somehow less fazed by OSHA regulations? Do paid firefighters have less to lose? Are volunteer firefighters not trained professionals’! Is the professionalism of the volunteer fire service a political card to be played as it suits political aims? Does a fire know the difference between paid and volunteer?

• Tun separate fire sen-ices? .As our national regulations and standards multiply like rabbits, the fire service seems to make more frequent distinctions between the paid and volunteer sectors. It’s almost as if we re becoming two separate fire services. Be advised: The more volunteer leaders attempt to break cadence with what become “accepted norms’ in the paid fire service, particularly in the area of health and safety , the more die volunteer fire service becomes less responsible and responsive to the public and itself. Volunteer fire service: Don’t settle for less when changes, albeit painful, can improve the overall professionalism of die volunteer firedepartments: rather, lobby the government to get the government funding necessary to comply with legislation, regulations, and standards perpetually generated by government and standards-making entities.