New FEMA Director Talks Positively for Fire Service
features
The Editor’s Opinion Page
Every fire officer worth his salt has learned through experience that one of the most important things he had to do in sizing up a fire is to cull the rumors from the facts so he can make valid decisions. Much smoke has occluded the future of the United States Fire Administration (USFA) and the National Fire Academy (NFA) as the restructuring of their “holding company,” the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was being restructured by the Reagan Administration.
The new director of FEMA is Brig. Gen. Louis O. Giuffrida, who was confirmed by the Senate on May 19. In a talk at the spring conference of the International Association of Fire Chiefs Metropolitan Committee in Annapolis May 13, Giuffrida extinguished a number of rumors about the future of the USFA and the NFA.
First of all, Giuffrida assured the metro chiefs that a fire administrator will be appointed by the President to fill the vacancy left by the resignation of Gordon Vickery. Giuffrida also stated that the National Fire Academy will continue to exist at Emmitsburg as a part of the National Emergency Training Center that will be located on the NFA campus.
Giuffrida, who obviously takes pride in giving the impression of being a tough administrator, saw combat in World War II as a Marine Corps company commander in the Pacific and then fought in Korea after becoming an officer in the U.S. Army. After retiring as a colonel in 1971, the then Gov. Reagan selected Giuffrida to organize the California Specialized Training Institute, which included fire service training. Gov. Jerry Brown recently promoted Giuffrida to be a brigadier general in the California National Guard.
The new FEMA director, who told the Metro chiefs “my point of view is pro-fire,” said that if he plans any substantial changes affecting the fire service, he will give the chiefs an opportunity to write a position paper that includes options.
We feel that some changes are certain to come with the new FEMA administration and the eventual appointment of a U.S. fire administrator. We also feel that Giuffrida has given the fire service a challenge to evaluate these changes and develop a stand that represents the majority thinking of the fire service. He is under no illusion that the fire service will attain unanimity in it outlook—an indication that the general knows something about the fire service—but he does expect the many fire service organizations and spokesmen to extinguish most of their differences so that a semblance of unity is presented to the federal officials.
The relationship between the fire service and the federal government again is in a period of change—just as it was when the USFA became part of FEMA—and what eventually happens will more than anything else be the result of the unanimity and forcefulness with which the fire service presents its position.
This is a vital time for the various interests in the fire service to talk to each other, reach compromises on their major differences and develop a reasonable position on what the fire service wants of the federal government. We emphasize that a reasonable position must include options that both the fire service and the federal government can live with.
We also suggest that the fire service’s position must be based on not only what is good for the fire service, but also what is best for the residents of this nation whom it protects. What is truly good for the fire service in the long run is what does the most for the fire protection of those who pay the bills—the nation’s citizens.
