Takes exception to “myths”
James T. Steffens
JTS & Associates
Bradenton, Florida
In reference to “Miscellaneous Fictions” (Bill Manning, Editor`s Opinion, March 1995), while some of the myths are right-on, several cause great concern to many of us in various locations around the country. Some concerns are summarized as follows:
Educational level of firefighters. The “unchanging core function–suppress fire” is just not reality in many parts of the country. Thousands of fire departments are spending the majority of their time in nonfire-related activities that range from hazardous-materials incidents to EMS to child safety to code inspections to a variety of public education activities. Fire suppression in many localities is a very minor (less than five percent) portion of a firefighter`s duties.
While education will never replace good technical training, it must be recognized that firefighters are not the traditional “grunts” they once may have been characterized as. Modern firefighters must be able to understand medicine, chemistry, toxicology, engineering (structural, mechanical, and electrical, among others), hydraulics, fluid mechanics, physics, and so on–not to mention the skills needed by fire managers, which include risk-analysis techniques, coalition building, master planning, marketing, financial analysis, organizational and business theory, interpersonal dynamics, and so on.
No one person will ever become a master in all of these [areas], but most require knowledge gained from advanced education above and beyond what can be received in high school or through skills training. We desperately need more college-educated, technically trained, and experienced personnel in the fire service today to face the next century.
To characterize the need for more advanced education in the fire service as a myth does a disservice to the hundreds of thousands of fire service personnel who have gained or are working toward a degree or degrees to be more effective in dealing with what we have to deal with regularly.
Budget cuts by city managers. This represents a combination of two myth/reality statements in the editorial. Several recent studies and articles published by local government administrators indicate they as a group characterize fire chiefs and fire service managers as technocrats, narrowly focused, unwilling to change, and not a part of the local government management team. I wonder why.
Fire service managers must learn business and public management, interpersonal dynamics, human-resource management, and so on. All of these are components of higher education. Only when fire service managers can compete with other municipal managers can the fire service hold its own on the final equation–budget. Oh, by the way, governmental managers perceive the fire service, unless they have left their “core function,” as underutilized, which is another primary reason for taking budget hits.
I have some concern about several of the other “myths” identified, such as “selective hiring/promotion,” “occupants are either outside or already dead,” and “firefighters should not be asked to fight from inside unoccupied buildings….” There are a number of excellent examples around the country of how so-called selective hiring and promotions have in fact enabled the fire department to more effectively carry out its assigned mission.
A review of Operation Life Safety studies regarding residential fire sprinklers reveals that few, if any, fire departments can be operating on the scene before the interior is uninhabitable–i.e., the occupants are either outside or dead. Across the country, this myth is reality. That`s why sprinklers, especially residential, are commonly referred to as the “instant firefighter” by many and are so badly needed throughout this country.
Policies in departments around the country have established procedures related to life safety (firefighters are a part of this life-safety factor)–not property protection. We all want property protection, but not at the cost of injury or death to firefighters….
