Chiefs Elections: Training Or Popularity?

[Guest]

Hi, New on the website. Wondering if the elections for Chief are still based on popularity, or if training makes a difference nowadays?

[Guest]

My Vote is popularity

[DOC22 1]

I agree, most are by popularity.

[EJS1810 7]

I believe that most departments have gone past popularity in their department elections. I see departments/districts looking at the qualifications and ideas of the candiate.

[Pudge3311 5]

IMO its based on a combination of both. Everyone wants the most qualified person, but if that person is difficult to work with then they arent going to get the votes they deserve. People will most likely vote for someone they like, who isnt a "hard a**" but still has the training that someone in charge should have.

I think in this day and time, regardless of how qualified someone is, if they cant work with the rest of the members then they arent going to get elected to the position. There is a lot of give and take, and in that respect popularity comes before qualified but with that same respect, qualified also comes before popularity.

I think that made sense.

[CFD320 35]

This subject drives me absolutely out of my mind.........

Training is great but it doesn't mean a candidate who has more "classes" than another is a better fit as a Chief.

I don't need a sentence for popularity that is self-explanatory.

Please all reading this remember:

The Chief has the LIFE of many people (even if not your own) in his hands at dangerous incidents. These people have family's to feed, and lives to live. Before you vote ask yourself which candidate you feel most comfortable with making decisions for you, that may severely effect the life and health of you and your family.

If you don't do any actual firefighting anymore, surely you paid your dues in years past to earn your vote. Before voting, I BEG YOU; ask 10 guys who still stick their necks out on a regular basis who they want making life/death decisions for them. AND MAKE SURE THOES 10 HAVE NO PERSONAL AGENDA tied to one candidate or another.

I pray we all will do the right thing [-o< [-o< [-o<

[mstrang1 213]

I agree with CFD320, but have more to add. One thing I HATE is "it's his/her TURN"! What does that mean? Just because the person has a certain amount of time in the dept, regardless of ability, training, etc, they should be officer?! That burns me sooo much! Often I see people who have put years of service in, but those years are wasted basically. There are people who have excelled more, and have more experience, with only 5 or 6 years in the dept.

[Pudge3311 5]

Great point CFD320. I think my earlier point kind of hit on that without saying it. If you cant trust someone or work with them, its kind of hard to put them in charge of keeping you alive.

[Remember585 815]

I don't even want to touch on this subject. But I will.

Just listening to some Departments out there makes it clear to me who they elect as Chiefs. Units getting on scene and making a decision, then changing it, then changing it back again. I also hate listening / watching Chiefs not establish a Command Post. Remember, it all starts from the time of dispatch. From this point, the initial size-up and declaration of an IC lay the groundwork for a good operation - regardless of what it is! If you have positions that you can't fill with QUALIFIED PEOPLE, then DON'T!!! Our Department has 5 companies, to each a Captain and 2 Lieutenants. Too many in my opinion! I sometimes think 3 Chiefs isn't needed too - but I'm only a guy who "doesn't understand how the system works." Know what my new motto is going to be? "F tradition!!!" It's only holding us back from safer, more aggressive and strategic operations.

Oh, my short answer for the question at hand - popularity.

[Guest alsfirefighter]

Me neither...but...(hehehehe)

If you have b@lls. You will be anti-click.

If you vote for the nice guy...you get what you deserve.

When the nice guy loses in a catastrophic way a building or house that either should have been or at least done in a controlled, commanded way, you and your department get what they deserve.

When the nice guy pisses you off and then he's the a$$hole, you get what you deserve.

[brgold 0]

I agree with CFD320, but have more to add.  One thing I HATE is "it's his/her TURN"!  What does that mean?  Just because the person has a certain amount of time in the dept, regardless of ability, training, etc, they should be officer?!  That burns me sooo much!  Often I see people who have put years of service in, but those years are wasted basically.  There are people who have excelled more, and have more experience, with only 5 or 6 years in the dept.

I agree, in my department we have a second LT. who has only been in the department for 3 years, but what he lacks in time he gained in experience and commitment from coming to almost every single call and every single drill and meeting. In my view, if the person puts the time in and knows his stuff, why cant he/she be chief. Elections should not be based on popularity; it needs to be based on leadership and knowledge.

[DOC22 1]

I agree, in my department we have a second LT. who has only been in the department for 3 years, but what he lacks in time he gained in experience and commitment from coming to almost every single call and every single drill and meeting. In my view, if the person puts the time in and knows his stuff, why cant he/she be chief. Elections should not be based on popularity; it needs to be based on leadership and knowledge.

You have a point BUT I believe that a Lieutenant should have a minimum of fiveyears service and work his/her way thru the ranks All the way to Chief.

[mstrang1 213]

I agree with DOC, but other things that come with experience include maturity, leadership abilities(maybe....), confidence, etc.

In addition, just because someone has made every call and every drill/meeting, it does not make that person experienced and ablebodied. I may be wrong about this one person, as I do not know him, but generally speaking, 3 years is really not enough time to become an officer.

One exception I can think of is someone who has joined the fire department at an older age who has the maturity, leadership abilities and confidence to manage people in other areas. This person just needs to get some experience in the fire field and apply his prior management skills to the fire dept. As long as this person has attained a decent amount of experience in 3 years, I do not see a problem with this person becoming a junior ranking officer(ie 2nd LT or LT, or in some depts, Capt).

Someone who joins at 18 years of age and becomes a "bing bing" for 3 years cannot become mature and patient enough to be an officer in this time, generally speaking.

[DOC22 1]

Here's another item for the list. Just because a guy meets all of the other qualifications previously discussed, he/she needs to have the people and communication skills to properly deal with ALL members, whether in training or incidents.

[mstrang1 213]

Thank you for addition, DOC! One bad officer can mess up a whole department, especially if that one bad officer is a Chief!

[Guest]

I was suprised to see so many responses . just to add a little, my experience with the volunteer departments is all popularity based elections. I think a minimum standard is needed which should include not only didactic knowledge/classes but also time "on the job"career or volunteer to ensure safe and rational decision making. peace out!!!

[ex-commish 490]

I am an asst chief here in Westchester so I can guess you can say I am a product of the system. I have been an advocate for reform in officer selection. It can be a popularity contest where the better or more qualified person did not get the job. I have seen it happen over my 24 years in the fire service. I think there should be a minimum standard of training and experience before someone is even considered. As officers we are charged with the responsibility of making decisions that could affect people's lives.

The AHD, not the members should have the say who should lead. After all, who is going to held responsible if something happens? Not the 18 year old who just joined and was told who to vote for because he/she did not know and listened to the loud majority. Those responsible to the public such as the board of fire commissioners, town board, vollage board, etc. who have to answer to the public should have the final say.

And FYI, in a fire district, a vote for the fire chief is only a recommendation. The board can vote to reject, accept or do a direct appointment if needed.

Andy Mancusi

[Guest]

I hate to say it most of the time it ends up being by popularity. it should be by experience and knowledge the individual should have a variety of classes under there belt. Not just because there well liked.

I know thats not how it works but those are the facts of life

[Guest]

I hate to say it most of the time it ends up being by popularity. it should be by experience and knowledge the individual should have a variety of classes under there belt. Not just because there well liked.

I know thats not how it works but those are the facts of life

[Guest]

All to often at election time you hear things like, "he gave me a nice shirt," "i've always thought he was a nice guy." Usually followed by "i'm voting for him." I agree with both sides, you can have enough cetificates to wallpaper your entire house however, if you don't have the experience it doesn't mean squat. You have to sometimes go past the personality of the person and look at their capabilities of firefighting and if they can do the job suffciently. But also the candidate should have some type of people skills not only to deal with his own people but the chief officer is mainly going to be the dealing with the public. So he should have some sense of compassion.

[SEC92 0]

Popularity is how it seems to be done. Our department requires a number of N.Y.S. courses in order to run for chief. This is great for when the lawsuits fly, but classes are one thing and common sense is another.

I have brought up a number of times to our department that the courses are great, but what if you have a member who is 50 years old and just moved from another state. He could have been a chief and had courses from that state. He won't be able to run for chief the way were set up.