VFD Officer criteria and selection

[FFPCogs 863]

I was just reading a similar topic elsewhere and thought some might like to discuss it here.

What policies are in place in the VFDs out there for officer criteria/selection? Similarly what if any opinions or ideas to improve them does anyone have?

Here's my $.02 on the subject.

First off I think appointment by the Chief is one of the worst..especially, if it is basically at their whim.

To me there should be a four step process

1) All Candidates must have a minimum amount of time as active members and a minimum of 1 year of active service at the previous rank (other than Jr. LTs)

Lts. 3-5 years service with the department

Capts 5-7 years service with the department, at least 1 of which as LT

Chiefs 7-10 years service with the department at least 1 of which as LT and 1 as Capt

2) All candidiates must meet certain certification levels to move on to step 3 (these of course are partly determined by the availabilty of courses in your area and number of members actually taking classes). But at a minimum I would use the following.

Lts - FF II preferably FO I

Capts - FO I preferably FO II

Chiefs - FO II preferably FO III

Skip to step 3 for any or all positions for which the requirements cannot intially be met with the proviso that the candidates must attain the lowest certs for the position within 1 year per rank of taking office. i.e. 1 year for LT, 2 years for Capt. and 3 years for Chief.

3) All prospective candidiates must take a written test for their respective positions based on the knowledge of the certification material (when applicable) and department SOP/Gs. Top 2 or 3 candidates for each position move on to the final step unless no one passes at which time a retest is given. Sitting officers do NOT have to take the test for their position unless their term is up when the tests are regularly updated. A 4-5 year update cycle should be adequate. Also I would suggets using and rotating a number of different versions of any tests to prevent cheating and ensure equality.

4) Election by the general membership of the department (in accordance with any voting by-laws). This step gives the membership the final and ultimate say as to who their leaders will be.

Combined all 4 steps should provide the department with suitable pool of candidates, and creates incentive for members to increase their fire service education. Why bother taking classes when "promotion" is based on someone's personal choice rather than a member's knowledge, experience and dedication?

If the above sounds similar to what some career FDs do in terms of certification and testing for promotion, that's because it is. I also happen to be a firm believer in "professional" volunteer firefighting. Times have changed considerably since I first joined the fire service in 1980, as has what is required of ALL firefighters. We in the volunteer sector are generally expected to provide the same levels of service as our career counterparts, therefore we need to do all we can to provide it. As has often been stated by volunteers to prove their worth "fire doesn't know or care about the difference between career or volunteer FFs". To me, neither should we.

Just one guy's view

Cogs

[antiquefirelt 994]

Delete #4 and you've got a decent promotions process. Anytime you have the membership choosing their leaders, you'll have problems. With #4 in place, it would seem that steps 1-3 would only serve to weed out candidates to vote on. Promote the best person after #3. Sometimes the system lets people through that can't lead, a set of probationary requirements could go a long way to help this.

The only thing I'd add is to publish the reading list for each promotions process way before the process is needed. Firefighters shouldn't start studying on the day they here of the vacancy, they should constantly be studying. Our FD maintains the lists of books for each promotion and changes are only allowed 6 months before a process. So if we add or change a book then have a vacancy before the 6 months, the "old" list stands. This also ensure the process can be assembled and employed as soon as the vacancy occurs. No study period before the test.

[ex-commish 490]

Cogs, this is a great topic that usually receives less attention than parades and blue lights. I agree with all of what you presented except the voting. Electing leadership is ok for administrative positions like president, vp, etc. The officers whether chief or line, ultimately fall under the AHJ which in NY are either cities, villages, or districts. The AHJ is also responsible for the actions of the officers, not the members who are voting so wouldn't it make sense that those who are in charge to say who they want to be the leadership of their agency? And to take it a step further, a new member is able to vote as soon as he/she is sworn in. What knowledge or experience does that person have to make decisions as to who should be their leader.

In 1997 the NY Attorney General rendered an opinion with respects to line officers in fire districts. He concluded that the firefighting roles of line officers fall under the board of fire commissioners and not the rules and regs of a fire company. Now I am not sure if this would apply to cites or villages but bottom line the AHD should have the right to select who they want to lead as well as establish the minimum qualifications.

Ok...fire away

Edited November 3, 2008 by moosecfd368
Spelling and Grammer

[FFPCogs 863]

Delete #4 and you've got a decent promotions process. Anytime you have the membership choosing their leaders, you'll have problems. With #4 in place, it would seem that steps 1-3 would only serve to weed out candidates to vote on. Promote the best person after #3. Sometimes the system lets people through that can't lead, a set of probationary requirements could go a long way to help this.

The only thing I'd add is to publish the reading list for each promotions process way before the process is needed. Firefighters shouldn't start studying on the day they here of the vacancy, they should constantly be studying. Our FD maintains the lists of books for each promotion and changes are only allowed 6 months before a process. So if we add or change a book then have a vacancy before the 6 months, the "old" list stands. This also ensure the process can be assembled and employed as soon as the vacancy occurs. No study period before the test.

Your departments policy on reading list and study material is also just what I had in mind...but since I've been accused here on EMT Bravo of being "long winded" I was trying to keep it short... .

In regards to your view on step 4 and as much as I may agree with it, for many VFDs voting candidates into officer positions is a cornerstone tradition. And while tradition can at times be an impediment to progress (as we ALL know), to me the whole point of the first 3 steps is to get a qualified personnel pool from which to choose. This would allow for a continuance of a very strong tradition, while narrowing the possibility of simply placing the most popular in place...at least to some degree. Any member popular or not would have to put in the minimum of time and effort to even be considered eligible for a slot.

Not perfect, but possibly better than some other criteria/selection processes VFDs use out there.

Cogs

Edited November 3, 2008 by moosecfd368
Spelling

[Guest]

Some good ideas and concepts here, but I am not sure if I agree with step 3, which is taking a test. What test are the candidates going to take? Who is going to write it? Who is going to administer it? In small departments this just isn't feasible. Requiring certification ought to be enough.

And even then, just because someone took a course and got certified doesn't mean that they are competent and capable to perform the duties required. But, it is a step in the right direction.

[gamewell45 258]

I think each department needs to craft policy which works for that department. What works for department "A" may not work for department "B". In most departments, both the Commissioners and Chief know the personnel, their training, capabilities and people skills, so I think it should be left up to the departments to run themselves as they deem fit.

[firemoose827 324]

This is a good subject, one that really bothers me and I can not seem to find the right answer no matter where I go or with whom I speak to. I have been a member of 3 different departments over my 20 years in the service, and 2 of the three have horrible specifications for officer. In fact, my current dept recently SUBTRACTED some of their qualifications for officer simply because one Captain could not find and take the additional officers course he needed to become an assistant chief...Subtract?? Who in their right mind would EVER take away from the current requirements? They were put in effect for a reason, and exist to protect the department. Now, since they subtracted a few of the requirements we have a whole bunch of guys going out for officers positions who ordinarily could not have run due to lack of qualifications...Is that the type of leadership anyone would want in their dept? I would hope not. It scares me to think of all the officers we have now with minimal qualifications running fire, rescue, haz-mat and EMS scenes...

You need to set the standards, and the GOOD people in your dept will rise to them and do their best to meet them. They will train, and get the requirements needed, and they are the ones you would want leading your crews into life threatening situations. The rest will continue to do what they do best, bitch and moan and complain that the requirements are too high...GOOD, let them complain, while the decent members continue to train and become the quality members you should want and than eventually the quality officers you should have.

[AFS1970 504]

Electing officers is not only a hallmark of tradition, it serves two important functions. First of all it provides a regular vote of confidence in the officers. Can everyone who is in a department that appoints their officers for ever truly say that they have the best officers or that they are confident in their Chief? The second important factor is that it allows for a larger cross section to be involved in the selection process. How is having a handful of elected (or worse, appointed) commissioners select a Chief any better than having the membership do so?

The key is, as Cogs has said having qualifications in place to ensure that the choice is made only from the best candidates. I would actually be in favor of a system that ranks the candidates on a variety of factors and then allows nominations only from a small group, say the top 5 or so. The factors I personally would like to see would not only include certification, but also seniority, as there are some very good Chiefs out there that predate all these little pieces of paper that some of us chase after. I think a time in rank factor could also be used, where time as an officer might be worth extra points.

Of course like I have said many times before, whatever qualifications you put in must be realistic. Any class that a department requires must be accessible to the membership in a reasonable location. Simply being told to check the state calendar and travel 90 or more miles away several nights a week, is unreasonable for most people. I also am much more in favor of a system that requires courses in a given subject matter not a specific certification title. There are many classes out there about strategy & tactics, or personnel management that are not academy certifications. There are college courses out there that lead to a degree but not an academy certification. All of these need to be taken into consideration.

I too have seen departments that have subtracted requirements, and while it is not always advisable, it may be because of the nature of the requirements. If you have something as a requirement and it causes you to only have a single candidate, and that candidate is not a good officer, how have your requirements really helped the situation? Especially if the requirement was put in place years ago because only a select few held it in the first place. This is not the case in every department but it is in some. There are also classes that are no longer offered. Officer requirements do need to be dynamic.

[FFPCogs 863]

Some good ideas and concepts here, but I am not sure if I agree with step 3, which is taking a test. What test are the candidates going to take? Who is going to write it? Who is going to administer it? In small departments this just isn't feasible. Requiring certification ought to be enough.

And even then, just because someone took a course and got certified doesn't mean that they are competent and capable to perform the duties required. But, it is a step in the right direction.

Please understand I am in no way trying to hijack this thread, but since some very valid questions have been posed by Sq47, I felt I should address them.

The test can be compiled using a variety of generic and readily available older State certification tests and/or career promotional tests updated to reflect current trends, as well as information specific to any given department(s).

The test can be compiled by the department training officer/division, a collective of nearby departments training personnel, or better yet the State fire academy or a private firm.

The testing can be adminstered by any proctors deemed appropriate by the department these include but are not limited to in house personnel either appointed or chosen by the membership (yeah I know voting again), from nearby departments or through the State's fire training division. In somer cases where possible again an outside testing firm could be used.

To ensure the most equitable outcomes candidates should be given randomly assigned personal identification numbers and differing test versions at the commencement of the testing process.

Obviously no system is foolproof, but testing does help level the playing field as well as helps to determine ones qualifications for a position. Additionally testing increases the likelyhood of garnering the "best" people as they have put in the time and effort to become eligible.

To me this is yet another area in which we volunteers need to move past our long held traditional methods to embrace the climate of today's fire service.

Cogs

[AFS1970 504]

Wow, is it even possible to hijack your own thread?

I think the idea of a test coming from outside the department is interesting, as it comes the closest to being honest one can get, however this would not be without expense. In this day and age with everything costing more and budgets diminishing (more for some of us than others) can most VFD's really afford to buy a test from a private source?

Now having a state academy make this up is also an option, but their banks of questions are generally based on the various certification tests they have on hand. While some of the material is bound to be the same, there are a few problems with just using a set of FO1 or FO2 questions. Unfair advantage to the certified candidates is one and as I have said I firmly believe that we need to be able to balance the certifications with other factors.

I think it is interesting that some of us don't want a written test in the process and others do not want an election in the process. I am also a firm believer that these two methods can compliment each other if used correctly.

[markmets415 524]

Here is how we elect our officers, the training classes still from yester year but as we know if you have FFI then that would equal EF and IFA and so on. Not an ideal way but it works and give the membership a choice and the officers at least have training. I do agree with an earlier point, just because you have a certificate it doesn't mean you are qualified to lead.

Article XVI. Training Requirements for Officers

Section 1. The following is to establish training requirements for members wishing to run for an officer position at the annual meeting of the Corporation in December of each year.

2^nd Lieutenant

1). Must have been an active member of the company for one year and off probation.

2). Completed Essentials of Firemanship or equivalent.

3). Completed Initial Fire Attack or equivalent.

4). Completed Pump Operators or equivalent.

1^st Lieutenant

1). Must have been an active member of the company for one year and off probation.

2). Completed Essentials of Firemanship or equivalent.

3). Completed Initial Fire Attack or equivalent.

4). Completed Pump Operators or equivalent.

Captain

1). Must have been an active member of the company for three years.

2). Completed Essentials of Firemanship or equivalent.

3). Completed Initial Fire Attack or equivalent.

4). Completed Pump Operators or equivalent.

5). Completed Accident Victim Extrication or equivalent.

6). Completed Hazardous Materials I or equivalent.

d). 3^rd Assistant Chief (Rescue)

1). Must have been an active member of the company for two years.

2). Completed Essentials of Firemanship or equivalent.

3). EMS training of at least Certified First Responder.

e). 2^nd Assistant Chief

1). Must have been an active member of the company for four years.

2). Completed Essentials of Firemanship or equivalent.

3). Completed Initial Fire Attack or equivalent.

4). Completed Pump Operators or equivalent.

5). Completed Accident Victim Extrication or equivalent.

6). Completed Fire Behavior and Arson Awareness or equivalent.

7). Completed Hazardous Materials I or equivalent.

f). Deputy Chief

1). Must have been an active member of the company for five years.

2). Completed Essentials of Firemanship or equivalent.

3). Completed Initial Fire Attack or equivalent.

4). Completed Pump Operators or equivalent.

5). Completed Accident Victim Extrication or equivalent.

6). Completed Fire Behavior and Arson Awareness or equivalent.

7). Completed Hazardous Materials I or equivalent.

g). District Chief

1). Must have been an active member of the company for five years.

2). Completed Essentials of Firemanship or equivalent

3). Completed Initial Fire Attack or equivalent.

4). Completed Pump Operators or equivalent.

5). Completed Accident Victim Extrication or equivalent.

6). Completed Fire Behavior and Arson Awareness or equivalent

7). Completed Hazardous Materials I or equivalent

Section 2. Any debate as to whether equivalent training classes or years of service with other companies being accepted will be determined by the Board of Directors.

Chief and Deputy Chief are nominations to the Fire District and must be approved by the Board of Fire Commissioners

Edited November 4, 2008 by markmets415

[markmets415 524]

Cogs I personally love you way of thinking and agree with it totally. However in a very small company like mine we have a hard time just filling the ranks by our bylaws, we just don't have the membership base, 10 years ago Yes, not now though

Edited November 4, 2008 by markmets415

[FFPCogs 863]

All right...hands up everyone I'm taking over here....

Seriously, there is another aspect to this that hasn't been touched on, and that is the expectations of and legal ramifications for officers and departments. In today's world a large percentage of citizens seem to believe that ALL firefighters get paid and are held to the same standard. As I've often expressed, the public's perception is their reality. As has been seen recently and even in the past there are departments that have had legal issues stemming from their performance and qualifications of their personnel. The "good neighbor" volunteer FF down the street is no longer immune from lawsuits, and extremely bad press. The steps outlined above I believe still allows us our "freedom of choice" as volunteers to choose our own leadership, while requiring all who seek such positions to meet a minimum of recognized standards to hold them. This goes a long way in court. Standards and SOP/Gs have been twisted and used against VFDs for quite some time, maybe it's time to put them back on our side by meeting them to stem that potential tide.

In case you haven't noticed I tend to be a "what can be" personality, as opposed to a "this is how it is" type. I have long been an advocate of proactive policies and standards to best serve our citizens, and to keep the wolves at bay. Think of it as CYA.

Cogs

[Guest]

Great ideas but will be defeated by a lawyer who will compare the policy to past history and surrounding practices.

[FFPCogs 863]

Cogs I personally love you way of thinking and agree with it totally. However in a very small company like mine we have a hard time just filling the ranks by our bylaws, we just don't have the membership base, 10 years ago Yes, not now though

Mark,

This is another topic which has been gnawing at what little brains I have left. Filling and retaining the ranks. But that's a topic for another day

In regards to the specifics of officer selection...to me the standards and process hold. If there are less members than you may not need to fill every vacant officer slot. I know of a few departments that that have reduced their command staff to reflect the totals on the membership rolls. As more members join the positions are re-instated.

Just a thought.

BTW... thanks for the compliment

Cogs

Edited November 4, 2008 by FFPCogs

[Guest DFD189]

Good post.

If Volunteers are ever going to earn the title "Professional Volunteer", then tightening up on standards and criteria accross the board is essential, and nowhere more so when it comes to the officer ranks.

I find it laughable when a department allows a member fresh off probationary status to be considered for Lieutenant, yet alone Captain. Time in service is always essential, especially for an officer. How much time? Up for debate. People often say the four-year mark is the most dangerous for a firefighter, because they have seen just enough 'stuff' to think they know it all. One would think, then, that more than four years experience would be needed to become an officer.

Officers must be technically proficient, in a measurable way. This means FFI, FFII, HAZMAT Ops, Truck Company Ops, Apparatus Pump Operator at a minimum, with Mask Confidence, Firefighter Survival, FAST, and RescueTech/Basic an ideal. As for officer-specific training, Introduction to Fire Officer as a minumum, ideally Fire Officer I.

Finally, testing is essential if the rank is to mean anything. Simply taking courses and winning a popularity contest does not make one a fire officer. The question of expense is valid. Perhaps mutual aid municipalities could come up with a common test, with the costs spread out accordingly. Getting OFPC to assist in this effort, both in terms of helping design a test, and administering/grading the test, would be a fair use of their resources.

Some sort of mentoring program would be ideal, albeit controversial. Career Lieutenants participate in the 'FLIP' school, and are provided mentoring through ride-alongs with FDNY. If career departments were serious about establishing a fair standard for volunteer officers, it couldn't hurt to offer similar mentoring for qualified volunteers, especially if those volunteers are in their mutual aid response areas. Again, this would need to be a genuine mentoring process, with learning objectives, reviews, etc. Short of this, such a program could easily become simply another ride-along, which while enjoyable, does little to promote officer development.

[Bnechis 3,961]

If Volunteers are ever going to earn the title "Professional Volunteer", then tightening up

on standards and criteria accross the board is essential, and nowhere more so when it comes to the officer ranks.

I strongly agree

I find it laughable when a department allows a member fresh off probationary status to be considered for Lieutenant, yet alone Captain. Time in service is always essential, especially for an officer. How much time? Up for debate. People often say the four-year mark is the most dangerous for a firefighter, because they have seen just enough 'stuff' to think they know it all. One would think, then, that more than four years experience would be needed to become an officer.

Time in is important, because of experience. But good experience or bad is an issues also time needs to be considered, is it 5 years of experience or 1 year repeated 5 times.

Also lack of time is big issue in combo depts. When a career officer with 25 years is overruled by the 19 year old officer (who he trained) creates major problems.

Officers must be technically proficient, in a measurable way. This means FFI, FFII, HAZMAT Ops, Truck Company Ops, Apparatus Pump Operator at a minimum, with Mask Confidence, Firefighter Survival, FAST, and RescueTech/Basic an ideal. As for officer-specific training, Introduction to Fire Officer as a minumum, ideally Fire Officer I.

Survival and FAST should be required for all interior ff's before they are allowed to go interior. Hazmat Ops. is required by NYS law prior to any member responding on any call.

Some sort of mentoring program would be ideal, albeit controversial. Career Lieutenants participate in the 'FLIP' school, and are provided mentoring through ride-alongs with FDNY. If career departments were serious about establishing a fair standard for volunteer officers, it couldn't hurt to offer similar mentoring for qualified volunteers, especially if those volunteers are in their mutual aid response areas. Again, this would need to be a genuine mentoring process, with learning objectives, reviews, etc. Short of this, such a program could easily become simply another ride-along, which while enjoyable, does little to promote officer development.

A mentoring program is a great idea. FLIPS is mandated by NYS Law for all career officers, but it is not a mentoring program, any ride-alongs are for "fun" and to learn how FDNY operates not to teach officers to be officers, its not a requirement for FLIPS and out of 30 students only about 5 go out once or twice. The career fire service lobbied to get this program and have it funded, maybe FASNY could loby for something similar.

[NWFDMedic 58]

Here's a quick and probably incomplete list of requirements for our officers (a 150 or so call per year department):

Lieutenant and Captain

1. Current interior certification (physical, OSHA)

2. Member of department for 5 years (or 3 years with previous department service)

3. Certified driver and pump operator on all apparatus for at least 6 months

4. Firefighter 1 or equivalent

5. Hazardous Materials First Responder Operations (significant due to our rail traffic and fuel farms)

6. Incident Command

7. ICS 100 and 200; NIMS 700 and 800 (not specifically written into rules at this point in time)

Chief and Assistant Chief

1. All qualifications above

2. Three years as line officer including 1 as Captain

3. Hazardous Materials Technician

My question regarding our rules specifically involves driving. Not everyone is comfortable driving an apparatus and I think this might preclude some perfectly good members from becoming officers. I am a proponent of allowing a member to be familiar with operating the truck/pump (maybe a pump ops or ladder ops class and certification on specific equipment) should they have to in an emergency, but their lack of comfort actually driving the vehicle shouldn't stop them from being an officer.

[abaduck 123]

Time in is important, because of experience. But good experience or bad is an issues also time needs to be considered, is it 5 years of experience or 1 year repeated 5 times.

This brings to mind one of my favourite sayings, an old Scottish farming saying: 'Good judgment is the result of experience. 'Experience' is the result of bad judgment!'

Survival and FAST should be required for all interior ff's before they are allowed to go interior. Hazmat Ops. is required by NYS law prior to any member responding on any call.

Survival and Hazmat Ops. absolutely... but... FAST? When discussing what course I might take next after FF1, with my FF1 instructor, I recall him saying that I should get a couple of years experience before coming back for FAST, I would benefit more from it then. Certainly in our department you need five years in to actually get on the FAST.

I see your point, from what I've heard there's some good stuff in FAST which all interior FFs could benefit from - if the sh!t hits the fan and you're the one on the scene at the time it's a good to have a clue - but not sure about making it a requirement. Do any departments actually do that?

Mike

[Guest DFD189]

We don't make FAST a prerequisite unless you are seeking to be a member of the consolidated town-wise FAST team.

However, given that a FAST generally arrives after the first-due engine, there exists the real possibility that the first due office may initiate a quick-attack response, so that the initial arriving firefighters would be on their own if something went south. This is why I like the idea of mask confidence and firefighter survival being mandatory (and I do believe that the new OFPC FFI course incorporates aspects of both courses for new firefighters). However, if a four-man engine arrives and initiates quick attack, and is able to establish 2-in, 2-out, then the 2 'out' firefighters better understand more than self-rescue techniques. A familiarity with FAST-type response is in order, and as such, I believe the basic fundamentals taught in the FAST class represent more than simply 'nice to know'.

Of course, this is simply an opinion...but if the Officer is the one making the call in a first due response, he or she had better have the training to guide the decisions, and the technical skills to back them up, and FAST is, in my mind, one of those technical skills.

[AFS1970 504]

This is veering slightly away from officer stuff, but in the last FF1 that we ran in Belltown, we included a 1 day introduction to RIT (FAST) class. This was by no means an all inclusive class and there was nothing on it included in the state test. We felt it was important to add this because, like it or not, any of us could be assigned as a RIT at any time. Very few departments have the luxury of a specialized RIT/FAST. Oddly enough, out of that Intro to RIT class we realized a need to work on a version that is more officer specific and are adapting it now.

[antiquefirelt 994]

A few thing to comment on here:

1. Independent testing or validated testing is expensive, but poor promotional processes tend to be very expensive. In a volunteer FD, maybe this can go unchecked but, a poor officer can have a severe effect on a small FD. If we believe our people are are strongest assets, then ensuring they're led by qualified officers is worth the money. We pay a testing company to develop a validated test using the books we require and our SOP's. Off the top of my head our Lt's reading list: Fire Officer's Handbook of Tactics (largest percentage of questions) IFSTA Co. Officer, our SOP's, Brunancini's Customer Service book, and maybe 2 more.

2. Bnechis is right on with the difficulty of officership in Combo FD's. We have had a "rank is rank" policy for as long as I know of, but different standards for Call Division Officers and Career Officers. We also only had Captains in the call ranks and all FT CO's are Lt's. Recently we sat down with all the officers and reminded them that rank = responsibility. If you're a call Capt. with less experience than a FT Lt. you might consider if you want to assume command or not, but they need to remember that they're responsible either way. We're now getting rid of all call Capt's and Lt's through attrition. We will have call officers but in the future they'll be required to take the same tests, which is a tall order but really the only way.

[FFPCogs 863]

As we've seen here there are many different types of FFs and departments represented on this thread. While each has it's own specifics in regards to operations, SOPs ect it appears we all want the same thing...qualified officers. There have been great points brought up here in each and every post...much to the benefit of everyone reading here. So I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank all who have posted for their insights. Alot of great stuff guys. Keep it coming.

Cogs

[exmrvfc 0]

When it comes to training in the Volunteer sector, the example is set by those in charge. The argument that its hard to get people to train is a cop out. I have seen departments set the example from day one when an applicant comes in the door and tell them what is expected of them. It is my belief that any volunteer has the time to take at least one class per year to continue to expand their knowledge. If you are young and single, you can probably take several per year. Once the tone is set, there is no excuse for officers not being trained and meeting the standards. If peole don't want to take the training, don't call them firefighters. There are plenty of support jobs to fill.

As Bnechis pointed out some of the classes are not optional. FFs not having HazMat Ops is setting up some chiefs for violations of OSHA (PESH in NY). HazMat Awareness is OK for the Cop who arrives on the scene and calls for the FD to respond. Any member of the FD responding to the scene needs to have HazMat Ops. Officers in charge of HazMat scene (Lts, Capt, Chiefs) are required to have HazMat Incident Command.

[Guest DFD189]

When it comes to training in the Volunteer sector, the example is set by those in charge. The argument that its hard to get people to train is a cop out. I have seen departments set the example from day one when an applicant comes in the door and tell them what is expected of them. It is my belief that any volunteer has the time to take at least one class per year to continue to expand their knowledge. If you are young and single, you can probably take several per year. Once the tone is set, there is no excuse for officers not being trained and meeting the standards. If peole don't want to take the training, don't call them firefighters. There are plenty of support jobs to fill.

As Bnechis pointed out some of the classes are not optional. FFs not having HazMat Ops is setting up some chiefs for violations of OSHA (PESH in NY). HazMat Awareness is OK for the Cop who arrives on the scene and calls for the FD to respond. Any member of the FD responding to the scene needs to have HazMat Ops. Officers in charge of HazMat scene (Lts, Capt, Chiefs) are required to have HazMat Incident Command.

I believe that all firefighters who take the 78-hour FFI course graduate with a certificate in HAZMAT First Responder Operations. As such, I do not believe the use of HAZMAT as an example of training is a good one. I pity the HAZMAT Ops-trained individual who attempts to take command of a genuine HAZMAT incident. HAZMAT Incident Command will not prepare you for what needs to be done. The course, as taught by OFPC, does not require HAZMAT Technician-level certification, but then claims that it will demonstrate the "need for an organized approach to managing hazardous materials emergency incidents, the required elements for an employer's emergency response plan, site-specific pre-incident emergency planning, incident analysis and the development of site safety plans, strategic goals for incidents involving hazardous materials, and development of a plan of action and its application and tactical objective to accomplish the strategic goals." Accomplishing this with an HAZMAT Operations-level background is like saying someone with Scene Support Operations can manage a 3-Alarm fire. A more important question to ask is, "What are HAZMAT Operations-level departments doing to comply with the new NFPA 472 Mission Specific Tasking criteria". If you have to ask, "What?", then I would suggest I've made my point about using HAZMAT as a benchmark for officer training. In short, the new NFPA 472 pushes down tasks that were previously assigned to the Technician level, such as air monitoring, PPE selection/utilization, decontamination, sampling, rescue, to the Operations level, if and only if the Authority Having Jurisdiction opts in, meaning commits to assuming a training responsibility outside the scope of existing certification courses. I could go on forever on this topic, but be rest assured OFPC isn't building a course of instruction to handle this problem, and if a given AHJ opts in, the training burden rests with them alone.

Now, if a department decides it does not want to participate in these "mission specific taskings", does this represent a cop-out? Not in my opinion.

NYS has set minimum standards for what it takes to be a firefighter. In my opinion, I'd love to see all of the requirements set forth for firefighter certification (Fire Recruit I, Fire Recruit II, and Firefighter), minus the code inspection and CPAT (although I'd love to see the volunteer service institute not only a CPAT for new members, but also some sort of physical fitness requirement as well -- maybe we wouldn't kill so many people in the way of heart attacks). However, this is unrealistic. That training burden would shut down many of the volunteer departments in New York, at a time when NY State isn't ready or able to implement a County-wide fire service along the lines of Maryland.

However, such a standard for fire officers is not unrealistic, especially since by the time a prospective officer completed the training, a period of at least 4-5 years would have passed, allowing for the accumulation of enough experience to justify sitting in the front right seat. Again, add Introduction to Fire Officer for Lieutenants, and Fire Officer I for Captain, and I think we're getting there -- if your only job is fire suppression. Add in Technical Rescue, HAZMAT Response, and of course the training burden increases.

[FFPCogs 863]

I can understand that for some..or possibly many VFDs the amount of training needed could be considered extreme to meet some standards. I believe that there should be a minimun which is realistically attainable. Now I started thread this with my opinion as to what those should be to be "fair"...personally I prefer somewhat more stringent standards. Like it or not for volunteers it is difficult to meet some of the standards typically required of career fire officers simply because as volunteers we are not usually afforded the time necessary to attain them. We do not get paid to take classes as a part of our career development, so the time taken to achieve a parity with career officers takes away from other major parts of our lives. This is not an excuse, it is a fact. The minimums that have been bantered about here would seem to achieve at least a measure of competency and afford the communities served with relatively qualified personnel. These are personnel who will have dedicated a reasonable amount of time and energy to achieve the necessary levels of experience, certification and testing.

Now this is good for the "average" VFD, but as stated in some posts here any "special" hazards must be addressed by qualified personnel to meet that need. It is incumbent upon any VFD to ascertain what specifically is needed for them and then ensure that the need is met. What is acceptable for one may not be for another. But putting in place a minimum set of standards and the procedures to meet them is a step forward towards a higher level of service which many of our communities rightly deserve.

Cogs

[Beekman 5]

Many years back someone must have distributed a list of what classes Chiefs and Assistants should have as Wassaic's and Beekman were almost identical including Hazmat 1 which hasn't been offered in years and we aren't even neighbors. Chiefs and Assistants need more of the administrative training classes (Intro to Fire Officer, Fire Officer 1, Legal Issues of the Volunteer Fire service, Incident Safety Officer, etc.) These are the classes that keep officers out of trouble. We just updated our policy to the following for Chief:

Firefighter 1

Intro to Fire Officer

Fire Officer 1

Hazmat Ops

Hazmat Incident Command

Principles of Fire Investigation

Pump Op

ICS 100, 200, 300 and 700

Legal Issues of the Volunteer Fire Sevice

CPR-AED (Cars carry AEDs)

Incident Safety Officer

Fire Police (Chiefs and Asst. are considered Peace Officers in NYS and the District wanted some sort of training)

Baby Steps!

[FFPCogs 863]

Upon rereading this thread I was struck by points made about the costs and scheduling involved with the testing concept specifically and certifcations overall. I can only speak from my own experience but in a department in which I was a member, the FF I and II classes were usually held regularly for newer personnel, and also included personnel from neighboring depts of the city, as these were the standard minimums for interior FFs citywide. After that though any further levels were up to the individual FFs to attain wherever and when ever they could. If the criteria for officers were to become standardized the same concept should also apply, regularly scheduled classes and tests provided by the department open to those interested/selected.

Another useful practice would be to regionalize these regularly scheduled classes and the testing process, this for a number of reasons:

1) Spreads the cost among a larger number of departments thereby making it cheaper for each to attain and maintain an adequate pool of certified personnel for "promotion". For testing the same applies, the more departments involved in the testing process the lower the cost per department per test.

2) Regularly sheduled classes afford any interested/selected members the opportunity to plan for them by having the time, place and length of class set well in advance.

3) Allows personnel who may have "missed the boat" for whatever reason the opportunty to attain their certification at the next regularly scheduled class, relieving them of the burden of chasing classes.

4) This may be the most important: Standardizes the training requirements and certification levels of a group of departments that work together or have the potential to do so.

5) Offers the opportunity to those same departments and their personnel for a modicum of familiarity by having all their officers going through the classes together. This allows for interaction between personnel while training that may carry over and possibily produce a higher level of cohesion at an incident.

I have always been a proponent of the standardization of operations whenever and wherever possible. I am of the belief that by "reading from the same page" we are all better served.

Cogs

[AFS1970 504]

I also favor requirements where classes like Officer 1 & 2 meet the requirements but are not the only way to meet them, a couple of examples that bring this to mind are:

A class like that HazMat 1 that was mentioned. IF you have a rule that mentions it by title and the class is discontinued or changed then you may have a goal that can not be reached. If there is a newer class that meets the requirements then it should absolutely be allowed to meet the requirements.

There are college level classes being offered in CT that are identical to classes like Instructor 1 or Officer 1 but do not have those titles. The state even recognizes the right to challenge an exam based on those classes. Why can't they be used to meet an internal department standard?

I know a past Assistant Chief from a neighboring department, who owned or managed businesses for all his adult life. He felt taking Fire Officer 1 was unnecessary for him, as he was already a supervisor and manager and already worked with budgets and human resources. Right or wrong, agree or disagree, he did have a point. If he could document relevant training, why not let it meet these requirements?

How about all these seminars that we love to host or go to. Many are put on by well known and well respected lecturers in the fire service. Most dwell on strategy and tactics for specific types of calls or buildings. These often contain more relevant information than all the textbooks you can stack up. These should definitely be allowed to meet requirements.

[ex-commish 490]

If I am not mistaken career officers in NY have to go to FLIP school. The program results in certification in Educational Methodology, Fire Behavior and Arson Awareness, Fire Cause and Origin Determination, Haz Mat First Responder Operations, Fire Instructor Level 1, and Fire Officer Level 1. Maybe if the state would offer more Ed-Meth classes on weekends or even as an outreach this would be more accesible. Many allready have the other classes. A big concern of mine is many do not have any formal training in how to instruct. I also would like to see more emphasis on building construction.

For what it is worth I am drafting a letter to OFPC, State Chiefs, and FASNY addressing this.