Time in Department/Rank for Promotion - Volunteer FDs

[stvrap79 8]

Time is relative.

What I do in my first two years in the department isn't the same as what you might do. You may spend your time taking classes, while I keep going to hands on drills and respond to 100 calls compared to your 10 calls. On election night, it's usually a popularity contest, and the best candidate doesn't always prevail.

Make it tougher to move up.

- Make it 5 years in the department to move up.

- Require XXX amount of classroom training hours.

- Require XXX amount of hands on training hours.

- Require a higher % of call response then the average member.

- Put them to the test at drills and calls, make them make decisions!

I believe that training lays the foundation, while experience and ability builds the house. I can sit in 100 hours of class on how to throw a ground ladder, but until I do it and master it, it's all just speculation as to what I can do.

Senior members and officers MUST mentor the younger guys to seek out the future leadership. All of us can look around our firehouse and see who is officer material, and who should be left on the apron every call.

I agree with your ideas 100%!!! I believe the best way to find who is officer material is combination of experience, training and personal skill. When I say "personal skills," I mean communication, leadership, common sense, etc.. Unfortunately, one can have 3000 hrs of classroom and training and yet respond to a call with helmet on backwards!!!

[ex-commish 490]

Anyways I think the Fire Districts should set the standards higher than the Fire Departments do.They are the boss they should mandate times in service, training, courses,etc. Some of the by laws have not been updated since there inception.

Jim there is a 1998 comptrollers opinion that supports this.

[Bnechis 3,961]

assuming the ones ahead of and behind you are on board.

Thats a major challenge. In many depts. itrequires a cultural change and for the chief to understand that the department is "bigger" than he is.

The bottom line is that a department needs to have goals that they want to achieve, The three Chiefs have to agree on this objective, develop a plan to get it done and actually implement that plan.

Excellent. In addition to the chiefs, the goals need to include those above and below.

Above: The Mayor, Manager or Board of Commissioners should require that in each years budget the chief(s) must submit his goals for the next budget year and the status of the goals set in the previous budget. This responsibility is rarely seen.

Below: Each company and its officers should also have goals and review its previous years status. These goals are generally more task oriented and often but not always help the dept meet its annual goals. For example a company goal maybe to improve its ability to establish an attack line in xx seconds. If a dept goal is to get 4 more ff's on each call a company goal, might be to get 1 more (if each company did that, maybe the dept can meet its goal).

PAPERWORK - something as simple as putting a date, times, location, nature of call and actions taken - literally intimidates people. When I was Captain and I did my monthly reports, there were so many run sheets with no narrative. So many people don't realize that these "annoying" run sheets may save your a** down the road. Take five minutes to write down as many details as you can.

We require our Deputies to review the NFIR's every tour. It is up to them to send them back to the company officer who fails to complete their paperwork. If you as a LT. you do not quikly learn that the DC will get pissed if they have to keep sending the same problem back, you will not do well as an officer. If you are dispatched by 60 Control you have FireRMS available to you for your NFIR's and it is designed to have someone review your documentation.

It doesn't happen often, but occassionally a homeowner or an insurance company may want to know information about an incident, and if it isn't written down, perhaps you didn't do it!

We recieve requests almost everyday. The courts have made it clear, time and time again, that if it was not written, it was not done.

[Bnechis 3,961]

Volunteerism is continuing to decrease, especially in the fire service. What can you do to mitigate situations where members are being "pushed" to hold an office, because they are the most suited for the job, even if they aren't qualified?

Do you begin to just eliminate some offices? I.E. just get rid of a Lieutenant's office.

Although time, knowledge, training, and experience are imperative for officer's to have, smaller volunteer departments continue to have problem filling officer's role with adequately qualified personnel. These situations usually put the new, 2-3 year firefighter in an officer's role because he is around and willing to help wherever he can.

Excellent question. The real solution to this is consolidation of departments. This does 2 things, 1st it expands the pool of potentail officers and 2nd it reduces the number of positions needed.

For example:

Dept. A runs 3 engines, 1 ladder & 1 rescue out of 3 stations. It has a Chief, 1st & 2nd AC, 5 captains, 5 1st Lts, & 5 2nd Lts (18 officers).

Dept. B runs 2 engines, 1 ladder & 1 rescue out of 2 stations. It has a Chief, 1st & 2nd AC, 4 captains, 4 1st Lts, & 4 2nd Lts (15 officers).

Thats 33 officers. If merged, they may be able to reduce companies, but even if not, they will reduce the numbers of officers needed.

Reduced Companies: 4 engines, 2 ladders & 1 rescue out of 4 stations. It would need a Chief, 1st & 2nd AC, 4 captains (1 per station), 7 1st Lts (1 per rig), & 7 2nd Lts (1 per rig), 21 officers, a reduction of 12 positions.

Even without company reductions you still save a Chief, 1st & 2nd AC. This makes 3 highly experienced officers to fill in the captains ranks.

The problem is no one wants to hear this.

If 2 or more departments actually used this rational to go to the community and claim that not only do we have a continous manpower problem, we also have a leadership problem and that the current leadership feels this will solve the probem, its much more likely that the community will consider this.

[NOR1219 10]

A lot of the guys that became officers in the firehouse back then had military training and experience. They also saw more fires then we all do now. Times have changed. We respond to calls of all types now, not like 40-50 years ago when they went to fires and occassionally had to rescue someone from something. It's the "stupid" calls we go to that sometimes require the most thinking, and making bad decisions can lead to LAWSUITS or even JAIL TIME. In the old days, people actually respected and appreciated what first responders did for them, not like nowadays.

Your Grandpa, my Grandpa and all of those old timers only needed balls to be firemen. They charged into burning buildings without SCBA, with little to no PPE, no radios and no training. Their experiences and recollection of what worked and what didn't work is what guided them. That's just not good enough in today's society.

Lets be honest most departments in this county don't run alot of fires. Hell there lucky if they get 2 fires a year. And lets not forget you have to be around for those 2 fires your department may get that year. Fires are where we as officers and firemen get the real hands on experience. This is where we become good or bad firemen. I know plenty of people who have barely seen any fire and yet they are line officers and chiefs. I think because of the lack of fires it is easy for people to get by with no real experience in this county. Back in the day there was alot more fire to go around giving everyone more experience.

back to the original question. Having all the classes is great. I do think there should be a minimum number of classroom hours but for me nothing beats actual experience. I agree with a standard of x amount of years with the dept. before becoming an officer. In the end i think it all comes down to training. You should strive to be proficient in all aspects required of you.

With all of this being said, do you think it would be better for a department to have an older member with more experience fighting actual fires and less training OR a newer member with less actual experience, but much more training, as an officer?

I feel that some departments could have a bunch of 25-year members that are complacent and come from the era of "charging into burning buildings without SBCA" and then many 7-10 year members that are progressive and would like to use the knowledge they received from classes they've taken. In this situation, maybe younger members, or members with less time in the department, would serve as better officers.

[FFPCogs 863]

Excellent question. The real solution to this is consolidation of departments. This does 2 things, 1st it expands the pool of potentail officers and 2nd it reduces the number of positions needed.

For example:

Dept. A runs 3 engines, 1 ladder & 1 rescue out of 3 stations. It has a Chief, 1st & 2nd AC, 5 captains, 5 1st Lts, & 5 2nd Lts (18 officers).

Dept. B runs 2 engines, 1 ladder & 1 rescue out of 2 stations. It has a Chief, 1st & 2nd AC, 4 captains, 4 1st Lts, & 4 2nd Lts (15 officers).

Thats 33 officers. If merged, they may be able to reduce companies, but even if not, they will reduce the numbers of officers needed.

Reduced Companies: 4 engines, 2 ladders & 1 rescue out of 4 stations. It would need a Chief, 1st & 2nd AC, 4 captains (1 per station), 7 1st Lts (1 per rig), & 7 2nd Lts (1 per rig), 21 officers, a reduction of 12 positions.

Even without company reductions you still save a Chief, 1st & 2nd AC. This makes 3 highly experienced officers to fill in the captains ranks.

The problem is no one wants to hear this.

If 2 or more departments actually used this rational to go to the community and claim that not only do we have a continous manpower problem, we also have a leadership problem and that the current leadership feels this will solve the probem, its much more likely that the community will consider this.

There's that nasty "C" concept again. This road has been travelled here a few times already and all that need be said about it is that consolidation of resources offers the best solution by far on EVERY level for most volunteer FDs.

And while you're right Bnechis in that no seems to want to hear it, it may come to be that cimcumstances will dictate a change towards merged departments. As is usually the case though for most it will be a case of reaction instead of PROaction.

Cogs

[spin_the_wheel 460]

Many of the posts have talked about the number of years needed (2, 3, 5 etc.) But that does not cover experience. Can (or should) a firefighter be promoted to LT. if hey have never actually been on the line or performing a real search inside a working structure fire?

VFD's are one of the only organizations that will allow someone who has never actually done the work, &/or never been trained to make life and death decisions.

I know depts that do this and its beter than one year terms, but particularly for chief officers, how do you grow in the job, It takes you a year to figure out the basics then you start a project and by the time its 1/2 way done you are out and the next chief is not interested in it.

For the most part, at any time in a Chiefs Office, you will have Chiefs that are interested in making some changes for the better, and some who just like to keep things the same. As long as you can all get along, and find your role, let the Chiefs who want to make some changes, weather it policy or procedure do it, no matter where in the pecking order they may sit. Let them create drafts of plans to put in place for the future. Another important note about trying to work on a long term project is to let the Dept. know the plans you are working on. Each month most Dept.s have Officers meetings, Dept. meetings, Company meetings, inform the members of what plans you have. From my experience if it is a sound project, s.o.g, ect.. you will have the dept.s backing. Once its out there it will be hard to let it die, as long as others in the dept are aware of what you are trying to do.

My Dept. runs as 8 individual companies, so what will happen during the election process is the Chiefs candidates will go around to each company making "presentations", or simply a speech once a month for a few months leading up to the election. This is the time to ask the candidate questions, and if an idea is out there that may take a few years to complete, ask the person "Are you in favor of finishing or adding to Chief "so and so's" idea about........"

Another way to finish projects is to have a separate policy and procedure committee, that will operate under the recommendations of the Chiefs Office, as well as work with the Chiefs. This committee will continue to work procedures and out live individual Chiefs terms. Out going Chiefs can also join this group when they are out of office, especially if it is a specific project they maybe have started while in office.

The key to seeing your projects through is not so much your term in Office but by being persistent, doing your research and determination to see these projects through.

Most ideas usually start when you are a line Officer...how many times have you heard all ranks of f/f's saying "If I were Chief I would....." well, you dont need to be a Chief or even Officer to make a draft of a policy or procedure, it may not go anywhere now but if you plan on moving up the ranks, you may be able to put some of your "notes" to use in the future.

[SageVigiles 1,194]

Let me ask this, and no, I'm NOT asking because I have a problem with any of my officers:

What about the reverse situation, how long is TOO LONG for an Officer to serve?

We've all seen departments with Chiefs who have just been Chiefs for too long. They refuse to accept new technology, tactics or ways of doing things.

Does your department have term limits? How long? Does it work?

Which to you is worse? A very young 2nd Lieutenant or a Chief that's been in office for too long?

[robert benz 344]

Let me ask this, and no, I'm NOT asking because I have a problem with any of my officers:

What about the reverse situation, how long is TOO LONG for an Officer to serve?

We've all seen departments with Chiefs who have just been Chiefs for too long. They refuse to accept new technology, tactics or ways of doing things.

Does your department have term limits? How long? Does it work?

Which to you is worse? A very young 2nd Lieutenant or a Chief that's been in office for too long?

good point lets be honest both are dangerous. I have heard about the young, gun-ho, energetic 2/3 yr firefighter who should be respected for stepping up. at 2/3 yrs you SHOULD be all of the above,or get out of the fire service. and i would respect him / her more if they admitted they were not ready to move up. at 2/3 yrs you dont even know what you dont know.

why isnt the old chief voted out??? too much politics? sounds like a dept problem.

I also have read some of these replies that are stating that the Lt position isnt anything big just a learning position. the learning was supposed to take place at the firefighter level. If you are an officer and you are supposed to be above the firefighter then you had better act like an officer and except the responsibilities that come with the rank. you may be a junior officer but still have to act like one.

Maybe I am wrong here what are the roles of junior lt's? Can they lead a team into a fire? assign roles to incoming units? place apparatus?

[wraftery 1,275]

Paid, vol, or lots of other jobs the guy with:

Under a year knows he knows nothing.

Four years knows everything.

Five years knows there is alot he doesn't know.

Retired after 34 years....uh...what was I talking about?

PS: There's ten years experience, and then there's 1 years experience ten times.

[ex-commish 490]

Maybe I am wrong here what are the roles of junior lt's? Can they lead a team into a fire? assign roles to incoming units? place apparatus?

The answer should be yes to all three. And to add....how about training members?

Edited September 6, 2010 by HFD219

[antiquefirelt 994]

I'm not sure how some of you folks minimum time would work in a volunteer setting. Ina career job, time in grade also appeases some of the Union by narrowing the field down. The issue I see is that you could have a firefighter who in the vol. setting is a company officer or higher in a career setting join the VFD and be excluded from rank while possessing far more practical fireground experience. The same is possible in a career setting, though less likely. Even in your own FD or mine, how much time is enough? Fires are on the decline, and even then, many years of poor experience is worse than a a short time of quality experience. It may be more difficult but we need to find a way to properly assess one's leadership abilities. In some FD's those who take on extra projects or lead committees or other activities are credited for their ability to lead. Some say this can easily lead to favoritism or "brown-nosing" on projects/activities the admin desires most.

I do know that while it's difficult to be a good officer if you were never a good firefighter, it's also true that great firefighters do not always make good officers. I've served with and under guys who were excellent in their positions and terrible at the next one up. Luckily the guy I was working under took himself out of employment with poor personal choices before we suffered a firefighter injury or worse.

After promotions, goals and benchmarks must be established and reviewed during a probationary time to ensure the officer can do the job before the berth is made permanent. Our promotions are subject to a one year probationary period at which time they'll be completely assessed for their ability beyond the testing phase. This has worked well in 80% of the cases I'm directly familiar with. The other 20% is what makes the probationary assessment necessary.

Edited September 6, 2010 by antiquefirelt

[SageVigiles 1,194]

Antique, I totally agree with you. You could be a member for years, but professional development is the key to making good officers. And the bottom line is a lot of departments just don't have any.

Listen, I agree the volunteer system of filling in rank spots is not optimal, but if you have young guys who care enough and who have the drive to fill the spots and do the job, then you make it work. As long as they have guidance from the right people, and as long as they are willing to work at it, that's making the best of a bad situation. And making the best of a bad situation is what we all do everyday, is it not?