Elections and Officers Requirements

[FF1 172]

Spoken like a true a******...I'm sure you have the majority vote from the brainiacs in your department!!!

I beg to differ.

nothing that 585 said was disrespectful or rude. I don't think calling names is warranted.

If my information is correct, 585 just finished his term as Chief and was one of the more respected, proactive Chiefs in the county.

He stated the hard facts. The election system is broken and there is no concrete fix. All the courses in the world wont make you a leader and wont give you the respect of your peers. Respect is earned

Edited December 11, 2013 by FF1

[FF1 172]

You do not hear anywhere on this thread that " I was beat out by a better guy" or "It was a pick em', two equals going for the same spot and I lost fair and square"

It seems like there is a giant conspiracy throughout the state and no matter who looses, Its fixed or the system sucks or they are quitting the department now that the didn't get the position that they wanted.

I don't want to hear the popularity contest in the volunteer ranks argument anymore either. Every organization has a popularity contest in some capacity.

Some career jobs also see this. One of the top 3 scores can be made. What does that mean? Whoever the Chief, Mayor and Commissioner wants to be Chief, Captain, or Lieutenant gets the job. You can be #1 on the promotional list for 20 years and get beat out by #2 and #3 every time a promotion comes up.

Life sucks. Crappy things happen (being voted out in favor of an inferior firefighter due to popularity), but giving up isn't a feasible option. Most of us live, work or live and work in the communities that we protect. How is quitting an admirable thing to do? You complain that you all are superstar firefighters that would improve the dept. being in an officer position, so if you are such an asset and joined and remained so active because you love doing this, then why would you give up and let the other guys win?

makes no sense to me. If that was me I would stay active protect my community. Staying active and giving your input more than ever will work toward accomplishing what you want. Quitting lets the other guys win.

Sometimes in life the best lessons are learned from failure, so why don't you guys try to learn and grow from this? Stop making excuses and blaming the system, the district, the department, ect. Let this make you all better people and firefighters and hopefully be persistent and go for office again next time around.

Edited December 11, 2013 by FF1

[FFPCogs 863]

You do not hear anywhere on this thread that " I was beat out by a better guy" or "It was a pick em', two equals going for the same spot and I lost fair and square"

It seems like there is a giant conspiracy throughout the state and no matter who looses, Its fixed or the system sucks or they are quitting the department now that the didn't get the position that they wanted.

I don't want to hear the popularity contest in the volunteer ranks argument anymore either. Every organization has a popularity contest in some capacity.

Some career jobs also see this. One of the top 3 scores can be made. What does that mean? Whoever the Chief, Mayor and Commissioner wants to be Chief, Captain, or Lieutenant gets the job. You can be #1 on the promotional list for 20 years and get beat out by #2 and #3 every time a promotion comes up.

Life sucks. Crappy things happen (being voted out in favor of an inferior firefighter due to popularity), but giving up isn't a feasible option. Most of us live, work or live and work in the communities that we protect. How is quitting an admirable thing to do? You complain that you all are superstar firefighters that would improve the dept. being in an officer position, so if you are such an asset and joined and remained so active because you love doing this, then why would you give up and let the other guys win?

makes no sense to me. If that was me I would stay active protect my community. Staying active and giving your input more than ever will work toward accomplishing what you want. Quitting lets the other guys win.

Sometimes in life the best lessons are learned from failure, so why don't you guys try to learn and grow from this? Stop making excuses and blaming the system, the district, the department, ect. Let this make you all better people and firefighters and hopefully be persistent and go for office again next time around.

Great post!!

Elections aren't the problem. If you feel change is needed than use the election process to get into a position to make the changes that will make your FD better. How? By drawing members to your cause. How? Perseverance. One thing's for sure quitting won't solve anything. Change happens from within, not from the outside looking in. .

[FD123FD 5]

Some good posts on this topic and some are completely absurd. Not going to waste the time copying and pasting. Just going to try and make a point...

The process isn't necessarily broken, you have the right to vote for who you want if they meet the Company's minimum qualifications.

1. What may be broken or completely screwed up is your departments qualifications to run for office. If your department doesn't require you to be SCBA Interior Certified or be a qualified driver operator and so many more certification, then shame on you and your department for allowing this to be. Bylaws need to be structured properly.

2. If your a district then your Chief's need to be approved by the Board of Fire Commissioners and your Company Officers should as well. I know your all saying company officers don't get approved by the Board, well THERE ARE rulings to the contrary (I'll dig them out and post them one day soon). If he Board would approve an unqualified FF then shame on them for allowing an incompetent officer.

3. I know there are FFs out there that have those "Feel Good Binders" and have taken every FF class out there and still can't apply what they have learned. Well again if the If he Board would approve an unqualified FF then shame on them for allowing an incompetent officer.

If your in the fire service for the right reason you just don't pack it in because you were voted out. You stick it out and work on changing the ways of your department because you care on its success. Make recommendations to the bylaw committee for changes. Go to the Board of Fire Commissioner meetings and recommend they review the Districts Officers requirements. There are things you can do.

NYSOFPC has a typing called Firefighter Training and Education: Best Practices

This isn't 100% your answer, but it is a building point for you. Take it to you meetings. Don't be afraid to speak up. Remember if nothing is said, nothing will be changed.

[SageVigiles 1,194]

I'll lob this grenade of an opinion, lets see where it leads.

In my opinion, if you are not a Firefighter (read: CURRENT, Certified Firefighter) you should not be eligible to vote for Firematic Officers. If you are not an EMS Responder you should not be eligible to vote for EMS Officers. If we're going to stick to an open season representative election of Officers (which I disagree with) that's fine, but then lets have those Officers actually REPRESENT the personnel in the field. Why should a person who isn't actually in the field have a say in who is going to ensure the safety of personnel on the scene?

But that will never happen for the same reason we'll never get term limits in Congress. The majority of volunteer departments I've seen have way more social "members" than Firefighters or EMS Responders. Therefore, the only way that a change like that goes through is by a vote, and those social members will never vote to lose their voice in how the department is run.

Edited December 11, 2013 by SageVigiles

[FFPCogs 863]

I'll lob this grenade of an opinion, lets see where it leads.

In my opinion, if you are not a Firefighter (read: CURRENT, Certified Firefighter) you should not be eligible to vote for Firematic Officers. If you are not an EMS Responder you should not be eligible to vote for EMS Officers. If we're going to stick to an open season representative election of Officers (which I disagree with) that's fine, but then lets have those Officers actually REPRESENT the personnel in the field. Why should a person who isn't actually in the field have a say in who is going to ensure the safety of personnel on the scene?

But that will never happen for the same reason we'll never get term limits in Congress. The majority of volunteer departments I've seen have way more social "members" than Firefighters or EMS Responders. Therefore, the only way that a change like that goes through is by a vote, and those social members will never vote to lose their voice in how the department is run.

My FD has never allowed our Associate (non firematic) members to vote for line positions, but they can vote for and hold administrative positions i.e. President, VP, Secretary, Treasurer and Trustee so long as they have met and maintain their attendance requirements. We use a point system to determine member eligibility to vote and Service Officers must also pass an in house test (which we call First grade FF) to be eligible to run for and hold office.This system is currently under revision leaning towards monthly or quarterly service hours along with more in depth testing for each line positions. As one would expect there is resistance, but that has more to do with the amount of service hours required rather than actually requiring the hours themselves. Fortunately the BFD has always held firefighting as the principle mission of our department with social activities and memberships being a secondary concern.

[firemoose827 324]

How is Haz-Mat Operations not a requirement for firefighters? That shouldn't be reserved for just officers or officer candidates. That's crazy and violates OSHA regulations.

It amazes me that we still have these same discussions in 2013 (almost 2014).

The one thing about this requirement is its an older one from the days of Essentials of Firemenship. Our SOP's need to be updated.

You do not hear anywhere on this thread that " I was beat out by a better guy" or "It was a pick em', two equals going for the same spot and I lost fair and square"

It seems like there is a giant conspiracy throughout the state and no matter who looses, Its fixed or the system sucks or they are quitting the department now that the didn't get the position that they wanted.

I don't want to hear the popularity contest in the volunteer ranks argument anymore either. Every organization has a popularity contest in some capacity.

Some career jobs also see this. One of the top 3 scores can be made. What does that mean? Whoever the Chief, Mayor and Commissioner wants to be Chief, Captain, or Lieutenant gets the job. You can be #1 on the promotional list for 20 years and get beat out by #2 and #3 every time a promotion comes up.

Life sucks. Crappy things happen (being voted out in favor of an inferior firefighter due to popularity), but giving up isn't a feasible option. Most of us live, work or live and work in the communities that we protect. How is quitting an admirable thing to do? You complain that you all are superstar firefighters that would improve the dept. being in an officer position, so if you are such an asset and joined and remained so active because you love doing this, then why would you give up and let the other guys win?

makes no sense to me. If that was me I would stay active protect my community. Staying active and giving your input more than ever will work toward accomplishing what you want. Quitting lets the other guys win.

Sometimes in life the best lessons are learned from failure, so why don't you guys try to learn and grow from this? Stop making excuses and blaming the system, the district, the department, ect. Let this make you all better people and firefighters and hopefully be persistent and go for office again next time around.

First off, this wasnt a case of "two equals" who ran against each other an I lost fair and square. I have 25 years, Level II FF and Haz-Mat Tech and a bunch of other stuff that I refresh every 3-5 years. I work hard around the firehouse and always do the work myself instead of make others do it. If there is a work detail I am right in the mix working instead of sitting in the chiefs office "doing paperwork". I work hard to make the others safe, and happy. I got an engine donated to our department just to have them turn it down, now we are dealing with a crappy engine. I got a grant for the department which got us our first TIC and a better 4-gas meter. I ran and worked several fund raisers and have more in the works with minimal help. This guy has been in the dept for about 8 years but was not active due to health reasons. He recently got his health in check and took FF1 while serving as captain. Mind you; he has no experience as an interior firefighter other than the live burns at the training tower for FF1 class. The department feels he would be a better chief because his mother was a chief a few years ago. So...its all about who you know in my department and not about dedication to the department, training and experience. There are no excuses being made on my end and I am simply venting to my peers when I say I am leaving the deparment. I am staying, and I will make a stink this year at meetings to request that the SOP's get updated and new officers requirements get written by our fire commissioners. I will work to make things better. Guess a firefighter cant vent to his "family" or his "brothers" anymore. To all of you that offered advice and comments thank you, I have taken it all and will use it. Not only that but the support you showed, whether for or against me, empowers me to do what needs to be done and I thank you all.

Thanks again and stay safe.

[SageVigiles 1,194]

We use a point system to determine member eligibility to vote and Service Officers must also pass an in house test (which we call First grade FF) to be eligible to run for and hold office.This system is currently under revision leaning towards monthly or quarterly service hours along with more in depth testing for each line positions. As one would expect there is resistance, but that has more to do with the amount of service hours required rather than actually requiring the hours themselves. Fortunately the BFD has always held firefighting as the principle mission of our department with social activities and memberships being a secondary concern.

You have no idea how much I would love to implement that...

[FFPCogs 863]

You have no idea how much I would love to implement that...

Alex,

The first phase of our planned changes to our By Laws deals with training. I don't know if this will help you or not but here is the first draft of what we are proposing:

Section 4.

Members shall be required to maintain minimum attendance standards for training and Department meetings. Junior Probationary and Probationary members shall attend every drill and meeting unless excused by a member of the Service Board; Active members with five (5) years or less of service shall attend a minimum of six (6) drills and two (2) meetings each quarter; Active members with more than five (5) but less than ten (10) years of service shall attend a minimum of four (4) drills and one (1) meeting each quarter; Active members with ten (10) or more years of service shall attend a minimum of three (3) drills and one (1) meeting each quarter. Veterans members should attend enough drills and meetings to remain fit for duty and retain voting privileges. All Active members shall be required to attend any mandatory drills unless excused by a member of the Service Board.

Now while some may find the above to fall short, in our circumstances this is what we believe is the most practical and thus attainable standard that allows us to maintain a duty ready membership while still respecting the life changes that occur within that membership. Our goal is to keep members not drive them off with unrealistic or impractical standards that don't take into account the realities of their lives while still ensuring we maintain a trained and effective force. As you can see it is a tiered system with older, more experienced members having to train less frequently than newer and less experienced members. The reason for this graduated scale are threefold:

1. In real terms the new 18 year old kid has more time to devote to training than the 25 or 30 year old with a career, new wife (or husband), and possibly family to support.

2. Newer members need more training to learn the skills necessary, while for older more experienced members training is more a matter of reinforcing these already learned skills.

3. This change will allows us to ensure to at least a reasonable degree the competency of the members climbing on the rigs.

As I and the other members of the Committee see it these three points consider the realities of the volunteer world and offer a practical means to address them.

The next step in the works is duty or service hours. Each member will be required to provide a set number of hours each month or quarter at the firehouse to remain in good standing. Again there are those same realities to deal with that make simply setting an arbitrary number difficult. Our goal is to set a standard whereby the house is covered, but members still have a life. We have a few ideas, but at present feel a graduated scale in this area would not be practical based on the needs of the department. A redoubled recruitment effort will also factor into this as well.

Edited December 12, 2013 by FFPCogs

[firemoose827 324]

The Point System seems to be a mixed feeling from most of you and I was wondering about that myself. The department I was in on Long Island had the point system and it worked well. You got points for calls, drills, meetings, fundraisers, state training classes and or seminars, and yu needed to get like 250 points in the fiscal year to be considered a "Member in Good Standing". If you met this, had all of the essential training, the time served in the department and qualification on all equipment you were placed in a roster of available candidates to be nominated as Lieutenant. You were voted on for Lieutenant and then did 2 years, moved up to 1st Lieutenant for 2 years, then Captain for 2 years (in two companies; Engine and Ladder) then each Captain was eligible to run for department assistant chief. The loser became an "Ex-Captain" which held as much weight and seniority as captain on fire scenes, and you were automatically entered into the asst chief race every year. You then served 2 years as each assistant, then 2 as chief, then your out...you cant run for office again for atleast 5 years and even then you have to get nominated.

Training was taken seriously, qualifications and experience were respected in the firehouse and on the fire scene, if there were no chief or line officers on scene the "Ex-Captains" were IC's and respected, as well as "Ex-Chiefs". Brothers respected brothers, the right person with the right qualifications were chosen for the office no questions asked...then I moved upstate...

Its night and day difference between the two areas. I wish I could institute the point system here but they treat it like the plague and avoid it at all costs.

Stay safe.

[AFS1970 504]

Point systems are good but they are often subject to the people with low points fighting the standard. In my old department we required 50 points to vote and remain in good standing. We had 40 drills a year, and 12 meetings a year, which equals 52 weeks in a year. Although I don't know of anyone doing it, but in theory you could attend all drills and meetings, except 2 and never go to a call and still remain in good standing. A small group wanted to rais that up to 75 points, it failed in the meeting. Not because it was not a good idea but because all of the people who made 50-74 points got to vote on loosing their right to vote.

Another issue we had was points for training. When I joined you got points for the regular weekly drill only. I am happy to say that when I was an officer we changed that so you got points for any approved class, so that new guy that is taking FF1 2 or 3 days a week got a point for every session. Funny thing was we had a kid join, who's father was a veteran member. This kid was never very active as far as calls went but in his first year took a combined FF1/FF2 class (one of the first in our area) an MRT class and then a bridge class to upgrade to EMT. So he had really high hours and points for training. His own father looked at that list and said there was no way his kid had all those points. When I explained that he did the father lobbied hard for most of those classes to not count.

I am a strong proponent of points systems, but I also like to combine them with a system of hours, which most computerized report systems will tell you. This is because I can go on 10 calls that are all false alarms and get 10 points and put in 2.5 hours. And someone else could go to 5 calls that are all fires and get 5 points but put in 15 hours. I once proposed a system that balanced 4 factors, points, hours, seniority, and rank. I used to produce that list every year and post it. I was told it was much to complicated to follow. It did require some math to produce but not to read the list when it came out. However the people that were not competitive in more than one factor did not like any system that put the wrong people ahead of them.

[RES24CUE 168]

The department in which I was previously active also had a point system. One of the issues that was apparent to me was what do you do to the people who do not make their points? I am curious how all of the other agencies out there handle this. In my previous organization, if a member did not make their points then they got a little card mailed to them that informed them that they did not make their points and what their future intentions were. They could either select "I will make an effort to be more active in the upcoming year", "I would like to switch over to exempt (assuming that they have 5 years of active membership) or social membership" (non-voting, non-firematic membership), or "I would no longer like to to be a member of the...fire department. Please drop me from the roles". The problem with this is that it took a 2 to 3 years of a member saying that they wanted to be more active and then missing their points by a few for the nominating committee to drop them from the membership. The entire process took way too long. The other issue is that we had a ton of members on the roster who missed their points for 2 years, then made it by 2 or 3 points just by happenstance one year (coincidentally, like they came to one call during a storm surge when we had 10 active calls and they got 30 points (3 points per call)), then they missed their points again for the next 2 years. So they are taking up dead space for 5 years, getting new gear as theirs creeps over 10 years old (NFPA!!!), and we are paying the insurance on them, and they are nothing but a derelict, non-compliant, dead weight member that gets to hang around for half of a decade. And god forbid they are at the meeting when the membership committee recommends that they be dropped from the roles because they have checked off for the past 3 years that they want to be more active and their attendace has not changed one bit. If they come up with a sob story in response to the membership committee's recommendation for the membership to think about before they vote on them, that will definitely buy them another 2 or 3 years of filling out cards and checking off boxes full of more broken promises...

So, now that I've gotten that off my chest, what do the rest of you guys' departments do when someone falls short of their activity points?

[FFPCogs 863]

The department in which I was previously active also had a point system. One of the issues that was apparent to me was what do you do to the people who do not make their points? I am curious how all of the other agencies out there handle this. In my previous organization, if a member did not make their points then they got a little card mailed to them that informed them that they did not make their points and what their future intentions were. They could either select "I will make an effort to be more active in the upcoming year", "I would like to switch over to exempt (assuming that they have 5 years of active membership) or social membership" (non-voting, non-firematic membership), or "I would no longer like to to be a member of the...fire department. Please drop me from the roles". The problem with this is that it took a 2 to 3 years of a member saying that they wanted to be more active and then missing their points by a few for the nominating committee to drop them from the membership. The entire process took way too long. The other issue is that we had a ton of members on the roster who missed their points for 2 years, then made it by 2 or 3 points just by happenstance one year (coincidentally, like they came to one call during a storm surge when we had 10 active calls and they got 30 points (3 points per call)), then they missed their points again for the next 2 years. So they are taking up dead space for 5 years, getting new gear as theirs creeps over 10 years old (NFPA!!!), and we are paying the insurance on them, and they are nothing but a derelict, non-compliant, dead weight member that gets to hang around for half of a decade. And god forbid they are at the meeting when the membership committee recommends that they be dropped from the roles because they have checked off for the past 3 years that they want to be more active and their attendace has not changed one bit. If they come up with a sob story in response to the membership committee's recommendation for the membership to think about before they vote on them, that will definitely buy them another 2 or 3 years of filling out cards and checking off boxes full of more broken promises...

So, now that I've gotten that off my chest, what do the rest of you guys' departments do when someone falls short of their activity points?

In my VFD if you don't make your points for the year by December 31st then you lose your voting privileges. Our elections take place in April so anyone short cannot vote at the subsequent annual meeting. As I stated earlier this is all under review and is in the process of being revised and fine tuned. As it appears now participation requirements will be on a quarterly basis rather than annual in the near future and will move from points to service hours or some combination thereof.

Edited December 13, 2013 by FFPCogs

[gamewell45 258]

You were voted on for Lieutenant and then did 2 years, moved up to 1st Lieutenant for 2 years, then Captain for 2 years (in two companies; Engine and Ladder) then each Captain was eligible to run for department assistant chief. The loser became an "Ex-Captain" which held as much weight and seniority as captain on fire scenes, and you were automatically entered into the asst chief race every year. You then served 2 years as each assistant, then 2 as chief, then your out...you cant run for office again for atleast 5 years and even then you have to get nominated.

Training was taken seriously, qualifications and experience were respected in the firehouse and on the fire scene, if there were no chief or line officers on scene the "Ex-Captains" were IC's and respected, as well as "Ex-Chiefs". Brothers respected brothers, the right person with the right qualifications were chosen for the office no questions asked...then I moved upstate...

That's basically the same system we used in my old department; it brought stability and with training, the knowledge necessary to properly carry out your duties as an officer.

The department that i'm in now (and this is my opinion only, not speaking for my department) has what we call "ping-pong" officers. They bounce in and out of office depending on election results and as a result, there is no consistency, especially with the Line officers. A Lt. will get voted in, spend a year learning the job and growing as an officer and then at the end of the year, get voted out for whatever reason and you start all over again. I think its counter-productive to the fire service personally, but it appears to work for the department. Just my 2cents.

[ex-commish 490]

Again...it is almost 2014 and we are still electing those who will have to make life and death decisions

[FFPCogs 863]

Again...it is almost 2014 and we are still electing those who will have to make life and death decisions

We as a Nation do that every four years, Should we abolish that election as well?

[SageVigiles 1,194]

We as a Nation do that every four years, Should we abolish that election as well?

I don't know about you but I'd like my Fire Department leadership to be a bit better at their jobs than Congress and the President...

Unless a department has some really strict nomination requirements that limit the candidate pool to only the most qualified candidates, I do not support elections for Fire Officers. 90% of the time it turns into a high school popularity contest. Some schmuck nobody has seen for 2 years comes out of the woodwork 4 months before elections and attends every drill, call and work detail and suddenly he looks like the most qualified candidate.

Edited December 13, 2013 by SageVigiles

[FFPCogs 863]

I don't know about you but I'd like my Fire Department leadership to be a bit better at their jobs than Congress and the President...

Unless a department has some really strict nomination requirements that limit the candidate pool to only the most qualified candidates, I do not support elections for Fire Officers. 90% of the time it turns into a high school popularity contest. Some schmuck nobody has seen for 2 years comes out of the woodwork 4 months before elections and attends every drill, call and work detail and suddenly he looks like the most qualified candidate

So would I Alex, so would I.

But the point is if elections are the system in place than that's the system that has to be used to change things. I've been a volunteer FF for over 35 years and been a member in 8 different volunteer departments in that time as I've lived or worked in different places. I've also had the good fortune to work with volunteers from about another 150 VFDs across the nation while overseas. All of the departments I've been in and all but one of the others use elections to decide their leaderships. And while popularity is surely one of the pitfalls of the system all of them have managed to put out fires effectively, save people, purchase equipment, provide training and write and update SOP/Gs all under the direction of leaders chosen by the memberships. Is it perfect, no of course it isn't, but neither is having a volunteer Fire Chief appointed by his pals on the Board of Fire Commissioners who then fills the lower ranks with his lackeys and keeps the doors of opportunity and progress shut to all other comers. I will reiterate again that elections in and of themselves aren't the problem and change can only happen from within. I agree on the idea of standards to hold office, but to get those standards in place takes perseverance, patience and yes a bit of salesmanship. And quite frankly very few city or state governments are going to put restrictions on how or when a volunteer FD determines their leaders as most are private corporations. So what then are the options? Simpy put they are to play ball on the field that is until you can change the field or quit. I choose not to quit and keep striving to better the departments I'm in for even the smallest of improvements is an improvement.

Edited December 13, 2013 by FFPCogs

[SageVigiles 1,194]

I totally understand that Pete. What I'm saying is that its hard for volunteer fire departments to be taken seriously by the citizens when they ask about the promotion process and basically the only qualifications other than Fire 1 (for most departments) are "We like him or her best."

[velcroMedic1987 330]

I totally understand that Pete. What I'm saying is that its hard for volunteer fire departments to be taken seriously by the citizens when they ask about the promotion process and basically the only qualifications other than Fire 1 (for most departments) are "We like him or her best."

The majority of citizens don't know (and don't give a crap) about the inner-workings of a fire department. All they care about is someone showing up when they dial 911.

[FF1 172]

without getting into specifics, My department has a years, training class, and active % requirement for officers. We are so strict to this that we have a vacant position. even if you are short 1 day in the years category, you cant run. A line must be drawn otherwise your requirements are worthless

[SageVigiles 1,194]

The majority of citizens don't know (and don't give a crap) about the inner-workings of a fire department. All they care about is someone showing up when they dial 911.

But I'd be willing to bet they assume (and expect) that a Lieutenant, Captain, Battalion Chief, Supreme Allied Commander, etc. has more training than the rest of the department.

Edited December 13, 2013 by SageVigiles

[FF1 172]

Another issue that some may not consider is the liability. If I wasn't properly trained (that is a loose term, because there is no concrete requirement that is standard for officers) I wouldn't want to run.

Reason being, : If you sent a crew into a fire and something goes wrong, lets say a flashover for arguments sake. You have members that got hurt and now this is being investigated, If you have 7 years with a boatload of training and 40% attendance, this will be considered an accident and insurance kicks in and it takes its normal course.

If you have 1 year of 20% attendance and FF1 and 1 or 2 more and the same situation occurs, you can and will be held personally liable for endangering your crew by making a decision that you are not properly trained to make

[FFPCogs 863]

without getting into specifics, My department has a years, training class, and active % requirement for officers. We are so strict to this that we have a vacant position. even if you are short 1 day in the years category, you cant run. A line must be drawn otherwise your requirements are worthless

And herein lies one of the major pitfalls of requirements if taken too far. Some departments in an effort to ensure only qualified people fill positions make the standards difficult to meet and end up having vacant positions. Others cast in stone the requirements and then don't provide a means for members to achieve them. Worse of all though is when the "clique of the moment" sets standards that only they posses and then do everything possible to keep others from attaining them so they can hold on to the reins. Setting Officer standards can be a great way to help move a department forward, but they have to be tailored to the realities of the membership that is going have to fulfill them, otherwise they become counter productive and ultimately detrimental to the department itself.

There are ways to address this situation.

1) Any requirements should be set based on a realistic assessment of the practical needs of the department and not necessarily what the NFPA suggests or your neighboring departments are doing

2) Requirements must be attainable and that means more than anything else that if a department is going to require certification X, X and X that they then provide the classes necessary (or access to them) and pay for them as well

3) Begin the process slowly and work up to the goal. If no one is FF 2 it's impossible to require Officer 1 and expect you'll have qualified candidates. You'll find yourself with great requirements but no officers that meet them.

4) Allow members to be voted in (or appointed) with the provision that they must attain the desired requirements within a set time frame to remain in the position

5) Set FF requirements such as FF 1 or FF 2 first and get the majority of the membership to that level so that a springboard exists to move on to officer requirements such as Instructor and Officer 1.

6) Remember you only have to get the vote once, so no matter how many times the meeting shoots down a proposal keep working on it. If a change of tactic or a change of face is what's needed to get the message through, DO IT!!

Edited December 13, 2013 by FFPCogs

[FF1 172]

And herein lies one of the major pitfalls of requirements if taken too far. Some departments in an effort to ensure only qualified people fill positions make the standards difficult to meet and end up having vacant positions. Others cast in stone the requirements and then don't provide a means for members to achieve them. Worse of all though is when the "clique of the moment" sets standards that only they posses and then do everything possible to keep others from attaining them so they can hold on to the reins. Setting Officer standards can be a great way to help move a department forward, but they have to be tailored to the realities of the membership that is going have to fulfill them, otherwise they become counter productive and ultimately detrimental to the department itself.

There are ways to address this situation.

1) Any requirements should be set based on a realistic assessment of the practical needs of the department and not necessarily what the NFPA suggests or your neighboring departments are doing

2) Requirements must be attainable and that means more than anything else that if a department is going to require certification X, X and X that they then provide the classes necessary (or access to them) and pay for them as well

3) Begin the process slowly and work up to the goal. If no one is FF 2 it's impossible to require Officer 1 and expect you'll have qualified candidates. You'll find yourself with great requirements but no officers that meet them.

4) Allow members to be voted in (or appointed) with the provision that they must attain the desired requirements within a set time frame to remain in the position

5) Set FF requirements such as FF 1 or FF 2 first and get the majority of the membership to that level so that a springboard exists to move on to officer requirements such as Instructor and Officer 1.

6) Remember you only have to get the vote once, so no matter how many times the meeting shoots down a proposal keep working on it. If a change of tactic or a change of face is what's needed to get the message through, DO IT!!

Agreed. we suspended the requirements for 2 years and allowed current and perspective officers time to achieve the requirements. When the 2 years were up, the requirements came back into effect. Many guys took zero classes and simply cannot run. I feel like we were very lenient and provided ample time. As they say, you can lead a horse to water, but cannot make it drink.

[ex-commish 490]

We as a Nation do that every four years, Should we abolish that election as well?

While I understand the context of your question most elected officials are not charged with making immediate life and death decisions like fire officers are and those that maybe usually rely on the advice and expertise of someone who has the training and experience to do so.

[Bnechis 3,961]

Cogs, I agree with your list except for #1

"Any requirement should be based on a realistic assessment of the practical needs of the department and not necessarily what the NFPA suggests or your neighboring departments are doing"

Their are a number of issues here:

1) How can a department perform a realistic assessment of its needs if the leadership does not have the basic training or knowledge to know what they are assessing? I.E. if you have no one trained in interior operations and every fire you pull up to you hit it with a deck gun till it goes out (by collapsing and running out of fuel) how do you know what interior ops levels there are or you should be at. I remember years ago when auto extrication training was learning to cut up cars and not how to extricate people. I can tell you how many scenes I was at (as EMS) that the rescuers did more harm than good in removing the victim. And I am referring to all levels of depts. (vol, career, small, large, urban, rural).

2) There are legal minimum standards, that must be maintained. I know a number of depts. that do not meet these and they use the argument that they cant realistically meet them. If that is true, then you need to tell the public, because if you do not then you are allowing them to believe you can handle the job...in effect you are lying by default.

3) NFPA are not recommendation. They are the standards that the court will use when someone sues. NYS courts have been accepting this as have other courts. FEMA is now using them for grants and this summer ISO got the NYS Insurance Commissioner to sanction NFPA standards for the insurance ratings.

One of the 1st things that is taught in EMT is medical / legal / ethical issues and under legal its always taught that the courts look at what surrounding area individuals would do. So you are compared to the neighbors.

One reason that NYS has a volunteer & a career standard is because FASNY (which represents volunteers) did an assessment and determined that the lowest training level standards in the country are good enough to protect NYS volunteers and the communities they protect.

[FFPCogs 863]

Cogs, I agree with your list except for #1

"Any requirement should be based on a realistic assessment of the practical needs of the department and not necessarily what the NFPA suggests or your neighboring departments are doing"

Their are a number of issues here:

1) How can a department perform a realistic assessment of its needs if the leadership does not have the basic training or knowledge to know what they are assessing? I.E. if you have no one trained in interior operations and every fire you pull up to you hit it with a deck gun till it goes out (by collapsing and running out of fuel) how do you know what interior ops levels there are or you should be at. I remember years ago when auto extrication training was learning to cut up cars and not how to extricate people. I can tell you how many scenes I was at (as EMS) that the rescuers did more harm than good in removing the victim. And I am referring to all levels of depts. (vol, career, small, large, urban, rural).

2) There are legal minimum standards, that must be maintained. I know a number of depts. that do not meet these and they use the argument that they cant realistically meet them. If that is true, then you need to tell the public, because if you do not then you are allowing them to believe you can handle the job...in effect you are lying by default.

3) NFPA are not recommendation. They are the standards that the court will use when someone sues. NYS courts have been accepting this as have other courts. FEMA is now using them for grants and this summer ISO got the NYS Insurance Commissioner to sanction NFPA standards for the insurance ratings.

One of the 1st things that is taught in EMT is medical / legal / ethical issues and under legal its always taught that the courts look at what surrounding area individuals would do. So you are compared to the neighbors.

One reason that NYS has a volunteer & a career standard is because FASNY (which represents volunteers) did an assessment and determined that the lowest training level standards in the country are good enough to protect NYS volunteers and the communities they protect.

Fair enough B, but I think many forward thinking FFs and junior Officers hit a wall when trying to implement standards. People, especially those resistant to change, often times find necessary changes easier to swallow when they come in smaller doses. As these relatively small changes become commonplace the sought after changes become easier to implement, at least that's been my experience. As I said earlier even the smallest improvements are improvements and more often than not they lead to greater ones. The first step is always the hardest but once it's taken and the world doesn't end others do often come easier.And lets face it, for many VFDs even the mere thought of doing what their neighboring department a 1/2 mile away is doing is abhorrent, so keeping up with the Jones' so to speak may not be the best tactic to use when trying to move forward either.

Edited December 13, 2013 by FFPCogs

[petervonb 9]

So maybe we should come up with a SPOT-FILLER badge, a SPOT-FILLER helmet front piece and SPOT-FILLER lettering for the back of the turnout coat.

Maybe the design could be like a circle, partly filled with some sort of material, and a putty knife sticking out of it. Appropriate level numbers could be written on the handle of the putty knife, to show whether the person is a Level 1 SPOT-FILLER, Level 2 SPOT-FILLER or a Chief SPOT-FILLER.

[JM15 386]

In NYS it is required by law for all Firefighters (including scene support) to have Hazmat Ops BEFORE they are allowed to respond to ANY calls.

If inspected by PESH they will specifically checks for that also