Retention of quality members

[ex-commish 490]

There has been a lot of talk lately about the declining of volunteer firefighters and how can we retain them I want to put out there an actual scenario ( I will leave the department name out of it) that has happened here in Westchester which as a member of the fire service as well as a taxpayer makes me scratch my head. We all know OSHA training is a considered safety training and I don't meant to demean the importance of it but those of us who have been around know there has never been actual measure of competency for OSHA ( I believe that has been changed now) all you have had to do is be present for the training and you were issued credit for the training.

Many departments incorporate OSHA with their regular drills or hold extra classes for OSHA. In the case I am referring to a member who was a former chief, daytime driver and held many state and national certs was dropped as a member for being non-compliant for OSHA. He was out of service for several months and missed drills and towards the end of the year he was short on his OSHA hours. He approached his chief and asked if there can be make up training for those who were short on OSHA ( he was not the only one short) and with the chief's approval a class was given by a competent and experienced instructor and the completed training was also approved. Make up training was a common practice in this department and the approval was always maintained at the chief's level with simply a meme to the board that the members were compliant.And to add the board adopted a resolution to allow members untill 12/31 of that year to be compliant.

At the January meeting of the board of fire commissioners they ( 3 out of 5 members of the board) chose not to accept the training that the chief approved and hence the member with almost 35 years in the fire service, certified instructor, hazmat tech, someone who has conducted hundreds of hours of training for his department and again a daytime driver was cut loose. Now there is a personal side to this story that I won't get into but in this day and age where you see signs all around town asking for people to volunteer, when at a time apparatus do not get out because of no drivers, and where it is hard today to keep members, why would any commissioner vote to drop someone in this case especially when the attorney representing the district rendered an opinion that the members who are short should be given ample time to "re-up" OSHA training perhaps put them in an in-active status until the do. Commissioners, of which I am one, are elected officials who are charged with the responsibility of making sure their districts are protected as well as represent the best interests of the taxpayer. Throwing someone out because they would not accept OSHA training approved by the chief in my opinion does not represent the best interests of the district and the residents of the district. It also undermines the chief's authority who runs the department and who has to rely on quality people to make the incidents work. We also have to maintain quality people especially those who want to volunteer and serve their community and are willing to take the necessary measure to do it. If you are not willing to see the quality in people than you might as well take down the " we need volunteers" signs because obviously you don't.

Edited December 14, 2015 by HFD219

[AFS1970 504]

Never having served in a district with elected commissioners, I am unfamiliar with what role they have in the operation of the department. Are they able to decide if they will accept training that has been approved by a chief on a case by case basis? Are they able to dismiss a member outright? It would seem to me that this would be outside of the administrative role that I always thought a commissioner had.

That being said this case is not unlike two I know of. One a similar case of a past Chief, who a certain group of members wanted to stop from driving. They were mostly successful although he would still show up and drive for major incidents. Another was a Past Captain & daytime driver, the same group of members worked hard to get him banned from driving, because they claimed he could not see/ This was based on him parking the rig at a slight angle a couple of times. Never leaving the bay it was supposed to be in. He complained that the bay was dark, and in truth the lights were often turned off. That problem was largely solved by new lights (installed for a different reason) and leaving them on when out on a call.

Like animals that eat their young, we often do little to retain our members, especially our senior members who bring a great knowledge base to the department.

[ex-commish 490]

"Never having served in a district with elected commissioners, I am unfamiliar with what role they have in the operation of the department. Are they able to decide if they will accept training that has been approved by a chief on a case by case basis? Are they able to dismiss a member outright? It would seem to me that this would be outside of the administrative role that I always thought a commissioner had."

There are rules about dropping people. There are laws about dropping people. The rules were not followed which is a common thing with some of the board members.

[SECTMB 612]

If you are looking for common sense, forget about it. I recently moved to an area covered by a volunteer department. I stopped by the station, 1/2 mile from my home on the same street, to inquire about membership. I was told that my NY credentials were not recognized in GA. One day an engine came up the street, responding, when it passed my house it was not the local dept, but the neighboring paid department. I have seen them responding into our area several other times.

So, I'm usually available 24/7, have lots of training, 30+ years of experience as an EMT, Officer, Driver, Interior Firefighter, but they can't use me and they also can't get their apparatus on the road 100% of the time either.

[AFS1970 504]

I know one ex member who was a volunteer in my city in the dark days before FF1 certification. He served many ranks up to 3rd in command of a large department then moved out of town for work and resigned. A couple of years ago that department was looking for day time drivers and this ex-member, now retired from the job he left for, was willing to rejoin, but lacked FF1. He had been a Driver last time he was a member, and had a CDL.

Fun loophole, most departments would consider him grandfathered if he had been a member for the whole time, but since he left they did not think that would be the case. He did not rejoin.

Now these cases are all anecdotal, but I bet we can all tell a version or two.

In order to train our members, we may need to think out of the box a bit. Most of the classes we need are arranged by hours, but as long as we have the right number of hours the scheduling is pretty much up to us. I took an officer class once at a neighboring department. Most departments would have this at least 2 nights a week. This department held it once a week. It took twice as long but it taxed the members less. They also provided dinner at each class, because so many people were coming right from work to a 6pm class. Looking back on it, that was a nice way to train and retain members, while getting them certified.

[FFPCogs 863]

Good topic which I hope will get people thinking. Yes, recruitment is of vital importance but it is only one side of the equation. Retention is also an area that is in need of some attention for most departments especially when we consider the fact that a recruit is not a replacement for a 4 or 5 or 10 year member. Now it is a well documented fact that poor leadership is the number one cause of people leaving the volunteer fire service but that problem itself encompasses a whole host of contributing factors. And of these none is more pressing than the inability to change, even when everything screams that change is necessary. To that point there is one area in which a change can have a dramatic impact. I have been a very vocal, albeit mostly lone, proponent of duty shifts for volunteer firefighters for quite some time. The more I look at recruitment and retention the more I realize that it's time for the volunteer service as a whole to reevaluate HOW we volunteer, not just what will get people in the door. It's great if we can get them, but to keep them is quite another story. As we now know incentives do offer some measure of success, but by and large it is how we handle responses and training requirements that causes much of the problem. Time is a very precious commodity for most people today and the usual method of drop what you're doing and respond just DOES NOT WORK ANYMORE in many areas. Implementing a duty shift program can and will address the issue of people's valuable time (along with a host of others). A person joins, gets certified and then chooses or is assigned a duty shift. He can then plan the rest of his life around that commitment with the full knowledge that his response area is covered by at least one crew and all members are contributing at least the same minimum level of service. Training can also be incorporated during these shifts and ultimately the community is provided a greater level of service to boot. Of course I do realize that for most daytime coverage is one of our most pressing issues, but there are ways to deal with it. College student and night worker live-ins are an option, and a good one at that, to help offset the lack of personnel during the day, but there will rarely be enough of them. So we must look at other options too. These can range from Public Works or other municipal employee memberships to mutual aid and go right on up to and include paying members to provide daytime staffing, either full time or per diem, to cover those hours. As always, the wider the net the better the catch, so when developing a plan all options should be considered and it should be as inclusive of all these options as possible to build a comprehensive, and more importantly successful, program.

Let me just add that as a recruiter for volunteers here in Stamford, one of the questions we ask in our interview is whether candidates would be willing to be assigned to a duty shift. Thus far, after interviewing more than 80 candidates, a full 100% of them have said that fulfilling their obligation by doing duty shifts would be a far better option for them instead of the "come when you can" norm currently in use. Now you can take that fact for whatever it's worth to you, but it sends a message loud and clear to me.

Lastly, there are a multitude of such programs up and running across the country to use as templates and refine to your needs...I would hope that at least some of you will consider the option.

Edited December 14, 2015 by FFPCogs

[ex-commish 490]

Cogs all great ideas however I was referencing the ignorance of dismissing quality, trained people for no reason.

[FFPCogs 863]

Cogs all great ideas however I was referencing the ignorance of dismissing quality, trained people for no reason.

My apologies for diverting from the intent of the thread.

[ex-commish 490]

My apologies for diverting from the intent of the thread.

No apologies needed you did express some great ideas

[SECTMB 612]

In prior posts I mentioned the possibility of adjoining departments assigning a specific dedicated engine with a four man crew for a daytime shift M-F to respond to any call in either jurisdiction. You would only need two persons from each dept. each day, thereby spreading the load. It guarantees a quick response with a full crew and enhances the relationship between the departments and their personnel. Alternate firehouses on a weekly basis.

[AirOne 6]

One of the problems I see in some departments is that the Commissioners are there to support the Chief and allow him to do his job, not the other way around. When Commissioners try and run the department, that turns a lot of guys off. How are you supposed to retain guys when you've got a governing body that's oblivious to what the rank and file wants and needs? Well run departments, like Bedford Hills, the Chiefs and Commissioners work quite well together, and you can see it in their high manpower turnout at calls and their pride.

[x635 4,066]

Great and important topic and great replies! Hope to hear some more opinions from those reading this...

[ex-commish 490]

One of the problems I see in some departments is that the Commissioners are there to support the Chief and allow him to do his job, not the other way around. When Commissioners try and run the department, that turns a lot of guys off. How are you supposed to retain guys when you've got a governing body that's oblivious to what the rank and file wants and needs? Well run departments, like Bedford Hills, the Chiefs and Commissioners work quite well together, and you can see it in their high manpower turnout at calls and their pride.

How about commissioners who also serve on fire company boards or as line officers or do all three? I see that as trying to run the department.

Edited December 17, 2015 by HFD219

[AFS1970 504]

In prior posts I mentioned the possibility of adjoining departments assigning a specific dedicated engine with a four man crew for a daytime shift M-F to respond to any call in either jurisdiction. You would only need two persons from each dept. each day, thereby spreading the load. It guarantees a quick response with a full crew and enhances the relationship between the departments and their personnel. Alternate firehouses on a weekly basis.

We had a similar concept many years back in Stamford, called Squad 81. I was too junior to ride the rig, but it worked out fairly well in the beginning. My perception of it was that it was the proverbial horse designed by committee (you know, a camel). At each level the concept had more rules applied to it, there was an over abundance of fairness, there was a strange bit about housing the unit. It was eventually abandoned, although I think the concept is still valid.

One idea I have had was to use your NFIRS (or other reporting) data to deploy mixed crews. Based on the idea that anyone who signs up for such a crew obviously wants to go on calls, and that we can easily tell when and where the calls are occurring. What if we could prioritize what stations needed to be staffed on what shifts, then let people sign up. We could use data to tell us where to put the crews based on where they would be closest to the call volume, understanding that they would still be covering all the districts involved.

[FFPCogs 863]

We had a similar concept many years back in Stamford, called Squad 81. I was too junior to ride the rig, but it worked out fairly well in the beginning. My perception of it was that it was the proverbial horse designed by committee (you know, a camel). At each level the concept had more rules applied to it, there was an over abundance of fairness, there was a strange bit about housing the unit. It was eventually abandoned, although I think the concept is still valid.

One idea I have had was to use your NFIRS (or other reporting) data to deploy mixed crews. Based on the idea that anyone who signs up for such a crew obviously wants to go on calls, and that we can easily tell when and where the calls are occurring. What if we could prioritize what stations needed to be staffed on what shifts, then let people sign up. We could use data to tell us where to put the crews based on where they would be closest to the call volume, understanding that they would still be covering all the districts involved.

We've been discussing something similar in terms of using NFIRS to distribute dedicated coverage. It is one of many staffing variants we are actively researching. Ultimately the goal is to have all certified members here, regardless of which department they are a member of, able to ride any volunteer rig any time. There are some steps which have to be taken before we reach that point and those are in the works now. All this goes directly to some of my earlier comments about reevaluating HOW we volunteer. If what a department has always done is working, well, "if it ain't broke don't fix it" and kudos to them, keep up the good work. If on the other hand it's not working, which although some would argue it, Stamford and many other communities clearly aren't, than it's time suck it up and take a look at what to do to fix it.

[Remember585 815]

How about commissioners who also serve on fire company boards or as line officers or do all three? I see that as trying to run the department.

I thought that this was an illegal practice?

[ex-commish 490]

I thought that this was an illegal practice?

Not illegal. State law only prohibits a commissioner from being a chief or assistant chief. Nothing to prevent a commissioner from serving as a fire company officer wether it be line or administrative. I do believe it is a conflict of interest because it is in the case to the situation I am referring to. One commissioner is also president of the fire company and a lieutanant, another commissioner also serves on the fire company board of directors.

Edited December 19, 2015 by HFD219