This feature is part of our Fire Chief Digital Edition, a quarterly supplement to FireChief.com that brings a sharpened focus to some of the most challenging topics facing fire chiefs and fire service leaders everywhere. To read all of the articles included in the Summer 2015 issue, click here.
A generation ago, the civilian oversight provided by a fire board was an effective model for administering fire protection. But as communities grew, a lack of fire service insight became their liability. With today’s serious financial demands and such high expectations for first responders, many fire departments controlled by such governing entities find themselves at a functional crossroads when it comes to protecting life and property.
In addition, one of the greatest stressors for any fire chief is to sit before a board or commission tasked with overseeing all fire department operations yet has no working knowledge of the job, its tasks or the day-to-day mechanisms that make it all happen. One such frustration is trying to communicate to a group of civilians as they try in vain to interpret “firespeak” into workable definitions, all in an effort to understand the difference between deputy and battalion chiefs.
These are not new challenges and they are being aggressively addressed in many states. As far back as the late 1970s and early 1980s, many state governments established fire boards made up of specialists — fire officials, insurance executives and general contractors knowledgeable in OSHA regulations and SARA Title III, in addition to business professionals and the general public. Sometimes as large as 15 members and partnering with finance, code enforcement, unions and the governor’s office, these administrative bodies focus on partnerships and cooperation, working to standardize the training and education of all firefighters as well as keeping them and the public safe. Administered directly under the state fire marshal’s office or a division of fire safety, these boards have access to and recommending authority over all fire-related legislation but shall not interfere with or participate in the day-to-day operations of the department.
As progressive as these state-level boards and commissions are, their message appears to be lost on the districts and smaller towns throughout America. This comes at a time of increasing legislation by local, state and federal agencies as well as new compliance regulations by OSHA, NIOSH and NFPA. Reluctant to use available resources and resolved to maintain the tradition of civilian oversight, these well-meaning but totally inefficient decision-makers are becoming the ghost in the machine.
One Southern California board of fire commissioners is made up of a five-person civilian board appointed by the mayor and affirmed by city council. According to its charter, “this diverse and qualified group establishes goals and provides direction to the department through fire chief.” Not one person on the board has any formal background in fire operations or fire science. There is a lawyer, a doctor, a business owner and some obvious political appointees. But no one at this governing level has any experience in running a fire station, let alone an entire fire department.
Boards by region
For one city in the Northwest, there is a fire facilities oversight committee responsible for everything from the efficient operation of an emergency operation center to the purchasing of a small fire boat. The governing model provides interaction with a multitude of committees, boards and commissions. Connected to this oversight committee are the Public Safety Civil Service Commission and the Fire Code Advisory Board. There is a Firefighters Pension Board made up of representatives from city finance and the mayor’s office. In this entire liaison activity, very few members are documented to be associated with a fire department and most are described as alternate members of lesser committees.
The Midwest finds many fire districts consolidated into one organizational body with a board of directors overseeing this collective. One district board charges themselves to provide for “life safety and property conservation” through “consistency, stability and integrity.” Their mission is to carry out “the laws and will of the people” as dictated by required compliance. The caveat to this is that these civilians are not responsible for bad decisions made with limited facts as they are “exempt from responsibility.”
Today, many Eastern fire departments are beginning to feel the pressures of being directed by a civilian board. One state’s committee on open government has repeatedly called into question the actual operational criteria for volunteer and combination fire departments, stating for the record that they are uncertain as to exactly how these departments are run. As unclear as they may be, their charters maintain complete autonomy when it comes to all decisions fire-department related: "... the Board of Fire Commissioners shall have full and complete operational and administrative control over the Fire Department and its volunteer and paid members and officers, and all matters relating thereto shall be dealt with solely and exclusively by the Board of Fire Commissioners ....” This has led to fire stations throughout the East Coast being over-equipped and under-staffed.
Unlike a municipal fire department whose fire chief reports to a manager, is responsible to a city council and has all government resources at its disposal, district boards are autonomous and rarely scrutinized by local government. By the time a fire board makes headlines and ends up before local authorities, it is often too late — resulting in firings, layoffs or lawsuits.
Whether overseeing fire districts, fire protection districts, small town fire departments, not-for-profit fire corporations and even private fire service companies, these boards share common characteristics. Made up of officials voted into office or appointed by like-minded politicians, their only membership requirement is that they are residents or property owners in the district or districts they serve.
Lacking experience
By definition, civilian boards and commissions are expansively generic in qualifications but narrow in mission. While scheduled to meet only once a month on average, they are responsible for the continuing formulation of all fire policy ranging from capitol projects, equipment purchases, personnel issues and legislative directives as well as interagency and community associations.
These increasing obligations and their financial and legal consequences are hindering progress and creating an overall negative view of the fire service, one town at a time.
The complexity of fire department operations notwithstanding, the civilian model takes an even greater hit when examining the individual makeup of such a board. In theory, a civilian fire board should be about collective leadership and not micromanagement. This should be guided by the basic idea that you lead people and you manage resources and materials. If this premise is accepted, then a fire board would be tasked to promote compromised agreements stimulated by effective relationships to ensure accountability and a duty to progress, while leaving all operational decision-making to more knowledgeable groups.
These are generally not the attributes associated with the type of leaders appointed or elected to fire boards. Such individuals are often used to singular decision-making, relying on quantifiable performance and not projections. Their personal success needs no real group approval. Many of these men and women are not used to making decisions as part of a team. The dynamics of such people are antithetical to the fire service culture of total trust and integrity of purpose as values are questioned and biases are revealed.
Group setting
While it is unfair to characterize all board members as soloists, strong individual personalities simply add to the already convoluted process of acquiring relevant and reliable information, prioritizing solutions and upholding others to implement them. Unlike police boards that are inherently accepting of the command and expertise of law enforcement, fire departments appear to need constant definition and justification of expenditures.
Regardless of their makeup, the need for competent fire boards is critical to the success of local fire departments as they face a future of limitations, privatization or takeover. The job of a successful fire board is staying within the scope of community expectations, but not at the expense of daily fire department activities. To understand the task of a civilian or community board is to value supervision without undue scrutiny while holding accountable those more knowledgeable.
A board must ensure that taxpayer money is spent in the best interest of firefighters and the people they serve. They must determine the appropriate services needed and provide effective avenues to support their implementation.
For instance, a civilian fire board should not decide on the exact apparatus to buy, but rather listen to understand why it is needed and then determine funding and an appropriate timeline. At the level a board should function, to delay a pumper’s purchase arguing a single-stage over a two-stage pump is counterproductive to the overall process of apparatus selection.
It is this type of inquiry that discourages fire chiefs. Identified in most directives as the singular fire department representative at all board meetings, the inability to identify specifics, finalize opinions and guarantee results means that the questions posed were most likely not provided in advance or the area of discussion resulted in misdirection and continued delay throughout the board’s proceedings. For those in attendance, this makes everyone look bad.
A civilian board should encourage participation by all fire personnel and create mechanisms for input and presentation. They should actively seek out experts and consultants to streamline their job by providing a solid foundation of facts and tangible recommendations for direction control. Not understanding their scope of service or knowing the protocols for official proceedings is no excuse to ignore valid contributions, concrete expertise or general comments.
The challenge
Fire boards must ultimately assume their commitment to the integrity of purpose while providing dependable leadership. They must let go of the predilection to control the minutia and focus on making fire departments solvent by promoting sustainability through economic, lawful and personal accountability.
The challenge for governing committees and fire boards is to look outward as well as inward in soliciting aid. These are difficult times for all fire departments and tough decisions must be made to support the kind of organizations appropriate to the good intentions expressed by a fire board and reinforced by the legitimate concerns articulated by fire departments. In today’s highly specialized society, experienced fire administrators should be on the tiller of the “good ship” fire service, with fire boards and citizen committees relegated to the daunting, gut-wrenching, underappreciated and time-consuming job of rowing.
