There is a general rule in the fire service: Don’t make it worse than it already is.
Firefighters understand the importance of proportional response in a technical sense. You don’t use a deck gun on a trash can fire and you don’t take a booster line into a fully involved structure. But organizations may lose sight of this concept when it comes to responding to other kinds of incidents.
A couple examples come to mind. Three years ago, one citizen complaint about a firefighter washing his personal vehicle at the station led to a formal fraud investigation. More recently, a photo posted online of firefighters wearing Trump masks in uniform at the station resulted in discipline.
In the latter case, was it inappropriate for the officer to go along with wearing masks in the station? Probably. Was it stupid for them to post that photo online? Definitely. Organizations can and should have policies in place that create guidelines and consequences for such activities. In this case, there was a policy in place that prohibited political activity on city property, although others have made the argument that wearing the likeness of the elected president does not constitute political activity.
This kind of argument can go on indefinitely. However, while follow-up is warranted in this case, it hardly rises to the level of crisis. Counsel the members about the policy; tell them not to do it again. It’s a dumpster fire. Don’t put a master stream on it.
On the other end of the spectrum is the recent collision between a fire truck and a commuter train that resulted in more than 10 injuries and the destruction of the $2+ million apparatus. The fire vehicle had driven around stopped cars at a gated railroad crossing and around the lowered gate before being hit by the speeding train. The subsequent investigation resulted in a minor traffic ticket for the driver of the truck and no consequences for any higher-level officer, including the person on the rig who apparently approved of or ordered the decision to cross the tracks ahead of the train.
Each of these cases have nuances that are not available in news stories. There is always history and aggravating or mitigating factors, and every incident needs to be dealt with individually. But in every case, the response should be proportional to the actual incident or event.
The problem with disproportional response is that it often makes the situation worse than it already is. When organizations underreact, it can give tacit permission for inappropriate behavior and create distrust both within and outside of the organization. Organizational reputations may be damaged by the actions of a few. There is no accountability and situations can needlessly escalate. Safety can be affected. Members will lose faith that leaders will make decisions in a fair and professional way.
Overreacting is a waste of resources. One can only imagine how much time, money and energy were spent on the carwash fraud investigation. Overreaction also has the effect of damaging trust and morale and potentially turning members against one another. It can undermine faith in leadership and its priorities, especially if response to incidents is not consistent.
Actions have consequences, but those consequences need to be fair, consistent and proportional to what has occurred. When that response skews too far in either direction, problems are not solved and may be made worse.
If you bring too little to a fire, the structure burns down and potentially involves others. If you bring too much, you end up destroying something needlessly. Either way, damage is done. The same is true when responding to incidents beyond the emergency scene.
