It’s not often that the fire service becomes the topic of discussion for such high-profile TV hosts as Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck, but when it does, it causes a stir. The incident that made the headlines most recently involved a small rural fire department in Tennessee. The fire department runs a subscription-based service that requires county residents to pay an annual fee of $75 for fire protection.
In this case, a homeowner intentionally sets a trash fire that gets out of control and extends to his nearby garage and residence. The homeowner calls 911 and reports that his house is on fire, fully expecting the city fire department to respond. After determining that the resident is not a paid subscriber, the fire chief orders the firefighters not to respond.
A subsequent call is made to 911 reporting that the neighbor’s house is threatened by the fire. The fire department responds because the neighbor is a paid subscriber. Firefighters provide the necessary protection to the neighbor’s home, but make no effort to extinguish the initial caller’s house, which is totally destroyed.
Much of the local and national debate on this incident focuses on the firefighters’ supposed decision not to act, and many people are condemning the firefighters, the fire department and the local politicians. The reality: This is a local issue, and it must be dealt with by the local fire officials, the politicians and the citizens themselves. I challenge anyone to find a group of professional firefighters (paid or volunteer) who willfully stand around and watch a citizen’s possessions burn–no such firefighter exists. It’s not in our make-up and it’s not what we do. And I very seriously doubt that any of the Tennessee firefighters wanted to watch that house burn while they stood by. I imagine those firefighters had to fight against every instinct to keep themselves from helping the homeowner.
But decisions on the fireground cannot and should not be emotionally driven. Our decisions must be based on the risk and the resources we have available, guided and sometimes restricted by safety procedures, rules and political directives (e.g., mutual-aid agreements). Most fire departments are not self-supporting, independent operations. Rather, we’re simply one part of an interdependent system guided and driven by elected officials and the voting public.
Look at it another way: Would you condemn these same firefighters if they were directed not to go interior– in compliance with the two-in/two-out rule–while the fire chief worked City Hall equipped with bound copies of NFPA 1710 or 1720, a standards-of-cover document, and quantifiable statistics in support of increased staffing, stations and equipment?
The takeaway lesson from this event isn’t about a group of firefighters and their failure to act; it’s not even about the shortcomings of a subscription-based fire service. It’s about the new reality we all face during these economic times. Tough decisions are being made and will continue to be made in nearly every city, town and district throughout the country, many of which will not be to our liking. Firefighters will continue to be laid off, fire stations will be closed and budgets will fail to meet expectations, yet we will continue to be called to perform. Like it or not, our actions cannot be driven by our emotions, but rather our training, the resources available to us and the directives set forth by our local (fire) and political leaders.
Firefighters, company officers and fire chiefs must fight against their emotions and personal beliefs and use quantifiable facts and figures, public education and political savvy. We must take a proactive role (before the fire, EMS call or other related incident) in educating the public and our elected officials as to what we can and cannot do with the resources provided.
The can-do attitude of the modern firefighter is and will always be an admired trait, but to advocate actions that contradict a departmental or political directive is counterproductive to our efforts. Ultimately, our level of safety on the fireground isn’t the result of staffing, equipment or budgetary constraints; it’s the result of the decisions we make and the actions that follow. Our actions must always be reflective of the safety standards and regulations we ask others (public officials) to comply with. Anything less is sending a mixed signal, a signal that no longer supports the need.
Our brothers and sisters in Tennessee have faced a great deal of scrutiny for following a directive they’ve long opposed, yet their actions were fully compliant with the directives of their leaders. This directive goes against the personal beliefs of firefighters dedicated to serve, but we must understand that decisions of this nature are best fought in a forum far removed from the fireground.
Rest assured, the days of an apolitical fire service are long gone.
