Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Tom Kenney on September 3, 2007 at 9:39am

Curt,

I strongly believe that the major legal issue facing the future of fire services in the USA is "political liability". Let me explain.

Up to this point there is no legal responsibility or liability (or it certainly seems as such) for political figures or entities that cut staffing of fire departments (whether it be the # of apparatus or the staffing level riding these apparatus). I believe that the fire service groups (fire departments, associations, union organizations, etc) should undertake a massive educational and lobbying effort to ensure that political individuals or entities are held personally responsible when they cut the present safety and protection levels afforded by fire departments and as a direct or indirect result there are civilian or firefighter injuries or fatalities.

I may be wrong, but I don't beilieve that there are too many paid, professional fire departments in the USA that are over-staffed. (this is not a knock on Volunteer departments, they simply need to be evaluated in a different way - perhaps holding political figures accountable as to whether or not a volunteer departmant is adequate protection for their growing community). This being the present case, we can use present staffing and manpower levels as the "minimum level for each individual community".

It certainly should be an easier sell to the voting public - maintaining safety levels for their protection as well as firefighter safety - as opposed to trying to push for additional manpower once the cuts have already been made.

Just my opinion.....

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by turk182 on September 3, 2007 at 9:56am

I think that civil liability is one of the most major issue and the rest are always a big concern for us.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Curt Varone on September 3, 2007 at 11:08am

Tom

VERY interesting point!!!!

Curt

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tom Kenney on September 3, 2007 at 12:13pm

Just a couple of quick additions to my earlier comment.

1st - Safety should always be the prime motivation for any change in the fire service!! Firefighter safety and the safety of the public!! All other issues should take a back seat to safety - especially when planning for the future.

2nd - All politicians are critically interested in the political ramifications of all their decissions. If the choices are raising taxes or cutting staffing, MOST politicians will choose cutting staffing. They need only worry about the short-term consequences of their actions, and they can always state that they were watching out for the taxpayers wallets.

If, however, there is a law on the books that allows the city, state or federal authorities to charge this person with negligence in the event that the depleted resources of the fire department proves to be inadequate and costs someone (firefighter or civilian) their life, these politicians would find alternative solutions to their budgetary problems. If these politicians were charged and convicted of even a misdeameanor act of negligence, it would allow the families and survivors of the victim(s) to undertake Civil action against such policians and perhaps hit them with a considerable wallop in their personal bank accounts!! This type of negligence would hang over every politicians head long after leaving office if he had decided to roll the dice on fire safety during his tenure in office!!!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on April 1, 2011 at 12:26pm

bump....more pertinent than word games

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion