Letter writer Marvin Owen, a retired
Glendale fire captain (Fires
need a full response team, Oct. 14, 2008),
tries to make the argument, in contrast to my proposal of staffing with three,
that an engine company staffed with four firefighters can safely enter a
burning building and extinguish the fire while a three-person engine company is
not safe. He is wrong on both counts. He cites an example where his
three-person engine company had a difficult time trying to extinguish a
structure fire. Mr. Owen must have retired before OSHA adopted new safety
standards in 1998 requiring a four-person entry team, or else the anecdotal
story of his three-member crew would be in direct violation of this statute
that was designed for firefighter safety. Violations carry sanctions.
It seems like simple math: a four-person engine
company could meet the requirements of a four-person entry team where a
three-person engine company could not. But, the math is misleading. Numerous
retired fire chiefs that I have consulted and the following organizations all
agree that a four-person engine company has insufficient staff to
assemble the required four-person entry team: Cal Fire, the National Fire
Protection Association, the state firefighters union, the International
Association of Firefighters and the Los Angeles City Fire Department.
This is primarily due to the fact that fire personnel
on the first arriving engine have important functions to perform in preparation
for the entry team. These functions include, but are not limited to: (1) the
fire engineer is assigned to a fixed position at the controls of the pump that
assures and regulates water flow to the attack hose (this is a safety issue mandated by the
National Fire Protection Association, an agency the Glendale Fire Department
often references as an authoritative body), (2) another firefighter must lay
down the hydrant and attack hoses and determine if the building is occupied,
(3) the captain on the first arriving engine is the incident commander and he
must evaluate the conditions on the ground and direct the activities of the
incoming resources to maximize their effectiveness. The second engine company, will bring the additional firefighters for the
entry team. According to the
Although some are reluctant to admit this, when
pressed, the earlier referenced fire organizations – including the two fire
unions -- acknowledge that the first two engine companies, when staffed with
three, have sufficient resources to assemble the four-person entry team.
This time simple math prevails.
While the
To further support my proposal that routine staffing
with three is safe and cost-effective, the Glendale Fire Department
acknowledges that a three-person engine company is all that is needed to back
up the two firefighter-paramedic ambulances on medical calls that account for
89% of their total emergency runs. Recently,
Having audited thousands of emergency responses by the
fire department, I am unable to detect the need for more than three
firefighters on engine companies in routine operations that occur daily in
providing safe and effective services. Many other city work crews who also
respond routinely on emergency calls can make the same claim as the fire
department for additional staffing based upon rare events occurring in their
assigned duties. These include crews from the water, power, public works and
police departments. They, like fire crews, occasionally experience situations
where another crew member would have been desirable, such as when a fully
loaded downed power line is thrashing around violently in the street or when a
sewer main rupture is threatening to contaminate ground water or when a
mentally ill person is threatening others with a knife. In each of these cases,
the emergency crews are trained to assess the circumstances and know when it is
safe to act and when it is prudent to wait for additional resources. Staffing
for rare and unusual events for one city workforce and not others is
inconsistent policy and expensive. This flies in the
face of common sense as it applies to safety in that the non-fire city work
crews have higher fatality rates.
I continue to make myself available to participate in
a healthy discussion of the issues. With $9 million at stake and the fact that
we are experiencing an economic downturn of historical proportions, all
stakeholders should be interested and willing to participate in a process that
could lead to significant reductions in the city’s general fund budget. Perhaps
Mr. Muir from Ventura (Glad
to hear from someone in know, Oct. 16, 2008)
who, by the way, lives in a city that staffs engine companies at the level that
I propose, in wanting to discredit me, would help his cause by bringing his
‘experts’ to a debate. That would be a welcomed act in advancing this
discussion.
Ultimately, this staffing policy rests with the city
council. But hope of any objective and reasoned evaluation of this issue at the
council level is tempered by other factors. An editorial
piece in the
This kind of support and protection by elected
officials drives a wedge between union self interests and innovations and
reforms that are based upon fact-driven analysis. A majority of the
It may come to pass that, after a further period of
declining city revenues and burgeoning expenditures, untenable deficits and
desperation will force the city to reconsider this expensive and needless
staffing policy. The only other answer would be a grass roots movement of
citizens and taxpayers who can no longer afford the financial obligations the
city is demanding, and demands in seeking more revenues are already on the
drawing boards.
Bruce Philpott
(818)240-8949