By Bill Adams
Fire chiefs, mostly of the volunteer variety, are generally respectful of the white coats who served before them – as they should be. However, when a gaggle (more than a couple) of them get together and starts telling stories and fighting fires of years past, the gloves occasionally come off.
Bear in mind, I’m primarily talking about former white coats of the seasoned variety. They are mostly people who in their heyday rode the back step, drove rigs with no roofs and sometimes no doors, ridiculed those who wore air packs, fought against large diameter hose, and have been collecting Social Security for many, many years. They belong to the Raisin Squad whether or not they will admit to it.
The good-natured chiding, teasing, and smashing of specific body parts is usually limited to the former chiefs in attendance. When the old timers can’t remember any more stories about the living, they start telling or — making-up stories — about those no longer with us. That ain’t right. Anyhow, some of the truthful stories from the good-old-days that had merit back then might be applicable today.
Fire departments, individual names, and locations, are hidden to protect the innocent and to protect the reputations of those that’ve passed and some of us that are alive that might be guilty. The reasons why some former chiefs did what they did is categorized into three categories – hubris, arrogance, and common sense. My interpretation of them is: Common sense is a no brainer. It means displaying good judgment, practicality, and knowledge. Arrogance can be conceit, haughtiness, and a feeling of superiority regardless if deserved or not.
According to one dictionary, hubris means having extreme pride and overconfidence, often in combination with arrogance. One not-too-polite definition of hubris is “to feel that one has a right to demand certain attitudes and behaviors from other people“. Another definition that’s often deserved is: “Hubris often indicates a loss of contact with reality and an overestimation of one’s own competence, accomplishments, or capabilities.”
Here are a few examples when former white coats criticized the decisions of their predecessors.
Example 1
One former chief in a small village department was slammed by his peers because he let all four rigs in his barn respond to seemingly insignificant alarms. Bear in mind, the village was less than two square miles with the fire station right in the center. His reply was: “If I have 30 people get out of bed at three in the morning for a car fire or an automatic alarm and they want to ride on a fire truck – let them.”
He was queried about liability as well as wear and tear on the rigs. He shot right back with, “The same justification goes for weekday calls. If they leave their places of employment for a call expecting to get a ride with lights and siren – so be it. It’s a small price to pay to keep them showing up.”
Example 2
One good-sized town had three stations: one downtown and two small substations. Like many other departments, it began suffering from a declining membership and an increased call volume. The town ended up hiring a career chief and nine drivers from the volunteer ranks. The drivers worked 24/48 schedules with one always on duty in each station. Off-duty drivers were active volunteers and regularly responded on their days off. It was kumbaya for a couple years.
Historically, the department purchased apparatus from one manufacturer. The rigs were reliable, service was local, and the price was reasonable. That’s what the troops (also known as taxpayers) wanted and voted for. When it was time to buy a couple new pumpers, the chief more or less disregarded the purchasing committee and wrote specs for a different brand that was slightly less expensive.
The volunteers (especially drivers) and the career staff went tilt. They didn’t want a different brand. The chief didn’t care – saying the town wanted him to save money. Most of the troops thought he was more interested in job security. He told the career drivers they will drive what he buys or they’ll be fired. The town bought the cheaper rigs.
There was major dissension in the ranks. The volunteers wouldn’t drive the new pumpers. Several times, when the career driver was on another call, off-duty career people responded to the station(s) and would not drive the new pumpers. The chief was enraged telling them they had to. They replied they were responding as volunteers and they didn’t have to. The town said the chief could not fire them. The friction within the department caused many volunteers to quit. The town had to hire more staff. The chief’s contract was not renewed.
Example 3
The volunteer fire company had several members that were firefighters in career departments. They embraced providing emergency medical services (EMS). They believed it was job security for their full-time jobs. And, they were adamant volunteer fire departments should provide the same service. Rank and file volunteers did not want any part of EMS. They said let the town hire EMS people.
When one of the career members became chief of the company, he initiated providing EMS. The volunteers resisted it to no avail. When providing EMS with the nearest fire truck evolved into transporting with an ambulance, the weekday response of volunteers who worked and owned businesses in town ended. They couldn’t afford to lose time at work. Burnout became apparent for the few volunteers that did respond. The town had to hire more career staff and the era of volunteers soon ended.
What do you think?
Were the chiefs’ decisions or ill-decisions based upon common sense or hubris and arrogance? There is no intent here to disparage career, volunteer or combination entities. Nor is it to challenge the obligations or decisions of any white coat wearing five horns. Volunteerism — for whatever valid reasons — is declining. Calls for service are increasing.
I believe it was Isaac Newton, or someone with a similar sounding name, that said something to the effect that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The same goes for a fire chief’s decisions.
BILL ADAMS is a member of the Fire Apparatus & Emergency Equipment Editorial Advisory Board, a former fire apparatus salesman, and a past chief of the East Rochester (NY) Fire Department. He has 50 years of experience in the volunteer fire service.
