Fire Department Receives "Damaging" Report

[backdraft663]

Mason firefighters are finding themselves under fire.

A scathing report shows major safety concerns for firefighters and residents.

Mason's Council ordered the report after fire destroyed a home on Crooked Tree Lane in May.

The result: a 40 page opinion, criticizing just about every aspect of the department, which covers one of the fastest growing areas in the Tri-state.

Members of the Mason Safety Committee had concerns about how the fire was fought and why it turned out to be a total loss.

So, city council hired a consultant who has issued what the mayor is calling a "damaging" report.

The report is the opinion of Larry Davis, a Houston Fire consultant.

He concludes from an analysis of the fire that the department is under-staffed, inexperienced and under-equipped.

The consultant writes that fire chief, Rich Fletcher, was too focused on the homeowners and the media the day of the fire.

He also says Deputy Chief Ray Mueller instructed firefighters to approach the fire incorrectly, from the back of the house, instead of the front.

Fire union leaders say it's too early to react.

"There are multiple opinions that can be derived from any number of people out there. What we're looking for is time to review the opinions that were published by Mr. Davis," said David Manning of the Professional Firefighters Union.

Thomas Brennan, the former editor of a national firefighter magazine, calls the report unprofessional.

Brennan read the report and says Mason's problems are common. Now, council must balance the opinions and decide what to do next.

"We do not want loss of life in the City of Mason and we'll do whatever it takes to provide resources and training to ensure that safe of all of our residents," said Brennan.

The report was expected to be brought up at Monday night's city council meeting. City leaders were expecting to spend some time discussing what to do next in executive session.

The Deerfield Township fire chief was on the scene of the fire. He points out that you can't assess a department on one fire.


http://www.wcpo.com/news/2005/local/07/25/firereport.html

[CaptainGonzo]

Members of the Mason Safety Committee had concerns about how the fire was fought and why it turned out to be a total loss.

So, city council hired a consultant who has issued what the mayor is calling a "damaging" report.

The report is the opinion of Larry Davis, a Houston Fire consultant.

He concludes from an analysis of the fire that the department is under-staffed, inexperienced and under-equipped.

Anyone willing to bet that the politicians in Mason will turn this around and place the blame on the firefighters?

[JackTee09]

First Captain Gonzo is right - this will serve to make firefighters the scapegoats.

Secondly - towns could take their heads out of their rear ends and look at a fire publication or two and save money - the issues touched on are so VERY common in America. There is not one state in this nation that does not have fire departments in this kind of shape.

Tom Brennan also had a problem with the report. It will be nice to find out what he thinks. At least it will be entertaining.

[mcaldwell]

I poked around the links to get some of the back story, and while there was some indication that a tactical error "may" have been made by the FD, ultimately the investigators all stated that the fire was so intense that no victims could have been saved. The news photos also show a fully involved structure, although they do not describe how long the FD had been on scene. If that is so, it sounds to me like it was a loss before they got to it.

This was clearly a very upscale home, and probably housed someone with influence. Sounds like council is under pressure to find a few heads to chop to me. :rolleyes:

[backdraft663]

Here is the Fire consultants report. The report is commissioned by the city council.

http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/daytondailynews/pdf/Mason-02-Fire.pdf


http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/daytondailynews/pdf/Mason-03-Fire.pdf

[Epinephrine]

The actual reports are available here:
http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/daytondailynews/pdf/Mason-02-Fire.pdf
and
http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/daytondailynews/pdf/Mason-03-Fire.pdf

While the report was very harsh, there is some truth to the report as well. Unfortunately the Mason FD does has have a bit of a bad rep in the area. It's unfortunate as the dept has the potential to be great. They are well funded, well equiped, and with a few adjustments to their hire process they can easily be well staffed. They are in a fast growing area of the Cincinnati area, and have a very dynamic population to protect including a very large theme park. The Warren county area is fairly progressive as far as firefighting goes. A county wide dispatch center with knowledgable dispatchers, a county wide mutual aid system with AMA, and county wide RIT automatically dispatched to every structure fire.

As a department that we occasionally run mutal aid with I will reserve most of my comments and opinions of the department. However speaking with some of the guys who were there, the timeline painted in the report is accurate. In addition there were several serious mistakes made. For example, it took 12-15 minutes for water supply to be established in a well hydranted area. There were also orders to attack from the involved side, as opposed to the unburned area. Given the fire's development by the time the units arrived, they probably would not have been able to save the first floor of the house, and the dog was gone as well... they could have left more than just the brick venner and the basement standing.

CMFD does have a fantastic EMS program, and their commitment to that aspect does show. Despite what everyone says... I like their Quints too! CMFD is not a bad department, they have issues like any department, most of which the report pins, just in a much harsher manner. Maybe the harshness of the report will convince city council to increase staffing and allow the department to restructure itself.

[LaFireEducator]

It certainly does sound like some things did go wrong at the fire ... the biggest being the water supply issue, and the fact that in at least 2 cases (first due laying a line and the use of foam on attack lines) thier actions, or lack of actions may have had an affect on the outcome. What can truly hurt them is that these actions seemed contrary to thier SOPs. As far as the staffing issue, if they were running with 1 man short that would make a at least on truck a 2 man engine ... not good without any call-firefighter support.
(That could bring us back to the under-manned career department or vollie department discussion ... but we won't go there)

Hopefully this report will cause some changes to be made, if they need to be made. I know in my own experiences on my departments, it has taken events such as this to cause needed changes to be made.

One question though for the posters ... the article mentioned that RIT was not needed if using a defensive exterior attack. What is the forums opinion on that ???

Also, to me it sounds like they really don't need that tower staffed, but instead need a dedicated engine company to run as first out with the quints providing truck work ... any thoughts on that ?

[STATION2]

I'm from Houston, and I've never heard of the guy but I have some thoguhts on his report I just read.

1) I believe in calling it like it is.

2) No department is perfect. There are better and worse than the department(s) you are employed by. Everyone, as he said himself, has a bad day or a bad scene.

3) I believe when you do, there is a professional way to do it.

4) There is no need to get personal at any time.

5) I believe that if your hired to be a consultant on this type of situation, you leave your opinions at the door and go in open minded with the knowledge to present an honest study of the incident in uestion. You must be objective to what you will hear and find. Not subjective and with pre-concieved notions of how a department is in whole or on one scene.

I believe that he used the terms Me, My and I way to much to fall in line with #3, #4 and #5.

If the CMFD screwed up, so be it. We all do at one time or another and your lying to yourself if you think you don't. I think he crossed the line when he went off on Chief 52. Is he perfect? Hell I don't know him to determine if he is or isn't. But either does Mr. Davis. I believe at some point during the process Mr. Davis and Chief 52 probably got crossed up and the end report shows that. Chief 52 was probably very defensive at the interview given the attention it was recieving in the community and by being interviewed by an outsider (And from Texas at that). From that point on, things went down hill.

I don't doubt that there are truths in his report. The CMFD rigs are nationally known at being well layed out and equipped. Their breakup with Deerfield Twp. is known about in the fire service. There established SOP's are probably not perfect, whos are? They have training issues, they have staffing problems, they have people who shouldn't have been promoted to their current rank. Who doesn't?

I just think that Mr. Davis could have been more objective and presented a much more professional report while stating the facts.




As for a dedicated RIT on defensive fires? I say keep them as such until the hazards are mitigated to a reasonable level. Bad things still happen to fire fighters during defensive fires. I am not about to pass judgement and tell a department when they should de-activate a standing RIT based upon a report I read. And remember, just because they are RIT doesn't mean they can't do anything else. They just can't be committed to something they cannot drop immediately if needed.

As for a dedicated Engine Co., I think they have them. We run a Quint as one of our Engine Co.'s in my volunteer department. Just because it has an aerial on top, doesn't mean it isn't an Engine Co. Thats why they call it a Quint. As for the Tower Co., I say man it. It is another crew on the box that can be put to work. A trained and effective Truck/Tower Co. is worth its weight in gold on the fireground.

[Steamer]

I believe there was a Larry Davis that wrote for FireRescue Magazine at one time on rural command topics, and I thought he was from the Houston area. Could this be the same guy?

You would occasionally see here in the forums where he was teaching some classes on rural operations as well.

[backdraft663]

Yes thats the same guy.

[JackTee09]

One thing that is required is the absolute truth. The other is professionalism.

This report, as I read it, is not written in a manner consistent with anything approaching professionalism. Whilst it certainly points out major problems with the operation it does so in a manner more befitting a forum than something to be read by a municipality.

[LtDPSJFD]

Good point, Jack. This reads more like a personal attack on the department as opposed to a professional critique of its operations and staffing. While there may be truth to be found in the report, the way it is presented is less than professional, which makes me wonder the motives behind it.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Gonzo, this isn't the same Larry that got booted off of here about a dozen times, is it?

[PaulGRIMWOOD]

Yes George I think it's the one and only :D Certainly remember his posts on this forum!

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Originally posted by PaulGRIMWOOD
Yes George I think it's the one and only :D Certainly remember his posts on this forum!

Yeah. More people hated him than hate me.

[JackTee09]

George! No one hates you - you big lovable mug! :D

Your just opinionated.

HEY:

Where is the Larry Stevens guy? Wasn't he on here too or am I confusing this guy Davis with him?

[PaulGRIMWOOD]

Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI


Yeah. More people hated him than hate me.
George surely not! :D

[PaulGRIMWOOD]

JackTee - Where is the Larry Stevens guy? Wasn't he on here too or am I confusing this guy Davis with him? Now I'm confused!

March 2004 - Fire Chief Magazine

Larry H. Stevens of Fallon, Nev., a fire service figure known widely as an outspoken fire service editor and as “ISO Slayer” for his consulting to help fire departments across the country improve their Insurance Service Organization rating, died Tuesday, March 16.

The 46-year-old former employee of ISO and fire chief of the Suisun (Calif.) Fire Department, Stevens was the long-time editor of Firefighter News, which later became the JEMS publication Fire-Rescue magazine. He also worked for the Nevada Fire Marshal’s office. Most recently, he was a consultant who worked with fire departments, state fire services and fire marshals across the country. His speciality was helping fire departments lower their ISO ratings.

“It’s a very sad day for the fire service,” said John Gill of Fire Apparatus Consulting Services of Houston, a long-time friend of Stevens. Gill said flowers and condolence calls have poured in from all over the nation and from Europe as news of Steven’s death broke.

As outspoken as he was brilliant, Stevens could and often did challenge people’s knowledge of fire department operations, especially pump operations. “He was a unique guy. People loved him and people hated him,” said Gill. “But wherever they came into contact with him, he made them put their thinking caps on…. Every fire department, fire commissioner and fire chief that came into contact with him is better for having known him.”

[CaptainGonzo]

Larry Davis authored that "report". He and LHS worked together at FireRescue Magazine. That's where the confusion comes in.

George... I may disagree with you from time to time, but you are one of many I wouldn't mind having a cold beer (or two;) ) with and talk shop.

[JackTee09]

Larry Davis authored that "report". He and LHS worked together at FireRescue Magazine. That's where the confusion comes in.

I certainly did not know that LHS had died.

With respect to the report I stand by my original remarks.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

So, I'm REALLY confused? Is it the same guy who got booted off of here?

I spend most of my time preparing consulant reports. If I turned in anything like that, I would be out of a job. It reads like a high school term paper. It is poorly written and prepared. Is it my imgaination or were there free-hand drawings in the report? That is just plain unprofessional.

Bear in mind that I am not judging the accuracy of the report.

Here's what I tell the guys in my Technical Report Writing for Fire Inspectors and Fire Officials class.

"I could be the most brilliant instructor in the world. I could be ready to impart the most rlevant, most timely and most important information you may ever run across. But if I stand up in front of you wearing paisley pants, a flowered shirt, a stained tie with my fly open, it doesn't matter. You are not going to hear the information because you will be focused on my utter unprofessionalism. The same is true of a poorly prepared report".

[STATION2]

Larry Davis - Rural water supply guru. Well known on these forums.

Larry Stevens - ISO consultant and apparatus architect. Well known on these forums also. Booted off of the forums on more than one occasion and always came back with a different screen name.

Larry (Me) - Different person altogether from the above two. Although I have a tendancy to irritate members of these forums also. I did battle with Larry Stevens on more than one occasion on these forums. Smart man, very smart. Sorry to see him gone.

[Res343cue]

So, I'm REALLY confused? Is it the same guy who got booted off of here?

Larry Stevens ( LHS* ) was the "ISO SLAYER", the one who was consistantly stirring the pot, and the one who boasted about his rigs. Sadly, his "Internet Ego" got a little bigger then he could control. He was a good man to work with in person, but I'll be damned if you could say the same thing about him when he was on the Firehouse forums.

Larry Davis worked with Larry Stevens at FireRescue. Larry Davis wrote the report, LHS has been deceased for quite a while now.

[JackTee09]

GeorgeWendtCFI

It reads like a high school term paper. It is poorly written and prepared. Is it my imgaination or were there free-hand drawings in the report? That is just plain unprofessional.

That is one of my chief problems with it George. Far from sounding objective, informed, and above all professional - it is the antithesis of a professional report.

The articles that I write, the consulting reports I have prepared (not a great deal of them-but a few) would have been slammed back to me in an instant if they were written in this manner.

And again I go back to what Captain Gonzo said about firefighters getting the blame for the manning levels. Add on to that the fact that people who read this report will read that a firefighter wrote it and once again the service has a black eye because of the poor composition of said item.


As to LHS - I too had a terrible run in with him on the boards as did many others. Yet, in spite of that, I never knew him personally. My best wishes to his family. He died very young.

[Engine32]

I have never met Mr. Davis, nor can I say I have paid any attention to him before today. I can't even honestly say that I've heard of him. I did know Larry Stephenson, but that's a WHOLE different story.

I agree that fire departments need to be held accountable, and I commend the City of Mason for evaluating the performance of the department.

But... This report should be taken to the bathroom and used for toilet paper so that it can be of some value. Any person who incorporates that level of unsubstantiated (or at least documented) personal opionion in documenting someone's performance cannot be taken seriosly.

I could go on a while, but I'll stop as saying that many of his tactics are not the norm of the fire service.

A good example is his blanket statement damning anyone on a first due apparatus that doesn't lay a supply line. What about a fast attack?

If they would've done this, blah, blah, blah, the fire would've easily gone out. Although I'm sure I could only wish to have a small percentage of the knowledge and experience fighting structure fires that Davis has, I have learned that steam conversion can only be used effectively in a somewhat compartmentalized environment, not one that is completely ventilated.

Maybe any one of his departments with 100 year old engines with two firefighters in wheelchairs backed up by an 80 year old tanker full of gasoline driven by my grandmother and her poodle could have put that fire out quicker and saved everything, but I know many a fourth grader who can better organize, research, and write a report and present it a lot more objectively.

Mr. Davis, it is apparent that there are some urgent problems that must be fixed all across from the fire service. Too bad your armchair quarterbacking won't help it a bit. Mason wasted their money.

The following was copied and pasted from http://www.cfrej.com/Pages/Archive/winter%2005%20stories%20/rural%20firefighting.html

Larry Davis is a full member of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers, a Certified Fire Protection Specialist and a Certified Fire Service Instructor II with more than 30 years experience as a fire service instructor.

Davis has conducted more than 400 Rural Firefighting Tactics and Rural Water Supply Operations seminars throughout the United States and Canada. In addition, he has written numerous fire service texts, including Rural Firefighting Operations Books I, II and III. Most recently, Davis co-wrote the Rural Firefighting Handbook with Dominic Colletti. Davis is Chairman of the Rural Firefighting Institute and can be reached at ldavis@rfi411.org.

I think I'll send him an e-mail and offer some constructive criticism.

[Smoke20286]

Two glaring discrepancies in this fellows report


1- He says increasing manpower will not solve the problem, he may have a point, but I find it amazing that he did not criticize the staffing of each Quint with only 2 personnel!

2- He brings up the point that staffing the Dept's Aerial apparatus would not help as there were already 2 quints on the scene, well I'm sorry, but a Quint, with but one person to operate it cannot be used as both a pumper and an aerial device at the same time. When the operator is operating the aerial device, he is not manning the panel, that is a definite safety hazard, if I am inside a blazing structure someone had better be on that panel, if not and I loose water somebody is going to pay.

Bottom line what this Dept needs is better leadership , more personnel and better training, the city's money could have been better spent in those areas rather then wasting it on yet another needless study

[Epinephrine]

The staffing reccomendations he gives are in the third report...

4.1 Staffing
There apparently has been a fair amount of discussion about hiring additional people to staff CMFD's Tower with 4 people and run it on all fires. Part of this is fostered by the ISO PPC survey. While this idea is good, it is going to cost a lot of money and take time. CMFD, its firefighters, and the public would be much better served if additional part time personnel were hired to staff each Quint with the 3rd person it's suppose to have. And, if getting the Tower to fires is so important, then the Tower which is actually a quint with a longer ladder with a bucket on it, should be run instead of Quint 52.

Staffing is a critical part of irefighter safety and effectiveness on the fireground. Running only two people on a Quint does not provide the minimum staffing needed for effective firefighting operations.

As an update to this... The City of Mason will now being conducting their own internal investigation of the FD. I think that if the report was written a bit more professionally, the city would have taken the reccomendations seriously. On the plus side the report did stir up quite a storm in the area and hopefully this results in some better training, better leadership, and more funding for the department.

Cincinnati Enquirer Article:
City to probe fire operation

The city of Mason is conducting its own investigation into its Fire Department after an independent consultant issued a scathing report calling the department "dysfunctional." Mayor Peter Beck said council is not questioning consultant Larry Davis' findings, which include numerous procedural and administrative problems. Council wanted to give administrators a chance to respond, Beck said. "We wanted to make sure we have both sides of the story," before taking action on Davis' recommendations. The consultant was hired after a $350,000 house burned to the ground on Crooked Tree Drive in May. It was the worst fire in the city in years. The city's safety committee is meeting with Fire Department administrators at 3 p.m. today in the atrium conference room of the Mason Community Center. The meeting is open to the public. The investigation likely will take two weeks, officials said.

Most of the departments in Warren County are short staffed, running with much the same setup as the CMFD. The Warren County depts rely heavily on mutual aid from each other at structure fires (a system that works well for the area). Hopefully this will allow other departments in the area to bolster staffing as well and help Mason better their department. I think the report has been both publically damaging as well as a possible blessing in disguise.

[JackTee09]

I have no problem with the fact that changes obviously need to take place. The report itself, however, is nothing short of pure amatuerism when it comes to laying out the "facts" as the "consultant" did in his review.

I am all for the brothers getting all that they need. My problem is with the report.

[oldman21220]

I know I'll get busted, but that's ok, I'm not PC. It looks like the Mason E.M.S. Department went to a fire and had a very bad day. The quality of the report doesn't change that. Experience does count and it would appear that it was lacking, fire wise, at all levels.

[sklump]

I have met Larry Davis, read his books attended a class of his. He is very knowledable and personable. He also has very strong opions, like most of his but his are backed by years of traveling the country and seeing what works and what does not. Remember don't kill the messenger.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Originally posted by sklump
I have met Larry Davis, read his books attended a class of his. He is very knowledable and personable. He also has very strong opions, like most of his but his are backed by years of traveling the country and seeing what works and what does not. Remember don't kill the messenger.

I don't think anyone is killing the messenger. I am telling people not to judge the facts of the report unless you were there. No one is questioning his credentials...me included.

But, by professional standards, the report is unprofessional and poorly prepared. That is a fact.

[JackTee09]

Yeah - I don't know Larry Davis although I have been around the country as well.

I also believe that the brothers in said town need help. The report, however, is a travesty. In fact one email discussion group I belong to has been abuzz about it and each member has/is a consultant or someone who has been tasked with writing reports on large scale incidents. These people are/were fire service veterans with great reputations. From that discussion there is wholesale condemnation of the reports professionalism.

[STATION2]

Sklump, nobody is jumping the messenger. Just because Consultant XYZ has years of experience, teaches classes a few places and put out a book or two (All of which you and I could do) doesn't mean that in this case he damaged his own name by writing a scathing report which got personal and was totally and 110% unprofessional in every manner.

Alot of people on these forums know their stuff. But if you can't deliver it in a functional and understandable manner, what good does it do? Answer: None.

I for one would be demanding an apology from Mr. Davis if I were specifically attacked in this report. Not mentioned, referenced or spoken of, but verbally attacked as I believe he did 1 or 2 individuals. I am not saying his overall message was incorrect, but his method of delivery was way, way wrong and crossed the line into name calling and finger pointing. It is one thing to say that XYZ was incorrect in his procedures be it radio, fireground, etc. It is another to act as if he knows all of the people in the report personally and their respective experience levels and training.

[devildog4]

I think the report was glaringly honest and sometimes the truth hurts. What was unprofessional about it?

I guess I am the minority here, but he tells it like it is. The Chief's messed up big time with the command issue and need to be held accountable. The Driver messed up, and should be sitting backwards on the truck until he can do his job right. Someone needs to get a good a**-chewing for not getting a water supply earlier.

Yes we all make mistakes. We try to learn from them. However, these were huge and should not be acceptable. I bet this could have happened to any FD, including mine, but the mistakes did happen, it got lotsa publicity, and people are gonna get their feelings hurt about it.

Training seems to be a problem at this FD.

I will say that some of his personal "opinions" should have been deleted. This should have been a fact-finding report and not included personal attacks. Other than that, I thought it was a fair report....

[STATION2]

I don't dispute the facts that were mentioned. The unprofessional part came when he began the personal attacks on people, as you mentioned. That is were he crossed the line. He is hired from the outside to come in and do a fair and even analysis of the incident and the department as a whole. I think he acted unprofessional in doing so by the same comments you mentioned, personal attacks and his opinions.

As for the D/O and the Deputy Chief (Chief 52) getting straightened out, I am all for it, from what I have read. It is for the betterment of the department and conequently the citizens they serve. It was just delivered in a totally wrong manner to be a professional, unbiased and accurate assessment of the incident and departent. That is proven when he commends the Incident Commander on "attempting to make lemonade out of lemons". Is he serious? In the firestation that is funny and the point delivered. In front of the governing body of a city it is idiotic and unprofessional and it oozes of personal issues.

And then he speaks out of both sides of his mouth. 1st he bashes the number of responding personnel and then turns right around and says that 2 people with a portable blitzfire monitor could have knocked it down. Another unprofessional thing to do, contradict yourself to the people who hired you.

Oh well, just my thoughts.

[JackTee09]

I will say that some of his personal "opinions" should have been deleted. This should have been a fact-finding report and not included personal attacks. Other than that, I thought it was a fair report....

Huh? :rolleyes:

It was unprofessional.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

What was unprofessional?

1. Personal attacks
2. Hand drawn graphics
3. Written in informal language (this report would get destroyed in court).
4. Written with a holier than thou, chip on my shoulder, attitude.

Is that enough?

Anybody know how much he got paid for this report?

[Steamer]

Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI
Anybody know how much he got paid for this report?
Too much for the product received.
:rolleyes:

[JackTee09]

Whatever he was paid - it was too much.

[LtDPSJFD]

I have heard that Mason city council paid $6,000 for the review and report.

[Epinephrine]

For what it is worth... Professional or Unprofessional (I'd learn towards this one) the report is doing it's job. it has lit a fire under the Mason City council and woken up the leadership at CMFD to take a look at how they do things.

You can debate the professionalism of the report all day, but you cannot debate the content, timeline and events of the fire in the report. I think this is best summed up by Mason city council member Tony Bradburn "There's no doubt some people will attack the report because of the personal comments, but I haven't heard anybody attack the fact of what went wrong."

[gordoffemt]

By Perry Schaible
Enquirer contributor



The Enquirer/Glenn Hartong

A consultant's report criticized the Mason fire department for its performance at this fire May 19 on Crooked Tree Drive. The single-family home was destroyed.


ADVERTISEMENT

MASON - The fire chief and his assistant defended themselves and their department Wednesday during a meeting with city officials to discuss a report that was highly critical of the department and its response to a May residential fire.

Fire Chief Rich Fletcher acknowledged problems with the way his department handled the fire on Crooked Tree Drive, but questioned the investigator's objectivity and his 40-page report.

"I request council take this whole document and reject it," Fletcher said, citing the criticisms and opinions of author Larry Davis.

Davis' report found that fire trucks were short-staffed, personnel inexperienced, and a hose was incorrectly attached, causing the department to shut the water off twice during the May fire.

The city Safety Committee is working with the city administration on its own investigation. The committee will make a recommendation to City Council. That is expected to take two weeks.

Davis, of Corpus Christi, Texas, has 30 years experience in the field and has long been associated with its professional organizations.

He was hired by the Safety Committee after Councilman Tony Bradburn, a former firefighter, noticed problems in a post-fire summary for the fire, which destroyed a $350,000 home.

Fletcher said he welcomed an independent, third-party report, but questioned whether that is what the city got. He said Davis knew three former Mason fire chiefs, including one - Billy Goldfeder - who left on negative terms.

Goldfeder resigned in 2000 amid an investigation alleging sexual harassment.

"Do an independent study, but when you have relationships with the history of the department, it's hard to be impartial," Fletcher said.

Davis stood by his report. He acknowledged knowing the former chiefs through his work with professional organizations, and said he mentored Goldfeder and still stays in contact with him.

Davis and Goldfeder were both on the editorial "tech team" for FireRescue magazine in 2004.

"I never talked to Billy about the Mason report or Mason firefighters," Davis said. "Everything I did in that report was totally impartial."

Councilman John McCurley called the report garbage, unprofessionally written, and full of derogatory personal attacks.

Bradburn said he was not aware of the relationships when he recommended Davis, based on his credentials, to the Safety Committee.

"There's no doubt some people will attack the report because of the personal comments, but I haven't heard anybody attack the fact of what went wrong," Bradburn said.

______________________________ ______________________________ _______

An interesting twist involving Billy Goldfeder? A coincidence? I don't think so. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

[JackTee09]

Fletcher said he welcomed an independent, third-party report, but questioned whether that is what the city got. He said Davis knew three former Mason fire chiefs, including one - Billy Goldfeder - who left on negative terms. Goldfeder resigned in 2000 amid an investigation alleging sexual harassment.

"Do an independent study, but when you have relationships with the history of the department, it's hard to be impartial," Fletcher said.

Davis stood by his report. He acknowledged knowing the former chiefs through his work with professional organizations, and said he mentored Goldfeder and still stays in contact with him.

Davis and Goldfeder were both on the editorial "tech team" for FireRescue magazine in 2004.

"I never talked to Billy about the Mason report or Mason firefighters," Davis said. "Everything I did in that report was totally impartial.

Gee - in an interview Davis might have called him "Chief" instead of Billy."

Report impartial: No
Professional: No
Department Screwup at Fire: Yes

[Ohiovolffemtp]

I think JackTee hit the nail on the head: the packaging of the report was terrible, but the fire department didn't manage that incident well.

There are a number of things that are common in SW Ohio (and probably in many other places) that make it difficult when a department has a real structure fire:
- very few structure fires, so personnel have very limited firefighting experience
- heavy focus on EMS because that is where the high percentage of calls are
- staffing that usually leaves only 2-3 persons per fire apparatus
- staffing composed of a mix of full-time, part-time, and possibly volunteer members, so you have different people working together each day.
- members work on multiple departments so they have multiple ways of doing things in their head.

The fixes are pretty straight forward and are called out in the report:
- develop a set of "this is how we do it here's" whether you call it SOP's, SOG's, or whatever
- train frequently so when an incident happens, everyone who's there knows what they should be doing and whatever everyone else there will be doing.
If you know ahead of time exactly what folks will be doing, and how it will be done if there is no person in the jump seat, but only the engineer and the officer, no matter which fulltimers, part-timers, or volunteers are there, the scene will go much better.

I'm not arguing against more staffing. But developing a standard way of doing things and making sure everyone knows it is about spending time, not money. I've seen volunteer departments, who had different people on every run, do a good job, because everyone was on the same page in the play book.

My hope for Mason is that they do exactly this: determine what "their" way of doing things is, and then practice it until every member knows exactly what their role is and can do it in their sleep - or at the 03:00 bad one.

[JackTee09]

But developing a standard way of doing things and making sure everyone knows it is about spending time, not money. I've seen volunteer departments, who had different people on every run, do a good job, because everyone was on the same page in the play book.

You are right. The best way to go about any onscene evolution is to have roles spelled out as much as possible. Arriving on any scene without knowledge of your job, especially the basics, is a recipe for failure.

There can be no doubt that this department, during this fire, made mistakes. They need to learn from this as much as the possibly can and if that includes changes in leadership - whatever - the citizens deserve better.

One can't help but feel that the tone of the report, the people involved, and the situation blended into a maelstrom of poor decisions, the report being one of them. These types of incidents call for objectivity. This was seriously lacking as was the skill of professionally preparing a report. Terrible business.

[JackTee09]

Anyone in the area know how this process is going? Are changes underway?

[LtDPSJFD]

Jack-

Mason's city manager has asked the city council to reject the initial review of the department, and has hired a second consultant to review the fire and the department. This time, the city manager chose Robert Weitzel, a retired fire chief from Green Township, which is here in Hamilton county. According to the newspaper, he was recommended by the Ohio Fire Marshall's office.

[JackTee09]

Well hopefully this time the report will be a straightforward telling of the facts rather than an 8th grade written report.

Why they would have hired someone with close ties to a chief that was run off is beyond me. Those that did the hiring of the...."consultant"...bear much of the responsibility.

Thanks for the update.

[SantaroVince59]

My first post here. This thread prompted me to start posting.

This was a hatchet job. Poorly written and written by "old friends" of people who bear grudges. The department needs to reinvent itself but the guy who wrote this saying he had no contact with the former chief is suspect at best.

[hwoods]

Sorry, but I'm not shooting the Messenger. My Question, coming from a place where we seem to be light years ahead in the staffing area, is why does anyone condone Apparatus with two people assigned? EVERYONE should be busting their butt to insure more staffing. Wether that additional staffing is Career, Part Time, P.O.C., or Volunteer should be secondary to putting it in place. We have what is considered by many to be.... well, different. A Combination system, we have 4 full time folks, 0700-1500 weekdays, and Volunteers handle the rest. Some Volunteers are available weekdays as well, so we don't usually have just 4 on a call, even in the daytime. We staff the Station, not the Apparatus, which means that no matter which piece of apparatus is due, the whole crew takes it and goes. If there are enough people, then we have additional crews. Nobody runs a Structure Fire alone, there are always several Stations alerted for any report of Fire in a Structure. Next, all Apparatus dispatched on a Fire is picked soley on the basis of being closer that anyone else, REGARDLESS OF POLITICAL BOUNDARYS. We send adequate amounts, the norm for a Structure Fire is 4 Engines, 2 Ladder Trucks, a Heavy rescue, a couple of Chiefs, and an EMS unit. Total Staffing is in the area of 30-40 people. Major Metro areas can do this very easily, IF THEY WANT TO. We did, and I think we have the best, and most cost effective, system in the Country.


I Got to ask, Is $350,000.00 considered an expensive home there? Wow... Certainly not here.

[JackTee09]

The situation with the department is bad. No doubt about that - at least from what we read. Yet, to make it worse, a report is produced that looks as if it were a personal thing - thereby, in the public eye - casting doubt about the whole situation.

Not to mention that the report is a black eye for the fire service - not the facts - but the way it was written. As someone who has written official reports and read too many to mention I was struck by the lack of professionalism. People harp about us being taken seriously but when this is released to the public it makes the fire service look like it can't compose an objective, fact finding report.

Now there is another report being prepared and my hope is that all involved straighten out their act.