Doug Johnson's First Letter to the Editor:
Editor:
There are a lot of misconceptions being used to support the negative press
and comments being made about the Iron Mountain professional firefighters,
and I want to clear them up.
The police officer shown in the front-page photo of the IMHS fire has not yet
received the training that he needs in order to participate in 2-in/2-out operations
involving the use of self-contained breathing apparatus. He only has Firefighter
I certification. He is not trained in Firefighter II, ICS/IMS, HazMat Operations,
and all of the required policies and procedures of the Iron Mountain Fire Department.
All fire departments in Michigan are required to meet the requirements of Part
74 of the MIOSHA rules.
Part 74 (MIOSHA) states that the employer shall provide training to an employee
commensurate with the duties and functions that the employee is expected to
perform. The training shall be provided before the employee is permitted to
perform emergency operations.
Part 74 also states that the employer shall prepare and maintain a statement
or written policy which establishes its basic organizational structure and
which establishes the type, amount and frequency of training to be provided
to fire service personnel. We have that in place, and only the full-time professional
firefighters have completed the required training. There have been no changes
to these documents to incorporate the “cross-trained police officers” with
their lesser degree of training.
Part 74 states that the employee shall not use equipment and tools unless trained
in their use. No patrolmen have received that training yet.
Part 74 states that the employer shall have a written respiratory protection
program to address the safe use of respirators in dangerous atmospheres that
may be encountered in emergency operations, in accordance with Part 451. Part
451 is where you’ll find the 2-in/ 2-out rule, as well as in Part 74.
IMFD has the required written respiratory protection program, and no patrolmen
have been trained on it yet.
Part 74 requires that we implement a nationally-recognized incident management
system and personnel accountability system at each incident. It also requires
that the employer provide initial training and annual refresher training in
emergency operations and the incident management system. It further requires
that the above-mentioned procedures shall be in accordance with the 2-in/2-out
rules found in part 451. No patrolmen have received any of that training yet.
Part 74 and other applicable laws are available by clicking on the “Laws” link
at www.imfd.org
There is an even greater reason why that police officer couldn’t be used
for 2-in/2-out at that fire, and it’s contrary to what a school board
official and the City Manager have said. The officer was not “fully-equipped”.
He did not have an air mask to wear at the scene. He has not yet been issued
an air mask, because he has not yet received the required training. There is
no way he could have been placed inside that smoke-filled environment at any
point in the operations. In fact, it could legally have been considered manslaughter
for the fire officer in charge to allow him into that atmosphere without a
mask.
The remaining professional firefighters of the Iron Mountain Fire Dept. trained
earlier this year on the differences between our qualifications and those of
the cross-trained patrolman, because for the first time in the 117-year history
of the full-time fire department, we were being expected to find a way to utilize
an individual with significantly less training than the department policy required.
We know how we can and can’t utilize these patrolmen at emergency scenes,
and it’s not what you’ve recently been hearing from others in positions
of authority who should know better.
One more thing that I’d like you to remember: that police officer is
the only one who has completed any fire training at all, and it’s purely
coincidence that he was on duty that day. The fire could just as easily have
occurred on his day off, and no one would be questioning as to why he wasn’t
being used as part of a 2-in/2-out crew.
The above facts should put to rest a lot of the accusations flying around town.
The full-time professional firefighters of the Iron Mountain Fire Department
are committed to serving the residents of Iron Mountain in every way possible,
most recently demostrated by our attempts to persuade the City Council to maintain
minimum staffing for just such an incident, and also our requests for them
to approve adding medical first response, ice rescue, and vehicle extrication
to our duties in the past few years (all of which were denied).
Doug Johnson
Vice President, Iron Mountain Fire Fighters Association Local 554
Kingsford, MI
The City Manager's Report to Council about the April 2005 School Fire:
IMFD.org Letter to Council:
An Open Letter to the Council of the City of Iron Mountain
I finally got a copy of the report Mr. Marquart provided to the City Council
regarding his “investigation” into the IMHS fire, and I am outraged.
1. Mr. Marquart accuses the fire department of “over zealous adherence
to rules, regulations, standards, etc....” I can't believe that a person
in a position of power such as his could make such an ignorant statement. Rules
are just that, rules. They must be adhered to, regardless. If the City doesn't
like the way we do our jobs just because we are following the rules, then the
City had better get us the resources to do our jobs to their satisfaction within
the rules. The high school fire was no surprise, and it was routine. What happened
there is what will happen the next time, unless we have sufficient trained
firefighters on hand to do more. That's not a threat, just a fact. You tied
our hands last year, disregarding all of the warnings we gave you about how
it would affect the public.
2. Mr. Marquart accuses Fire Department management of failing to allow for
flexibility without threat of disciplinary action. I never needed to be told
by management that I could be fired for breaking the law. I just have the common
sense to know that. In case any of you don't know that, I'll repeat it now:
some employers frown on their employees breaking the law. You can be fired
for it, regardless of how high up the food chain you are.
3. Mr. Marquart said, “While rules and regulations are important and
provide operational commonality, they must not be seen as in impediment to
take action.” If the rule says, you will not go in to perform operations
other than rescue of a known victim without 2-in and 2-out, then that rule
MUST be seen as an impediment to take action. If the City wishes for the Fire
Department to take action which is contrary to what the law states, then the
City has to order us to do so. An order to firefighters takes the form of a
direct order on scene, or a standing order in the form of a written policy
or S.O.P. Either way, it will be an illegal order.
4. Mr. Marquart's report actually says that firefighters must have the flexibility
to bend and sometimes break the rules. That is such an outrageously irresponsible
statement. No one is allowed to break the law, not the firefighters, not the
police, not the council, not Mr. Marquart. The City has ignored some laws in
the course of altering the fire department over the past year. Mr. Marquart's
report says that the firefighters should have the flexibility to do the same.
Well, I'm calling your bluff. Put it in writing, if you have the guts. Otherwise,
stop trying to micromanage, and let us do our jobs with the skeleton crew you've
left us.
Incidentally, has it occurred to you that if everyone involved has to break
rules and laws in order to make your agenda come to fruition, then maybe you're
doing the wrong thing?
The school board demanded that Council provide answers to certain questions.
Mr. Marquart's report leaves those questions unanswered, or worse, vaguely
places blame on the full-time firefighters with their “attitude”.
I agree that those questions need to be answered, and as loudly and as publicly
as they were presented. That is your responsibility, and it should not be ignored
just because some time has gone by. Tell the school board and the public the
TRUTH.
Doug Johnson's 2nd Letter to the Editor:
November 3, 2005
The letter to the editor that appeared in the Daily News on November 1st was
edited. Here it is in its entirety:
Editor:
It has become apparent that there are still people in our community who think
that the Iron Mountain firefighters staged some sort of “strike” at
the Iron Mountain High School fire last April. The City Manager and the school
board member responsible for this misconception have never corrected the misleading
, or patently false, statements that were made to the public and to the school
superintendent. An Iron Mountain city councilman was asked to arrange for Mr.
Marquart to issue a press release to clear up the bad public image he had created
for the fire department with his statements, and that councilman responded
that “it’s not going to happen”.
Well, the Iron Mountain firefighters have waited long enough for the City to
correct their statements.
When Mr. Marquart was asked about the fire department’s actions at the
high school fire by the superintendent, he responded that the firefighters
should have gone in. That statement was false, and Mr. Marquart had documents
from MIOSHA proving that it was false before he made his statement.
A school board member accused the fire department of refusing to utilize a
fully-trained, fully-equipped cross-trained patrolman in order to make a point.
That statement was false. The patrolman was not fully-trained or fully-equipped.
He didn’t have an air mask, he hadn’t been fit tested, and he hadn’t
completed his training, and could not have been used for any interior operations.
Period. That’s the law.
The fire department was informed immediately that there were no persons left
in the building. Without a known rescue situation, no one can enter the atmosphere
of an interior structure fire without having assembled at least 4 fully-trained
and equipped firefighters. Period. That’s the law.
Mr. Marquart’s report to the city council regarding his investigation
into the incident was filled with false or misleading statements. In it, he
insists that the firefighters must ignore the law if the situation is an “emergency”.
Everything the fire department responds to is an emergency. You don’t
get to pick and choose which laws you want to obey, and when to ignore them.
The City should have come to the defense of its firefighters, who were following
the applicable laws and doing the best they could with the resources available
to them. It was frustrating enough for them not to be able to make immediate
entry, as they had been able to do for the previous 117 years. It was reprehensible
for the City to make the public think that they should have handled the incident
any differently with the staffing that was available.
The City never told the truth about that fire because the truth would prove
that their actions had left the city’s residents and property dangerously
unprotected (as MIOSHA found - see the report at imfd.org). That would not
serve their agenda nearly as well as hanging the fire department out to dry.
The remaining Iron Mountain fire fighters want to assure the public that we
will always provide the maximum level of service to the residents that the
City Council and City Manager permit us to do. Since our staffing is reduced
so drastically, that’s not the same level of service it used to be, but
we will continue to do our best with the resources we have.
Doug Johnson, Vice President
Iron Mountain Fire Fighters Association, IAFF Local 554
MML Article by Caroline Kennedy, who said that her source was Mayor Ken Tousignant:
Notice anything in the above article? The Mayor lied about the response to the school fire (among other things). Now, why would he do that?