4 part series by Stanly Harter, CA ACS Program manager. Question: Who's in charge during a major incident or disaster? Response: This is a rhetorical question with many answers. It is an area over which the reader may have no control, but don't overlook the influence you and others may have to effect change for the better. Successful emergency service management is based on three major points: 1. People. 2. Procedures. 3. Preparedness Success is not possible without fine tuning all three. This invariably means change to achieve success. Change is not popular with some people, but no improvements can be made without change. By the same token, some changes can be damaging. Sometimes change for the good comes from the top down or from within your own unit. Organizational politics or the political facts of life, as they are often called, may preclude a top down change for the good. But that is no reason you can't effect improvements within your specific sphere of activity. 1. PEOPLE. Who is responsible for emergency management? Thus is something you as an individual have no control. It is important to understand the very big differences from one jurisdiction to another. What is the title of the emergency management principal? This frequently gives a clue to the scope and authority of that individual. Do your laws or codes specifically describe the scope and authority of the position and its relationship in what might be called the chain of command? At one end of the emergency management spectrum is a title of coordinator. This may be a planning and coordination position with no command authority, with all operational decisions and actions being the responsibility of others outside of the emergency management office. If so, then in a sense, the word "management" is a misnomer. The position is a planner and not responsible for the execution of response and recovery. At the other end of the emergency management spectrum is the position title of director, manager, administrator, officer, or chief. This person, by code or convention, does or can take charge during an incident that may require the use of three or more government departments. This position is usually held responsible for all of the principal elements: People, Procedures, and Preparedness. A textbook example of the latter approach to real emergency management is the 1989 airline emergency landing in Iowa. If you have seen the movie and other training videos based on this incident, there is no doubt that there was one person in charge. Coordinating? Of course, but with clearly defined authority and responsibilities. Such a person speaks and acts on behalf of the chief executive of the jurisdiction. Based on this brief and simplified description of emergency management, you can determine where your community stands. It is up to you to function as effectively as you can within the reality of your organizational structure and political facts of life. 2. PROCEDURES. People cannot function effectively without procedures. Any good procedure should be written. Remember the adage: "If it's worth doing right, it's worth writing it down." Some people can duck responsibility when there are no written procedures. There is an art to writing procedures so that they are clear, concise, and correct. An overly detailed procedure can be restrictive and unresponsive. Never be reluctant to use and modify the existing procedures of others to fit your situation. Why reinvent the wheel? Don't waste money on consultants who can't give you a product based on the real world or are experienced in being where the "rubber meets the pavement". Some emergency managers cannot craft good procedures -- it's an art. But surely someone on staff can do it. Maybe that's you. Then, as a last resort, there is the outside consultant. The consultant is preferably one who is or was employed in the same or allied Public Safety field within the past five years. Sometimes procedures are prepared by people who have little or no experience in that field of expertise. The departments and people who are charged with executing emergency operations know that and tend to relegate unrealistic and unworkable plans and procedures to the circular file. At one time it was the standard practice to employ retired flag rank military officers to head up civil defense agencies. By and large they have been replaced by people with strong command, control, and administrative skills. If the emergency management official has any authority, this requirement is a virtual "must." 3. The area of PREPAREDNESS is and should be quite diverse. To a large degree it is influenced by the people and procedures in place. It may be necessary for volunteer communications people to break the ice with an emergency management agency unused to and unfamiliar with volunteers in general and emergency communications resources in particular. Perhaps the best way to demonstrate any volunteer communications capability is during a planned exercise. The government may see no need for a communications auxiliary because they now have sophisticated radio systems that they feel cannot ever fail. But what if they do fail? Take away the plain old telephone service (POTS) while you're at it. What then? That's where an effective unit comes in, in that you can deliver the same three major management needs: People, Procedures, and Preparedness. Remember: governments do not accept excuses from their paid staff -- and even less from volunteers. One of the best preparedness and training exercises is to have a unit system "double track" or duplicate an existing radio system. A common test is to provide unit stations at fire dispatch and in each fire station. All exercise traffic is sent over both systems. Radio operations by firefighters is routine. It may be a problem, however, for some Amateurs. For the volunteers, successful communications means providing it as if it were routine. The served agencies tend to be critical and suspect of any unproven resource. They expect volunteers to figuratively walk, talk, sound like, look like their regular paid staff. The government officials may be reluctant to come right out and say this but, believe me, it is a fact of life. No official does anyone any favors by adopting a stance that you can't talk to volunteers that way. If unit participants need to practice the government operating procedures, terminology, etc. in the privacy of their own domain and out of the scrutiny of cautious government officials -- then do so. Keep on training, learning and practicing until it is second nature for all of the remaining participants. I said "remaining" because government service is not everyone's cup of tea. This is why we deal with individuals and never clubs, associations, or other groups. There is no room among the unpaid professionals for loners, egos, and non-conformists. Some feel it's not "P.C." to discuss such issues, but failing to do so is a sure formula for failure. It is essential to weed out those who don't have the mind set to fit in very early and, preferably, before any individual is signed up and sworn in. Club or other affiliation influences must be left home in order to function properly. Acceptance comes before one can be a success part of a team effort. Preparedness among volunteers often includes activities well outside the realm of being a radio operator. However, many Amateurs still think that their sole purpose is to send and receive radio messages. At one time in government that was the one and only mission. As Public Safety and other communications systems improved in quantum leaps in urban environments, the need for such radio emergency communications shrunk. Now, where you have volunteers with skills other than just operating a radio, you have a far more viable support resource. Some Amateurs disagree with this concept because they don't want to do anything other than send and receive messages. That's their choice, but they will not be invited to participate as an unpaid professional in Public Safety. Any volunteer must put the needs and desires of the served organization above their personal or outside organization agendas. This discussion is addressed to both volunteers and government paid staff they serve. There is a very good reason for this. Both are partners and not separate and distinct. At one time (and perhaps still) there was a tendency for one government to tell or suggest how other governments deal with volunteers. The volunteers were (or are) not included because they are improperly considered to be an outside, separate, doomsday resource. If you do this, you have added a very big factor to the Formula for Failure. Local governments must provide their volunteers a continuing curriculum of People, Procedures and Preparedness. That is the very heart of the "Auxiliary Communications Service: Lessons Learned" workshops for states, counties and cities. (end of series)