Both conversations made sense, but not as a response to the other side.
In all honesty, the verbiage coming from the board side made more sense than anything they've spewed over the past two years. And the volunteers have been stating the same concerns for years, which appear to fall on deaf ears.
Now don't forget that a large component of this blog is commentary, but it is commentary based on a fair amount of homework and observation.
You may have heard this before
At the annual meeting the second rehash of a proposal to reorganize the community fire department was put forth. The Johnson Creek Community Fire Department is organized in a manner different from most. This story has been told several times, but often still the response is a wincing question mark, so here it is again:
The current Johnson Creek community fire department was organized in the 1960s as a corporation of sorts so that the village of Johnson Creek, could share the capitol costs with the other outlying townships it serves - Aztalan, Milford, Concord, Farmington and Watertown. At that time they set up the corporation with a board that consisted of the chair or president of each of those communities. Each fire board member is able to cast one vote.
To a certain extent the structure became somewhat of an afterthought, because the firefighters (and since then the EMS developed as well) are the ones in the field when the pagers go off. The implications are that they meant for things to go this way, because the Johnson Creek Mutual Hose Company was the vehicle for continuity as the original FD and the continuing organization of the personnel. Otherwise, why wouldn't they have disbanded the Mutual Hose Company back in the 1960s when the intergovernmental corporation was first formed?
It is almost as if the people in 1961 said, "Okay, this makes it formal so we share the cost of the gear and property, but you guys go ahead and just keep putting out those fires the same as usual."
The Mutual Hose Company, which dates back to the 19th Century, was left to run things and attend to those pesky fires and other life threatening situations while the board evolved (with a few potential refreshing exceptions) into a roly-poly group who would go to meetings twice a year to rubber-stamp the budget, unless there were proposed increases, and to make sure the Fire Station was still standing.
It was presumed that systems for accomodating emergencies -- being compliant with regulations, scheduling and providing training, filling out paperwork, maintaining equipment, accomplishing fire inspections, and a whole host of other activities that need to be done -- would fall on the people who attend to those emergencies and day-to-day tasks.
So the volunteers did just that. They made sure there was a continuity and necessary upgrades, and whenever they were alerted they reponded to the actual emergencies. When the need and opportunity to start and develop an EMS came along, the FD picked up that gauntlet. The local EMS has since evolved into a group of volunteers with standards to which others aspire and try to maintain.
Early on there were friendly understandings, because all of the communities were similar. They were either farming townships or, in the case of the village, a community that supported farming. But now the communities' complexions have changed and the board hasn't.
Now the village has a major mall and other commercial interests in addition to increased industry. The Interstate Highway System was just beginning to take shape in this nation when the Community Fire Department formed, but now it is a major traffic corridor requiring several emergency responses per year. Consequently the village pays the largest percentage of the FD budget.
For those who have gotten used to this over the past four decades, just a reminder that the majority of communities have developed their emergency services differently.
Here's how it works with most other FDs:
Some of the same townships who have board members on the Johnson Creek Community Fire Department Board need fire coverage from other departments. For example - Aztalan also needs fire protection services from Jefferson and Lake Mills fire departments. In their case, the Lake Mills and Jefferson departments simply submit a bill to Aztalan and the township pays it. They have no say on what those fire budgets will be.
But at the same time, the chairs of those townships come to the 'Creek FD Board and determine what the rest of their fire protection budget can be, possibly after the bills from the other FDs are paid.
Now, just as we learned in Sociology 101, in times of transition are the greatest potential times of turmoil.
There are likely many good things about the proposed new intergovernmental agreement, which most would agree needed an upgrade. The board will go from six members to eight, adding two more votes for the village. This makes the balance of things a bit more equitable, in view of the fact that the village pays 47 percent of the FD price tag.
Another concern has to do with accounting for equipment, issues of depreciation and so on. There has been no proportionate inventory accounting divvying up the property amongst the communities in the recorded past. In addition, tax issues related to the honoraria volunteers get for making emergency runs have to be taken care of by a central responsible party.
And so the plan, primarily authored by village attorney James Hammes has many good facets, addressing archaic issues to bring them up to date. The fact that extra attention and a proposed change came to light is a good thing in many ways. It indicates that the make-up of the board could be changing with a couple of members who realize that as times change so do upgrades to community services.
But those members realize that change can be slow - witness the decisions on location and plans for a new public safety facility, which has been a roller coaster ride of indecision on the part of the majority of the board.
But according to recent documents, the propsed plan is to follow a model agreement established by the Wisconsin Towns Association. It is a good and solid document, BUT even the framers of the model agreement likely did NOT consider that there would be a volunteer Fire Department/EMS with a six-way ownership split. Hammes and Attorney Andy Griggs feel the agreement will be solid in terms of community responsibilities.
However, Hammes, at the beginning of the recent meeting also tried to address operational issues within portions of the agreement. And this is where homework, diplomacy, history and common sense all need to work in concert even to make a decision to address the matter of operations. This entails the second conversation.
Think for a moment of the volunteers in the fire department and EMS.
Historically they were told, "Just keep doing what you do." So they do what needs to be done to set up systems, elect their leadership, establish routines, comply with regulations, be available to the community for additional tasks and basically attend to emergencies for four decades.
One could equate it to an orphan family that raised itself, established its own routines and figured out ways to take care of itself and others. And they learned to support each other - they recognize their best with their own award ceremonies, and developed a support system to address issues after facing trauma scenes head on without no questions asked.
They do this with a board that, until the most recent board, only peeked in for a couple meetings a year, giving very little feedback, no additional recognition and by all appearances forgetting that they are dealing with volunteers. Yes, they now get an hourly honorarium for the time they are pulled away from family or work. But that amounts to less than a teenager gets paid at McDonalds. While accounting and tax records suggest that the they are 'employees' for purposes of record keeping, they are still volunteers. And most of the volunteers have said that it is not about the money, and they often forget that they are to be compensated when the check arrives.
But according to personal accounts, history can't tell when the last time the community fire board collectively said - "We appreciate your service to this community." or handed them a plaque or any recognition elevating the members from a status that appears they feel is a necessary evil. Having asked about more distant history, volunteers can't remember a time the board approached the volunteers and said point blank - "You are doing a great job and want you to know what you need to keep it up?"
Yes things cost more, and yet the attitude of the board appears to be that the volunteers are the cause of those increases. The board still has latitude with this department in comparison to the non-negotiable bill the townships get from the other departments.
Does anyone realize how difficult it is to be a volunteer for anything and have to justify the needs of your services to a board or committee to allow you to provide a service? Think of it this way... you have a neighbor who asks you to help him change his second floor storm windows. Being a good neighbor you cordially agree, and suggest that Saturday morning will be a good time to help. At that point the neighbor indignantly replies, "Oh, it can't be Saturday morning, I'm very busy then." So you suggest another time, but the neighbor says, "Do you expect me to accommodate you and your schedule so that you can help me work on my house!?! And by the way, you'd better have a ladder." Kind of Salvador Dali logic, and sometimes it seems that way with the FD board.
There is nothing saying that any of the firefighters or EMS personnel have to stay members, yet they do. That's what makes them volunteers. So what makes them stay? This is a question to which board members should seek an answer, because if the volunteers begin to ask that question it may be too late.
The majority of the board does not live within earshot of the fire and EMS facility.
They do not hear the sirens on cold February mornings before sunrise when a blinding blizzard continues to cover roads with drifting snow, yet they respond to unknown emergencies in these sub-zero temperatures.
They do not hear the pagers when the dispatcher calls for them to respond to a traumatic farm accident involving a pre-school age child.
They do not see relatively fit peope huffing for air to keep up with their collectively pounding hearts as they trudge, laden with gear, across a field to put out the fourth grass fire within an eight-hour period.
Creek - FD
They do not have to face the survivors of an accident after zipping up the non-survivors in a body bag.
Creek FD GF
So going to this 'family' of volunteers to suggest changes in their routines, systems and procedures without approaching them at the very least for input is, to say the least, insensitive and can reinforce the perception that board finds their contribution is of negligible value.
In comparison, when there is news of farmers and farm families who are displaced by economic conditions or severe climate influences, we are saddened for their loss and we say "It is a way of life." and recognize that it is a part of an identity.
cfd rd
So it may be with those who respond to help their fellow man, never knowing who, when or what the circumstances. They are all pulled away from real life, to experience that which would be surreal for everyone else. They share the common experience and at the scene think in sync like members of a chamber music ensemble. As an observer, they appear as the reorganizing factor to life's moments of chaos.
It is likely that everyone wants to be on the same page when it comes to record keeping - an issue brought into discussion.
Positive changes are most often good, and the FD board primarily takes the overall good of the community as their chief motive for exploring these changes. But it must do so with sensitivity to the institutions that exist and the people who established them. They, after all, are also members of the community.
A review of the operations of both the fire department and the EMS may be warranted, but if one doesn't know what exists already how can changes be suggested? (The outcome could be that no changes are needed.) In short, it is wrong to avoid doing the leg work to at least appear to be interested enough to ask what is in place and what exists now.
As one firefighter said recently, "All they had to do was ask."
JD EMS
# # #
Best to all,
Lloyd
