Today’s burning question: We are in the process of updating our fire department policies. Many of our current policies have a boilerplate statement saying “company officers shall enforce this policy” and the “failure to follow this policy will result in disciplinary action.” Is this kind of language really necessary? It seems to me that company officers are expected to follow the rules without being told to do so in each policy, and that members understand that the failure to follow policies will result in discipline. Do we have to put that in every policy?
Answer: While there is nothing inherently wrong with including such language… I am not a fan of it. The boilerplate language implies that your members are not inclined to follow the rules unless they are threatened by the department. It also suggests that company officers have to be reminded in every policy to enforce the rules. Both of those implications send the wrong message.
Beyond that, including such language in some policies but not others raises an additional concern. Are firefighters free to violate policies that lack the boilerplate language? Do company officers have to enforce them? One could argue that by including the language in some policies but not others, the implication is the absence of such language is intentional and compliance with policies that lack the language is optional.
Then there is the question about the obligation of officers who are not company officers: what does the department expect of chief officers with regards to enforcing policies?
There are certain policy situations where we want to make officers responsible for enforcing certain specific rules (eg mandatory mask requirements, wearing of seat belts, compliance with accountability, etc.) but if too many policies include that kind of boilerplate language it tends to dilute the importance of such situations.
My recommendation is to have a policy on general rules and regulations that explains the obligation of all members to follow department policies and the responsibility of officers to enforce them. Limit the use of additional references to following and enforcing rules to situations where it is strategically necessary to highlight areas of special concern.
Could it also be that part of it is trying to sound “official” or “Professional,” in much the same way as the misuse of “myself” or the overblown, pseudo-legalese we tend to see in emergency services? I don’t mean the legal terminology you use (and define), but rather the crap like “Myself and Sergeant Smith did observe the alleged perpetrator fleeing from the alleged scene of the purported 10-28 at a high velocity of speed”?
It is unfortunate that policies or SOG’s have to draw a picture for personnel. I hear the argument all the time, “Well it doesn’t say that specifically”.
Way back In January 2007, with the LODD fires in Baltimore, Md., then Prince William, Co. Va., and up to the day before the April 18 th Charleston, S.C., Sofa Super Store fire, a lot of people complained about the “Boiler Plate Language” in the NIOSH Reports.
The fire occurred as did a series of fires across the USA after then, from
Boston, Mass, Contra Costa County, Ca., Noonday, Tx, and FDNY.
In all of the NIOSH reports the appearance of Boiler Plate language is apparent.
But….I offer if these issues were present at one or more of the LODD fires, is it not an indication that a “Problem” existed locally or industry wide? That corrections need to be made to prevent a repetition of what happened?
In preparation of the new SOG’s, the repetition of some language may seem needless or pointless, but it is also managements need to:
CYA and have accountability
Certain lack of accountability and enforcement of already in place HR rules occurred in the California ” Cal Fire “Agency 2-1/2 years ago.
Now the agency is spending over $4 Million dollars in a HR enforcement division.
Unfortunately, I’d rather see that money go to the Suppression crews in the fire stations rather than another “onion” layer in the agency just to enforce what was already written down in “Black and White” but was ignored and things went amiss with the “Good ‘ol Boy, nod and wink”
The language has a purpose and place in my opinion.