08-26-2003, 12:16 PM #1
- Join Date
- May 2002
- St. Louis Area
Reading the latest edition of Homeland Protection Professional and adding up my understanding of conversation at the federal level. I was mistaken when suggesting Illinois was irrational in not accepting money for a FEMA USAR team. States should have controls of resources they sponsor, even if funded by Washington. This is an example of Stateís rights taken down another rung on the ladder.
The DHS is suggesting the possibility of federalizing of emergency credentials, a bad idea. There should be a national standard, which there is, and an acceptable reciprocity of among states. States with additional requirement could offer an upgrade similar to the EMS field. Reciprocity should work the same way a driverís license is used from state to state. Asserting federal control of domestic emergencies, at their discretion, is a sign of the totalitarianism of the current administration. The government in the past has offered or responded with assistance when called and not federalize an incident. Instead they asserted influence, NTSB/OSHA/EPA etc., when inadequate actions are being utilized at emergencies.
Renaming components in the Federal Response Plan doesnít improve the function of that component. It has the appearance of advertising a PR campaign instead of cohesion between agencies.
We all see what happens with the current administration having an idea and not planning for the long term practicality of the implementation, isnít that evident in IRAQ.
08-27-2003, 09:47 AM #2
- Join Date
- Feb 2001
- Illinois-where pertnear is close enough!
You must realize that any money given by the government will have strings attached. The exception to this is their Food Stamps program. But that's another story.
They are "buying in" to the game. And it's high stakes. They want a visible presence because it sells their next year's budget and any increase.
If they exerted their influence so well, in say, New York City, then why are there all of these claims of respiratory problems in civilians and site workers alike almost two years after the disaster?
I will be glad to take their money and provide them with an acceptable plan, but if they want to "run the show", I'll politely decline. I will follow their standards and regulations, but I would never turn incident command over to them; not even on a bet. Bureaucracy in a time of crisis is your worst enemy.
As far as your comment on Iraq; I don't know that we underestimated the enemy. I do know that no one from the current administration said that it was going to be quick. Blame the news media for the expectation that troops would be home by the weekend. I don't like war anymore than the next person, but how many of our citizens have to die before we give some back? In my mind, ONE would be enough.
Interesting thoughts you have. Thanks for sharing them.
Remember Bradley Golden (9/25/01)
RIP HOF Robert J. Compton(ENG6511)
09-25-2003, 10:59 PM #3
- Join Date
- Dec 2002
- finally getting ready to start the new station
Getting back to NIMS. I attended the NIMS class at this years IEMA conference. There were nearly 400 people register for the class but roo for only 200. In a nutshell, the objective for all responders to use the NIMS is to have a seamless system that will be the same anywhere in the country. Plus the fact that, eventually, to receive federal funding for any of the DHS programs, you will have to be using NIMS to qualify. IEMA will be getting the NIMS classes out to all areas of Illinois in the coming months.Every silver lining's got a touch of grey...I wiilll get by....
Proud to be IACOJ Flatlander Division
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)