Deaf Firefighter’s Blog

(Note: I originally posted this at my old blog-site but posted it during the hubbub after Dr. Fernandes was removed by the BOT so it was missed.  I’m re-posting it here)

This has been an issue that’s long been on my mind. With the administrative changes that are coming up, I am posting this as a suggestion for revising the way emergencies on campus are handled.

These suggestions are modeled after the current fire service Incident Command System (ICS) and National Incident Management System (NIMS). Both models have an individual ultimately responsible for all aspects of managing the crisis (called Incident Commander) as well as very clearly delineated areas of responsibility.

There are several important concepts entailed within these two systems:

• SPAN OF CONTROL: Ideally, one person can actively manage 3 to 7 people (5 often cited as the ideal number) . This allows vast amounts of information to be effectively managed by a small group of individuals

• UNITY OF COMMAND: This principle basically states that every person reports to one supervisor. There should be no confusion among all participants who they should be giving information to. This information, in turn, should be reported up the chain of command.
  

When I look at the documentation for the Crisis Management Team, it does not clearly identify:

• who has ultimate responsibility for dealing with the ins-and-outs of an emergency on-campus. (It says the Provost is “chair” but what does that really mean?)
• who is responsible for which functions during an emergency
• Furthermore, if the Provost is the “supervisor” then that person has as little as 21 different people responding directly to that person (see two items listed above)
• does not clearly identify when these functions are triggered

I should note: I don’t have greater knowledge than what is published online but I’m advocating for structural change AND distributing the plans to the campus community.

Of course, one can easily say that the President of the University should have the ultimate responsibility of managing a campus during an emergency but is that really wise, given the recent turmoil on campus.

I would suggest that a position should be created specifically devoted to a person who understands the nature of emergencies and the unique needs of the campus community. Likewise, it should be someone who is removed from the political brouhaha that often surrounds the campus (ie: President/Provost’s offices) . The CMT Director should also have a dedicated planning staff who can manage the different “what-if’s” and identify resources as needed.  This staff should also be developing, implementing and most importantly, TESTING emergency action plans.

Any emergency team needs to have clearly identified triggers, resources, and action plans for resolving the situation. I don’t see any of that available at this time. For example, in the current CMT guidelines, a trash can on fire out on Hanson Plaza could qualify as a “trigger” for the CMT but it wouldn’t be a good use of resources. I would argue that the CMT guidelines need to clearly identify when the Emergency Operations Center will be activated.

For example: let’s take an hurricane approaching DC.

1. Emergency Operations Center opens
2. PPD would obviously start by securing items that can become airborne missles
3. DPS and PPD work together to secure unused facilities
4. SHS would recall off-duty staff to staff the health center on-site
5. DPS would establish dedicated personnel to patrol dorms and buildings kept open on foot
6. At the height of the storm, all DPS/PPD staff are kept indoors .
7. As storm winds down, DPS and PPD do damage checks and cleanup as needed
8. Damage reports are handed up the chain of command for resource allocations
9. Finance/Logistics sections keep track of resources used to respond to the hurricane
10. Debriefing sessions to critique response
11. Emergency Operations Center closes

Most of this is common sense, but the absence of clearly written and EASILY ACCESSIBLE (to the community) plan hurts confidence in the campus administration to effectively manage crises.

Given today’s post-9/11 climate (and the post Plunkett/Varner climate as well), I believe the University is not as prepared as it should be for the next BPN, the next severe weather incident, and god-forbid, the next terror-attack in DC.