By “break glass in case of emergency” I’m referring to the tendency of the Federal Government to want to create only national assets that are huge, complicated, expensive, and rarely used. The better approach is to develop doctrine, training, and standards. Then we can realize the value of the Federal Government’s investments on a daily basis in communities all across the country and adapt to large scale disasters by mobilizing these smaller units and applying scalable, modular approaches to deal with the peculiarities that large scale events create. Too often Federal agencies avoid simple solutions because they want to be major players instead of enablers.

A couple questions for you:

2) How can resiliency be better defined/used? How can we transition “resiliency” from buzzword to practice? It seems to me like the theory is a little murky, which leads to uncertain pathways to implementation. It doesn’t seem like I’m alone in feeling this way…

3) Why do you consider the preparedness goal ludicrous? What do you mean by “break glass in case of emergency”?

Well said about being agents for change, I definitely agree.

Thanks again for you comments!
-T

1. I definitely agree that most Emergency Managers don’t understand social media and many of them never will. This reflects the ongoing growing pains as EM tries to be more of a professional discipline but is still practiced by many people (mostly 1st responders) who “fell into” the job.

2. Good insight. Resiliency is a buzzword. The field needs to flesh this term out or drop it.

3. Whole Community is a great concept but the recent shift toward ludicrous preparedness goals and the tendency of the Federal Government to create mega –bureaucracies and “break glass in case of emergency” style response capabilities goes against the growing logic and consensus around the whole community concept

4. I hope the move toward risk based planning is a sign of the maturation of the all hazards planning that had previously been pushed. Hopefully Ems are seeing that they have a solid all hazards approach and now they can refine their planning to deal with specific threats and allocate resources based on the probabilities of those threats occurring. Hopefully we won’t abandon all hazards planning since it delivers the biggest bang for the buck.

5. Hopefully changes will always be coming. EMs should be agents for positive change in their organizations and communities. We need to continually adapt and change to deal with new threats and vulnerabilities.

Brian Bannon, CEM

When the whole town is impacted however we are trained that first responders will be overwhelmed, and will have to prioritize their response based on available resources, and may not be able to get to everyone right away. The mantra has been that people may need to find a way to be self sufficient for up to 72 hours, and that in essence at home, you are your family’s first responder.

Many of the concepts of the Floor Warden program are not inconsisstent with the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) approach that has been espoused and federally funded for many years now (although that’s going away next year too). The premise for CERT was that since you are likely to respond for your family and your neighbors (or co-workers) in a disaster first anyway, it would be more effective and effiicent for you to be well trained and at least taught to be well prepared and equipped as well.

The HUGE difference between a Floor Warden program and CERT however is that it is employer and/or building owner or manager sponsored. As a consequence you are given an assgined role as a volunteer with an implied and inherent superior/subordinate relationship. As a consequence there is a considerable employer liability that may be potentially addressed both within the realm of a Workers Compensation and Employers Liability statute for injuries to the individuial Floor Warden. The employer is also placing themselves in a position of significant vicarious liability for accidental injury to others because while an employee is serving in this capacity, they are doing so an agent of the emloyer.

This year DHS-FEMA established an award in honor of Rick Rescorla.

Following the 1993 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, Rescorla drilled his Morgan Stanley employees in disaster preparedness and response. Rescorla’s actions and his commitment to preparedness ensured that the 2,700 Morgan Stanley employees who worked in the South Tower knew how to evacuate and where to go on 9/11.

On September 11, 2001, Rescorla was Vice President of Security for Morgan Stanley at their Headquarters in the World Trade Center. He personally led a massive evacuation of Morgan Stanley’s 2,700 employees, and all but six of Morgan Stanley’s workers in the South Tower survived. Rick Rescorla was one of those killed and was last seen walking back up the stairs to rescue more people.

During the commemoration of the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano honored the memory of Richard “Rick” Rescorla by presenting the DHS Distinguished Public Service Medal to Mr. Rescorla’s widow at a ceremony in New York City.

The Rick Rescorla National Award for Resilience is the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) first national resilience award for superior leadership and innovation by a non-governmental individual or organization who exemplifies the qualities and achievements of Rick Rescorla, emphasizing leadership in effective preparation, response, and recovery in the face of disasters.

I don’t disagree with your concerns about the potential accidental injury and death in an emergency, and many; although not all of the risks can be mitgated through preparedness measures of planning, training and exercising. Rather than elminating these programs altogether, employers may be better suited to invest in them by recruiting the right people to serve, training and equipping them extensively, and rewarding them for assuming the role in a meaningful way.