Pat

First things first, I have the highest respect for those working on the 921 document. I am not accusing them of doing anything unethical in their work on this document. They may not know that there are many investigators throughout the country that have the belief that the persons on the committee are there for their own personal agenda. Where we both know there are those with different agendas on the committee, in a hole the committee want nothing more than to have the best possible document published.

In speaking using the term “a few people” I am speaking of the entire fire investigation community, but you do bring up a good point as to the NFPA’s process. When you take the entire NFPA’s process how many fire investigators would you say actually have the opportunity to vote on the document or individual sections of the document.

Lets see if we can go over this process.

The committee gets the proposal and reviews the information contained for accuracy and content. The proposal moves forward with a proposed committee action to be voted on by the committee. The committee votes on the document based on the suggestions from the committee. This is the official vote we see in the ROP. The committee’s action is opened for comment based of the voting conducted in the ROP. These comments are reviewed by the committee and actions taken based on the comment. Then there is another vote of the committee based on these actions. Up to this point the only actual vote that can be cased are by committee members. From here the document is sent to a general NFPA meeting to be voted on by those attending the meeting. Not only does one need to be a member to case a vote but also must pay an additional amount to attend the conference and cast this vote. I would suggest that due to time and cost constraints, a large majority of the fire investigation community never gets to attend one of these meeting. If approved by those voting at the meeting, the document then goes to the Standard Council for their approval. Now how many fire investigators sit on the Standards Council? Now, lets sit down and count the number of persons voting on the document.

Would you agree that if not careful, the information as to the destruction of field notes could be added to the document? Was the following not a suggestion to include information on the notes, “Photographs, notes, sketches or other documentation collected or generated to record an investigator’s observations, should be considered data, and should be preserved until all litigation surrounding the fire or explosion in question has been resolved.” Is it not true that there is an appearance that there are a large number of persons on the committee that would like to see this restriction placed in the document? There already appears to be the effort to associate the destruction of these notes with the spoliation of evidence. If this be the case, my I suggest the person proposing the additional information supply supporting documentation.

As to your comment, “But rather is is an unfair represnetation in order to further your agenda.” I think I have clearly spelled out my agenda on the subject of the notes, if you are insinuating that I have an agenda when it comes to 921, I will say yes I do. My agenda with 921 is to have it as the best supportive tool for fire investigators that is published. I do not want it to become the big brother that stamp on a person’s rights. I think where 921 speaks in technical terms there is none better but when it leaves this area it weakens rapidly. In these areas it goes into personal opinions with nothing to support what it is saying. If in these areas it were to stick to the information being a suggested method and not make it demanding that it must be followed to the letter I believe it would be better accepted. I know it is said this is not saying you must do it exactly as in the document but there is a implication that if you deviate you better be able to show why. This can be suggestive as being mandatory.

When persons suggest this document has been accepted as the standard of care for fire investigator, yes it is my agenda that until there is a general consensus that it meets this level that it should be considered to be no more than what it was intended by the National Fire Protection Association. If this is wrong, then I am wrong.

I have no agenda than that both sides of an issue be openly expressed so that those involved in this profession can make up their own minds based on the facts.