Fire/Arson Investigations : Fire/Arson Investigations
A place to ask questions and add to probative and informative discussions associated with the various aspects of the field of fire investigation. -- FORUM RULES---BE CIVIL AND NO NAME CALLING, NO BELITTLING, NO BERATING, NO DENIGRATING others. Postings in violation of these rules can be removed or editted to remove the offending remarks at the discretion of the moderators and/or site administrator.
Re: Certifications - Question for Bloom and Munger
Posted by: PMK140 (IP Logged)
Date: March 09, 2007 10:15AM
Bobby,
Good questions. I will try to address each of them.
First of all let me clarify that out of over 3000 CFEIs there are about a dozen attorneys, though we continue to welcome those who can fulfill the requirements. These CFEI attorneys generally are those whose practices specialize or are entirely in fire litigation, civil and/or criminal. All of them have managed investigations and the following litigations far in excess of the 50 incident guideline. The importance of appropriate and successful litigation of fire cases cannot be understated. The best fire investigation in the world is really worthless unless the arsonist is punished or the proper cause and responsibility are established in a forum which will help make the world safer from the threat of hostile fire. A knowledgeable and skilled fire attorney is paramount to the success of this portion of the fire protection system. Recognizing those attorneys who possess the critical knowledge, experience, and skills is the reason that NAFI has undertaken their certification. Certification of fire attorneys provides another benefit. It encourages attorneys to become more knowledgeable in and about fire litigations. The truly knowledgeable fire attorney can not help but be more effective, and thereby help make the world safer from fire, accidental and intentional.
Though this is something of a “tempest in a teapot,” largely fueled by individuals like yourself and Dan who, though well experienced and respected as fire investigators, are not members of NAFI, nor CFEIs. To my knowledge only two CFEIs have ever expressed any interest or concern in the issue. Only one has ever even contacted me or National Certification Board Chairman, Ron Hopkins, with questions before posting here.
Nevertheless, yours, and Dan’s, and Jim Mazerat, (CFEI)’s questions are important.
I am answering these questions officially as the Executive Secretary of the NAFI National Certification Board (n.b. The Executive Secretary, though obviously possessing some influence, is not a member of the Board and does not have a vote in Board policies). My suggestions have been voted down by the Board on many occasions.
1. “…if [attorneys] have not actually investigated fires, why are they allowed to be Certified Fire and Explosive Investigators? (other than it adheres to your guidelines that you established.)”
ANSWER: It depends on how you want to define “investigated fires.”
If you are defining it in the parochial sense as actually digging out fire scenes, then there might be a good argument for attorneys not being certified. If, however you are defining it as it is defined in NFPA 1033: “3.3.3 Fire Investigator. An individual who has demonstrated the skills and knowledge necessary to conduct, coordinate, and complete an investigation.” and “3.3.4 Investigation. A systematic inquiry or examination.”, then there is no impediment to attorneys being certified under the requirements of 1033. As you know, both the NAFI and IAAI certification systems assert compliance with the NFPA 1033 Standard.
2. “Do you feel that they have the same level of knowledge and expertise as someone who actually practices in the field?”
ANSWER: Yes
Those attorneys who have achieved CFEI status have equal or superior knowledge and expertise than many certified investigators, CFEI or IAAI-CFI. But it is not expertise, but knowledge, education, and experience that are measured in either the CFEI or IAAI-CFI programs. Practical history has demonstrated that holding either certification is no guarantee of expertise. I know of at least one Attorney CFEI, who has actualy given expert tesimony in court.
3. “Do you feel that an attorney without scene experience demonstrates the KSA’s [sic] outlined in 1033?”
ANSWER: Yes.
The JPL’s (Job Performance Requirements) in NFPA 1033 address “Requisite Knowledge” and “Requisite Skills” at certain minimum levels.” [3.3.6 Requisite Knowledge. Fundamental knowledge one must have in order to perform a specific task. 3.3.7 Requisite Skills. The essential skills one must have in order to perform a specific task.] Nowhere in the document does 1033 address any experience requirements, either years in the profession, number of fires, number of scenes, number of investigations, or number of testimonies.
However, an attorney without experience in fire investigation will never be NAFI certified.
4. “Do you see a downside to allowing them to challenge your test but giving them a separate distinct credential such as Dan recommended so as to differentiate them from an actual practitioner?”
ANSWER: I personally see no downside to that idea, other than logistics and economy.
I’m not so sure that a new class of certification is necessary or practical for about a dozen individuals who otherwise fulfill all the CFEI requirements. I suspect that Dan Hebert, might be adverse to another set of letter designations after someone’s name. Remember that Dan is an individual who has signed at least one post on this forum as, “Dan Hebert, EIEIO”
5. “Additionally, while the Guidebook I reviewed may not be all encompassing, I did not see a requirement for 50 fire scenes as you indicated previously, in fact I do not see any set requirements for any category. Your guidelines do generally state that applicants must demonstrate they meet the requirements in certain areas but it does not state what the minimum threshold is.”
“Is that arbitrarily decided when the application is reviewed by the Board of Governors [sic]?”
ANSWER: Sometimes, but infrequently.
It is part of the National Certification Board’s job to approve every application on the applicant’s own qualifications. This is also in full compliance with the NFPA 1033 standard which states: “1.3.4 The job performance requirements for fire investigator shall be completed in accordance with established practices and procedures or as they are defined by law or by the authority having jurisdiction.”
Originally 50 fire scenes as the lead investigator was the rule. This number was changed by the Board several years ago from an absolute mandatory minimum to a guideline, to give the Board more latitude in certifying those who had adequate experience in the field commensurate with the knowledge level required by 1033. This includes fire investigators and attorneys.
By the way, what does KSA stand for? “Kan’t Stand Attorneys?”
Pat Kennedy, CFEI, CFPS, MIFireE
Fire and Explosion Analyst
Sarasota, Florida
[www.kennedy-fire.com]
Good questions. I will try to address each of them.
First of all let me clarify that out of over 3000 CFEIs there are about a dozen attorneys, though we continue to welcome those who can fulfill the requirements. These CFEI attorneys generally are those whose practices specialize or are entirely in fire litigation, civil and/or criminal. All of them have managed investigations and the following litigations far in excess of the 50 incident guideline. The importance of appropriate and successful litigation of fire cases cannot be understated. The best fire investigation in the world is really worthless unless the arsonist is punished or the proper cause and responsibility are established in a forum which will help make the world safer from the threat of hostile fire. A knowledgeable and skilled fire attorney is paramount to the success of this portion of the fire protection system. Recognizing those attorneys who possess the critical knowledge, experience, and skills is the reason that NAFI has undertaken their certification. Certification of fire attorneys provides another benefit. It encourages attorneys to become more knowledgeable in and about fire litigations. The truly knowledgeable fire attorney can not help but be more effective, and thereby help make the world safer from fire, accidental and intentional.
Though this is something of a “tempest in a teapot,” largely fueled by individuals like yourself and Dan who, though well experienced and respected as fire investigators, are not members of NAFI, nor CFEIs. To my knowledge only two CFEIs have ever expressed any interest or concern in the issue. Only one has ever even contacted me or National Certification Board Chairman, Ron Hopkins, with questions before posting here.
Nevertheless, yours, and Dan’s, and Jim Mazerat, (CFEI)’s questions are important.
I am answering these questions officially as the Executive Secretary of the NAFI National Certification Board (n.b. The Executive Secretary, though obviously possessing some influence, is not a member of the Board and does not have a vote in Board policies). My suggestions have been voted down by the Board on many occasions.
1. “…if [attorneys] have not actually investigated fires, why are they allowed to be Certified Fire and Explosive Investigators? (other than it adheres to your guidelines that you established.)”
ANSWER: It depends on how you want to define “investigated fires.”
If you are defining it in the parochial sense as actually digging out fire scenes, then there might be a good argument for attorneys not being certified. If, however you are defining it as it is defined in NFPA 1033: “3.3.3 Fire Investigator. An individual who has demonstrated the skills and knowledge necessary to conduct, coordinate, and complete an investigation.” and “3.3.4 Investigation. A systematic inquiry or examination.”, then there is no impediment to attorneys being certified under the requirements of 1033. As you know, both the NAFI and IAAI certification systems assert compliance with the NFPA 1033 Standard.
2. “Do you feel that they have the same level of knowledge and expertise as someone who actually practices in the field?”
ANSWER: Yes
Those attorneys who have achieved CFEI status have equal or superior knowledge and expertise than many certified investigators, CFEI or IAAI-CFI. But it is not expertise, but knowledge, education, and experience that are measured in either the CFEI or IAAI-CFI programs. Practical history has demonstrated that holding either certification is no guarantee of expertise. I know of at least one Attorney CFEI, who has actualy given expert tesimony in court.
3. “Do you feel that an attorney without scene experience demonstrates the KSA’s [sic] outlined in 1033?”
ANSWER: Yes.
The JPL’s (Job Performance Requirements) in NFPA 1033 address “Requisite Knowledge” and “Requisite Skills” at certain minimum levels.” [3.3.6 Requisite Knowledge. Fundamental knowledge one must have in order to perform a specific task. 3.3.7 Requisite Skills. The essential skills one must have in order to perform a specific task.] Nowhere in the document does 1033 address any experience requirements, either years in the profession, number of fires, number of scenes, number of investigations, or number of testimonies.
However, an attorney without experience in fire investigation will never be NAFI certified.
4. “Do you see a downside to allowing them to challenge your test but giving them a separate distinct credential such as Dan recommended so as to differentiate them from an actual practitioner?”
ANSWER: I personally see no downside to that idea, other than logistics and economy.
I’m not so sure that a new class of certification is necessary or practical for about a dozen individuals who otherwise fulfill all the CFEI requirements. I suspect that Dan Hebert, might be adverse to another set of letter designations after someone’s name. Remember that Dan is an individual who has signed at least one post on this forum as, “Dan Hebert, EIEIO”
5. “Additionally, while the Guidebook I reviewed may not be all encompassing, I did not see a requirement for 50 fire scenes as you indicated previously, in fact I do not see any set requirements for any category. Your guidelines do generally state that applicants must demonstrate they meet the requirements in certain areas but it does not state what the minimum threshold is.”
“Is that arbitrarily decided when the application is reviewed by the Board of Governors [sic]?”
ANSWER: Sometimes, but infrequently.
It is part of the National Certification Board’s job to approve every application on the applicant’s own qualifications. This is also in full compliance with the NFPA 1033 standard which states: “1.3.4 The job performance requirements for fire investigator shall be completed in accordance with established practices and procedures or as they are defined by law or by the authority having jurisdiction.”
Originally 50 fire scenes as the lead investigator was the rule. This number was changed by the Board several years ago from an absolute mandatory minimum to a guideline, to give the Board more latitude in certifying those who had adequate experience in the field commensurate with the knowledge level required by 1033. This includes fire investigators and attorneys.
By the way, what does KSA stand for? “Kan’t Stand Attorneys?”Pat Kennedy, CFEI, CFPS, MIFireE
Fire and Explosion Analyst
Sarasota, Florida
[www.kennedy-fire.com]
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.