First, this thread has been good – a lot of shared information and great learning opportunities. I also admire the fact that the intent is clearly to further the application of NFPA 921 and NFPA 1003 as the relevant documents in our profession.

I think there is a desire to identify how to merge the work product of the regulatory fields (PI licensing agencies), the justice system (trial and appellate courts), and the standard makers (NFPA, ASTM, IAAI, and NAFI) so that the end result produces a regulatory-compliant individual who has been trained and educated to a desired level of knowledge and can communicate an opinion that will help the decision-makers (judge, jury, mediator, or arbitrator) reach the correct conclusion.

There are 50 states plus the District of Columbia and I think 38 have licensing requirements. A lot of the states have boilerplate language in their statutes, but interpretation and application varies from state to state. Each state has appellate courts and at last count, there were 100 federal judicial districts, plus the federal appellate courts and US Supreme Court. Some states are not Daubert states and those that are Daubert states have developed their own interpretation of the original opinion. I say all of this to simply state that we will never get all regulatory agencies to act alike and we all know that both trial and appellate judges think rather independently. We can only document what they do and say, remember it, and make the best use of it in the future. For those of us who work in multiple jurisdictions, it can be a challenge.

We also probably need to remember that whatever the regulatory agencies, NFPA 921, or NFPA 1033 say, it is the courts that will determine who can and can not testify. Each state, plus the federal system, has their own Rules of Evidence regarding who can testify and in what manner they can testify. I support the efforts to include the appropriate language in NFPA 1033 on who is qualified and who can testify, but I doubt that the trial judge will ignore the controlling Rules of Evidence and adopt language from NFPA 921 or NFPA 1033. Many courts recognize the documents as authoritative and acceptable, but will they replace statutory language and case law?

Some will call it an unachievable objective and I acknowledge that it is a tall order. However, I do not know that there has been legitimate and sustained effort throughout the profession, so don’t say we can’t do it until we try it.

How do we get there? I have detailed some thoughts below, in no particular order.

1. Every Fire Investigator who is licensed as a Private Investigator should make an effort to convince the licensing agency in his home state to incorporate competent fire investigation training as a part of their continuing education requirements. I do not anticipate any states changing their statutory definition to exclude fire investigation as an activity that requires being licensed, so we should spend our time in a manner that could produce some positive results. Whether we like it or not, the licensing of Private Investigators is a constitutionally-protected function of the states’ “police powers” and is here to stay. In my part of the country, Tennessee is the only state that I know of that will allow a licensed Fire Investigator to achieve all continuing education credits in fire investigation- related training. North Carolina is developing continuing education requirements and the licensing agency is aware of my belief that competent fire investigation training should be included. South Carolina and Virginia both require that the licensed investigator secure a portion of the required credits through state-presented training. They do so and will probably continue to do so to update the licensees on changes in the law. Contact the licensing agency in your state and let them know that there is a portion of their licensees who cause very few of the regulatory issues, but want to further the profession – you might be surprised at the response. You may find that they will approve a local seminar for continuing education credits with minimal paperwork.

2. Continue to fine-tune and update NFPA 1033 and NFPA 921 in each document’s cycles. The original intent of the NFPA for each document was valid and remains so. Specific sections of each document have been, are, and will always be controversial, but remember that we value our freedom of speech and we should acknowledge the right of others to disagree with your opinion, particularly during out-of-court exchanges.

3. Training and education materials should be designed to further the education of the attendees and at the same time, can also meet the requirements of the regulatory agency and courts. When your local professional association plans its next seminar, take a step back to see what you can add. Consider adding a section on ethics – it might make the regulatory agency more inclined to approve the entire seminar for continuing education. Invite someone from the regulatory agency to attend the seminar. Bring in a local criminal defense attorney or plaintiff’s attorney to talk to the attendees about all that happens in a courtroom (or during a deposition) and how Fire Investigators have made his job easier or harder. I was on the ICAC Seminar Planning Committee when the “Point / Counterpoint” series began and that part of the seminar has always been educational – thanks mainly to Stuart Sklar.

4. If you come across an appellate court decision that applies to fire investigation or expert testimony (which could involve something other than a fire), share it with the group. I have no idea how many fire investigators and engineers look at fire scenes daily, write reports, and later testify, but I suspect alot read anything that they can get their hands on to learn how to investigate more thoroughly, write a better report, and testify in an admissible and helpful manner. How many research assistants does that translate to if we all contribute what we read?

5. Support the main professional associations – NFPA, IAAI, and NAFI. There are others, but I think these three are the more “mainstream” of the group. We are all individuals, so we have our likes and dislikes, but these are the organizations to which we can belong and to which we can contribute. If you see something you do not like, work within the framework of that organization to make a change. All three organizations are inclusive and promote member participation.

6. If you see something in NFPA 921 or NFPA 1033 (or any NFPA document) that you do not understand or like, ask about it. Please do not just gripe on this message board and otherwise stay silent. I am still amazed at the number in our profession who do not realize that they can submit a proposal or comment on an NFPA document. You do not have to be a member of the NFPA or the specific committee to contribute to the text. I would add that any discussion about whether NFPA 921 should be a guideline, standard, code, or recommended practice needs to be addressed to the Standards Council, not the NFPA 921 Committee. At best, the Standards Council might ask the NFPA 921 Committee Chairman of their opinion on the matter, but I think that would be the extent of the committee’s involvement. The NFPA is also very particular about the format and style of all NFPA documents, so the format and style is not controlled by the individual committee, but by the NFPA. The NFPA staff could care less what a particular section says, but they will tell the committee how to say what it wants to say.

I am sure others will be able to make some valid additions to this list, but is a beginning.