OK Jim:

Now you have done it. Someone may have a later post addressing the absolutely misleading statements in the above post, but I have to respond now.

One does not need to be a member of the Technical Committee to have input into NFPA 921 (as you well know.)

One does not need to be a member of the NFPA to have input into NFPA 921 (as you well know.)

Attending the annual meeting is almost meaningless. By the time a new edition of NFPA 921 comes up for a vote at the annual meeting, the issues have all been resolved.

Your characterization of the consensus process as being dominated by those "able to afford" to participate is false, misleading, and insulting to those of us who use our own real money to VOLUNTEER to make the profession more professional. The NFPA process exceeds all ANSI,ISO and US government requirements for a proper voluntary consensus standards development process.

ANYONE can participate, even if they work for organizations that do not support their attendance at committee meetings.

So that everyone knows, the Technical Committee spent much time (hundreds of man-hours) on several propoasals submitted by my friend James Mazerat, who was NOT required to attend any meetings to have his thoughtful suggestions considered.

To the extent that anyone in the fire investigation community does not feel empowered to influence the standards that govern their profession, shame on them for not participating. I think that the reason many do not participate is that they feel they would be somehow "legitimizing" the process. The IAAI amicus brief is dead. Standardization is here and it its here to stay. As has been said in this forum previously, "Lead, follow, or get out of the way."

John Lentini, CFI, D-ABC
Fire Investigation Consultant
Florida Keys
[www.firescientist.com]