Report of the Organizational Meeting of the

International

Fire Service Accreditation Congress

 

Introduction

The years 1989, 1990 and 1991 were watershed years for the issue of accreditation and certification within the fire service. A system that had been in place for nearly two decades was shaken to its foundations. Training and
education officials debated openly the future of fire service accreditation and certification, and new pathways were chosen.

The National Professional Qualifications Board had been formed in 1971 by the Joint Council of National Fire Service Organizations as a system for recognizing fire service training and education programs that met certain professional standards. During the following years, the ProBoard, as it came to be called, operated under the direction of the
Joint Council, developing and expanding its programs and services.

In August of 1989, however, the Joint Council voted to disband, leaving the future of the ProBoard in doubt. A committee composed of representatives of the former Joint Council organizations was established to review the operations of the ProBoard and make recommendations on its future direction. Meanwhile, the ProBoard was
instructed to continue to offer certificates but to cease accreditation activities.

This turn of events created serious concerns among fire service training, certification, and accreditation
professionals. In July of 1990, after months of nonproductive dialogue between training and education officials and officials of the ProBoard system, leaders of the National Association of State Directors of Fire Training and
Education determined that they must move forward on their own. They decided to review and discuss needs and to investigate means for meeting those needs without further delay. They scheduled a meeting the following month to focus on fire service certification and accreditation issues.

During that meeting, a new accreditation system was proposed by Oklahoma State University. The group assembled
at the St. Louis meeting had been frustrated by an apparent disinterest in the views of system users by the
existing system's review committee. Meeting participants were pleased with elements of the proposed system
presented by Oklahoma State University, which they perceived as answering user needs. Having been encouraged
by the response of meeting participants at St. Louis to the proposal, OSU officials began to formalize the new
system.

February 22 through 24, 1991, the first organizational meeting of the new Fire Service Accreditation Congress was conducted in Kansas City, Missouri. Fifty individuals, representing 26 agencies and organizations interested in
joining the new accreditation system, spent two days analyzing and discussing in detail their expectations and
needs from the new accreditation system. Topics ranged from broad philosophies to administrative details. Election
of the Congress' first Board of Governors was completed. The organization's life was underway.

This report reviews events of that meeting. It offers detailed summaries of discussions, collected via handwritten
notes and audiotape recordings. It reflects the wide-ranging nature of debates on issues confronted by attendees
and the results of those debates. A directed effort has been made to reflect as closely as possible the actual statements made by participants during the discussions, enabling participants to speak for themselves without the necessary distortion introduced when an outsider's interpretation is imposed upon personal statements.

Fire Service Accreditation Congress

The concept of a new Fire Service Accreditation Congress to be centered at Oklahoma State University had been introduced in August 1990 at a meeting on accreditation and certification issues conducted in St. Louis by the
National Association of State Directors of Fire Training and Education. Such a system would present an alternative
for those organizations or agencies seeking accreditation within the void created by the dissolution of the Joint
Council of National Fire Service Organizations. It also would incorporate ideas voiced by fire service training and education leaders about their preferences concerning accreditation and certification.

The system would consist of three elements:

- An Accreditation Congress, composed of one representative of each state or entity participating in the program:
this group would make all policy decisions guiding the system:

- A Board of Governors, similar to the former Joint Council system's ProBoard, proposed to be seven members,
most of them elected from among and by the Accreditation Congress (although the system's administrators would
retain some appointments at its own discretion, perhaps three); each member of the Board of Governors would }
serve a three-year term following a start -up rotation in the initial years of the program: and

- An Administrative Section, to conduct the day-to-day, routine business of the program and keep appropriate
records.

The key element of the proposed system would be that virtually all rules and requirements of membership,
participation, and operation would be set by the members themselves via the Congress. This means that system
users, through their own participation, could make the system meet their own needs.

The Oklahoma State University fire program is a part of the University's College of Engineering, Architecture and Technology. Within the fire program's umbrella are a Fire Protection and Safety Technology offering a four-year
degree accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology: Fire Protection Publications which encompasses the training materials validation process of the International Fire Service Training Association: and
the state Fire Service Training program. The international accreditation program would form a new fourth element.
The new accreditation system would in no way be tied to the use of IFSTA training manuals. In other words,
agencies not now using IFSTA manuals would not have to begin using them in order to participate in the system.

Under the new accreditation system, entities already enrolled in the ProBoard system could enter the new system
simply by sending a letter on official letterhead to the new Congress' administration stating the agency's desire to
enter the new system. These agencies would be brought into the Congress for immediate operation. They would
initially be grand fathered in, but ultimately would be visited by Congress representatives to verify the program's accreditation status. Such a visit would likely be conducted within 12 to 18 months of entry into the new system.
All accredited organizations within the Congress would be revisited at intervals to be determined by the Congress
in order to ensure that agencies maintain accreditable status.

States with applications on file with the ProBoard but not yet approved by that system would submit the same information to the new Accreditation Congress' administration for consideration. Once the new system was fully operational, with a sitting Congress, a different application process might be devised but, initially, this process
would be used. A site visit by representatives of the Accreditation Congress would be part of the review process
before approval of the application.

States not now involved in the current system could submit a letter to activate the process. A thorough review
would include the structure and operation of the applicant system: instructor training and selection procedures:
whether, what kind, and how testing is done: and evaluation and record keeping processes. Materials would be submitted by the applicant agency and reviewed by Congress representatives, and a site visit would be conducted.

Site visits and reviews would be conducted by peer users, and an appeal process would be included. Teams for application review and visits would be chosen from among the Congress, the Board of Governors (one site visitor
would be from this group) and the Administrative Section (the administration representative on these teams would
be a nonvoting presence). The ultimate recommendation of the visit team for or against accreditation would be by simple majority vote. The Board of Governors would approve applications based on the recommendations of the site
visit team.

The Congress would probably meet annually, although the frequency would be determined by the Congress itself.
The Board of Governors would meet more often and would respond to and recommend actions of the Congress. The administration would be Involved on a dally, continuing basis, managing the business affairs of the system,
providing administrative support, processing and reviewing applications, assembling site visitation teams, issuing certificates, and maintaining a registry.

The Accreditation Congress would make policy recommendations for direction of the system. It also would form the
final step of the appeal procedure for accreditation Issues. The Congress itself would select members to sit on the
Board of Governors and to participate on each site visitation team. The Congress would serve as a resource and
provide technical assistance for accreditation. Each participating organization could send as many delegates as it
might wish to each meeting of the Congress, but each accredited agency would have a single designated vote in Congress business.

An appeal process would be available if needed. An applicant would be notified by the Administrative Section,
within two weeks of completion of the review process, of any specific deficiencies found. Any appeal might be
resolved with the site team; the Board of Governors would review unresolved appeals: and the full Congress would
be the final arbiter. Referrals back to the administrative office for action could be made at any time during the
appeals process.

As proposed, the system's fees would be arrayed according to three options, subject to consideration by the fun Congress. At the base would be an annual charge of $500-$1000 per participating agency, due and payable at the
end of each year of service.

EDITORIAL NOTE: THE ADMINISTRATION AT OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY
HAS NOW ELIMINATED THE REQUIREMENT OF AN ANNUAL FEE.

Beyond the base fee would be three options from which each participating agency could choose:

1) A fee of $15 per registrant, paid by the individual, including registration fee, certificate and handling, routed
through the participating agency so they could validate the individual's status. Of each registrant's fee, $2 would be applied to the participating agency's annual fee.

2) A $2 registration fee for each individual plus the right of the accrediting entity to use the Fire Service
Accreditation Congress seal or name on its own certificates. The Congress itself would not issue a separate
certificate in this case.

3) Bulk purchase of Fire Service Accreditation Congress certificates at $1O each to be issued by the participating
entity. The $10 purchase price would include the fee for the individual's registration in the system.

In all cases, the $2 fee per individual registrant would be applied to the amount to be paid by the entity at the end
of the year. In other words, a participating entity could theoretically generate so many registrants that, at the end
of the year, the Congress Administration would owe the entity a credit.

EDITORIAL NOTE: FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE CONGRESS ANDAPPROVED BY OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY SET THE FEE STRUCTURE AT $5, $10, AND $15, WITH THE $2.00 FEE BEING CHANGED TO $5.00.

Oklahoma State University would not expect fees to cover program costs for several years after the system was up
and running and would use its own funds, generated via the sale of IFSTA manuals over the years, to support the program at first. The management does not and would not seek or accept federal, tobacco, or other outside funding
to support this or any of its programs.

The system's benefits were summarized:

AvaiIability: the system would be ready to implement immediately.

Flexibility: a built-in ability to meet local needs without compromising the system.

User friendly: a system based on a desire to serve the national fire service, with no hidden agendas.

Reliable: institutionalized at Oklahoma State University, which would be making a long-term commitment to the
system.

Peer Driven: each accredited agency would have a voice in operation of the system.

Credible: backed by the national reputation of OSU programs, and supported by the combined credibility of member agencies.

Based on NFPA professional qualifications standards.

The administration asked to hear by January 1, 1991, from states or agencies interested in becoming involved so
that the process could get underway and an initial meeting of the Congress planned. Participants were advised that,
if they should decide later against participation, they would not be charged for services because services would be
billed at the end of each year. Further, the system would benefit even from those who ultimately opt out of the new system, helping it to remain dynamic and serve user needs.

Shortly after the St. Louis meeting, a special insert was mailed to the entire readership of the IFSTA newsletter, Speaking of Fire, announcing and describing the Fire Service Accreditation Congress. Some 30 agencies or
organizations contacted the Congress, advising it of their interest in joining the new system. And the meeting
described in this report was scheduled.

Scope & Direction of the Meeting

The published agenda provided to participants at the start of the meeting called for discussions to focus on a draft
of proposed standard operating procedures for the new Fire Service Accreditation Congress. It had been distributed
to attendees in advance of the meeting. Also to be discussed were certain administrative details for getting the new system up and running as an effective organization.

It became clear early in the meeting that participants had other, more fundamental questions that they felt needed
to be addressed fully before the group could delve into details of how the Congress would function administratively. Further, the group ultimately agreed that its discussions and deliberations would be most productive if focused on philosophies and general policy direction, with the governing board and administrative staff serving to translate
these philosophies and general policy direction into particulars. An overview of the discussions relating to this
matter follows.

One participant initiated the debate as the meeting was first being asked to address details of the standard
operating procedures. 'Will we talk about policy issues here, about certification itself?" he asked. Other participants quickly expressed a similar concern that broad issues required settlement before the group could enter into debate
on Congressional procedures. Consensus appeared to support one participant's concern that focusing on the details
of the draft standard operating procedures might preclude their settling some very basic and very important policy issues.

An administration official, leading the discussion on behalf of the Congress, offered his concern that the large group might become bogged down in such discussions and end the weekend without the concrete accomplishments
needed to enable the system to begin its functional life. He suggested that some of these discussions might be conducted in the special interest group meetings scheduled for the afternoon and then brought back to the whole
body.

A participant acknowledged that, of course, there was a limit to what the group would reasonably be able to
accomplish during the weekend's sessions. "We can't settle everything," he noted, "but we need to address some
global issues among ourselves early on. For example, we might decide whether there will be specific standards set
for site visit groups by which to judge programs, but not necessarily define what those standards will be." As the
debate developed between addressing major policy issues versus delving into details of the SOP, the group's
general agreement became increasingly evident: that global issues needed to be addressed by the body while the operating procedures were the responsibility of the administration staff within the broad guidelines set by the
Congress. The participants clearly preferred to discuss and debate general direction rather than details. One group member summarized the underlying issue:

"Significant issues discussed about accreditation in the past," he noted, "especially during the past year, at the St. Louts and Tampa meetings, dealt with governance, representation, and the scope of the system. There are
substantial policy issues that need to be discussed and clarified before we launch into procedure. We need to
decide whether we're playing baseball, basketball, or football here, and I'd like to know which it is before we begin
the game. ..or even decide whether or not we want to play in this game. We need to start out with some very basic questions such as, for example, what are we accrediting? Is it just the states or provinces certifying agency or the overall state or provincial training system? These questions seem much more important than getting into the
specific language in the operations guidelines."

A representative of the administration urged participants to remain mindful that the group needn't feel that what
was decided this weekend could never be changed. "To be effective and to satisfy the needs of its members, the organization must be dynamic, and if we decide something here this weekend that we find, after living with it
awhile, might be better changed, then we shouldn't be afraid to do that, and we shouldn't forget as we're
deliberating this weekend that that is the case," he said.

One participant observed that most organizations have both a set of bylaws and an SOP, one being policy-related
and the other administrative. "Will we have one document or two?" he inquired. It was also noted that bylaws are usually voted upon by the body while SOPs change to meet administrative needs. The group agreed that the two documents should be separate and that rules were needed as to how each could be changed. The group also agreed
that the bylaws would establish how the Congress would conduct business and that the body must vote to make
any changes in them, while the SOP would be for the administration of the accreditation process. The Board of
Governors should refine this general guidance, they agreed, after which administration should prepare documents
as needed.

The importance of this element of the weekend's discussions rests with the strong need of the group to be self -governing. As noted in the discussion, the question of "who controls the system?" had long been a source of
contention concerning the original national accreditation system, and this group clearly wanted its new
accreditation system to be peer-driven. Decisions-particularly of basic philosophy-were to be considered by the
body and guidance for operations to arise from the will of the group, not from a small directing group.

Principles, Philosophies, & Policies

Relationship between the two major accreditation systems:

One participant who had been present at the Tampa meeting of the reconstituted ProBoard organization brought a question to the Kansas City meeting: He, at Tampa, had asked that an official representative of the other body be
in contact with this Congress in order to explore possible means to amalgamate or combine the groups into one so
that the fire service might avoid having two separate and competing accreditation bodies. "Had that group been in contact with this one?" he asked. The answer from the executive staff was, no.

The participant who had introduced the question expressed confusion that the International Society of Fire Service Instructors, which is deeply involved in the other system (that organization's chief executive officer chairs the other accreditation group's board) was present in Kansas City asking to be seated with this group. The ISFSI
representative explained that her organization believes "there is room for more than one accrediting body, and our organization supports both; that's why we're here."

In concluding the brief discussion, a Congressional executive pointed out the underlying intent of beginning the new system: "We're offering an alternative system for fire service accreditation, not criticizing the old system or its new version. What's best for the fire service of your state or province is up to you, but this group should not serve as a debating ground as to which is a 'better' system in any judgmental sense."

The group appeared to agree, and no further discussion of this issue took place.

Admitting entities to the Congress whose enrollment letters missed the January, 1991 notification deadline:

Because this was the initial meeting of a new body, some questions required discussion which would never arise
again. For example, the initial literature introducing the Congress had asked that organizations wishing to be
involved in development of the system advise the administration before January 1, 1991, of their interest. Those organizations that did notify the Congress of their interest were considered charter members and were thus seated
as members of the Congress for this organizational meeting.

However, several states and two other organizations had notified the administrative offices of their interest after
the January 1 deadline, and the body was asked how to respond. Should these organizations be admitted as
members?

It quickly became clear that there were different issues that separated this question into two segments: The
matter of state or provincial organizations seeking membership seemed a simple one to participants, and they saw
no problem with admitting them; the matter of other kinds of organizations, on the other hand, became a distinct
issue and was discussed at length. Because the questions were viewed as distinct by the group, they are reported
separately in this report.

Several participants emphasized during the widely ranging discussion that the question before the Congress was whether or not to allow these late responders to participate as full voting members of the Congress during this formative meeting. The question of whether or not to accredit the groups' programs would come much later after analysis of the programs themselves, just as every other entity's programs would be assessed.

Once the decision had been made to consider state organizations and other entitles separately, the group appeared
to have no problem with admitting states that had missed the early deadline. The states of Maryland, South
Carolina, and Washington were thus admitted to the Congress by vote of the group.

On what standards will we base our system?

Some discussion surrounded the question of what standards would serve as the basis for the new Accreditation Congress. The participant who introduced the issue based his question on certain shortcomings of the current set
of national performance standards. "Since the existing fire service standards-the only ones there are-aren't really measurable or definitive standards, would this group address the degree to which someone meets a requirement?"
he asked. "And," he continued, "what happens if something better than the existing standards comes along?"

As an example of the perceived shortcomings of the existing standards system, the participant offered the
following: "A class in raising ladders could be 2 hours in duration, but students would finish with less proficiency
than a person in an 8- or l0-hour ladder-raising class. In our state," he went on, "we have received a proposal for
a 44-hour volunteer recruit class that meets most of the Firefighter I standard, and we also have an 8-week recruit school at our state training center; they both teach the same subjects but the proficiency levels are entirely
different." This participant was anxious to learn whether the Congress would at some time address this issue.

The group agreed that members of this group-and others sharing this concern-should send a clear message to the National Fire Protection Association that its standards should be made measurable. A participant who is also deeply involved in the NFPA standards-setting activities said, "In fact, that is something that a new NFPA correlating
committee is currently reviewing, including working on a manual for how to write a standard as a measurable
standard. This work will still leave open the issue of whether they're enabling or terminal objectives, but there may never be consensus on that issue. At least, through this process, the language and measurability of the standards
will improve," he concluded.

One participant suggested that there also is a pertinent difference between asking, "Which standards do you
meet?" versus "how well do you meet the standard?" just as there is a difference between job performance
requirements and educational objectives.

Another participant suggested that over regulating degrees of qualification could result in driving those who were exceeding the standard down to merely meeting the standard. "We need to leave room for innovation. That may
mean being flexible in our requirements: the down side of that is that some people who don't quite measure up
may slip by as well." Another added, "We don't want to be so rigid in setting our criteria that we end up with all of
the state and provincial training programs across the United States and Canada doing exactly the same things."

The ultimate consensus was that the group supports the use of the best standards available while acknowledging
that, unfortunately, the ones currently available for use are imperfect.

What are we accrediting? Who are our customers?

One participant broached a question that he would like the group to resolve: "In many states and provinces," he observed, "the certification and training segments are separate: are we going to address one of those elements,
both separately or a combination of the two in our accreditation system?" Immediate discussion showed that some attendees viewed this matter one way while others viewed it otherwise. "Perhaps," suggested one participant, "we should share our perceptions and expectations on this and clarify what we all, collectively, want out of this
program."

One group member noted that, throughout the documentation that had to date been circulated about the new Accreditation Congress, different terminology had been used and he was unsure of what distinctions-if any-the
different terms might suggest. "For example," he asked, "what do we mean by a 'certifying entity' or 'certifying
agency?"' After some discussion of "understood" or "traditional" definitions and assumptions, the group agreed to a definition for the purposes of the current discussion: that "agency" would refer to a government body, while
"entity" would be more all-encompassing.

When an attendee suggested that the Congress be available only for government agencies, another pointed out
that not all certifying bodies, even within state or provincial fire service systems, are government agencies: some
are statewide associations or other groups. One attendee suggested that the group's intention be to serve entities
rather than agencies. Since this concerned some participants who did not want to open the Congress to private organizations, significant debate took place on the point. It was acknowledged that referring to potential Congress participants as "entities" rather than "agencies" would open the door to private groups such as national
organizations, but using the term "agency" to exclude such groups, would have the further effect of excluding
certain state groups, such as the certifying organizations in Maryland and some other states, which are legitimate
state organizations but not state government agencies.

In response to a judgment that the discussion appeared to be a semantic rather than a substantive one, a
participant disagreed. "The question is a lot more than a semantic one," he stated, observing that "the very
philosophy of the group is tied up in the decision of what kinds of organizations the Congress will get involved in accrediting." This appeared to reflect the feeling of the group as a whole, so the discussion continued.

"Perhaps we should be accrediting overall systems-whatever they might include in each state or province-for training
and certifying fire service personnel in the jurisdiction," one participant said. "After all," he noted, "are we
interested in only the system for testing and record keeping, or in who does the training and how they do it as
well? The old ProBoard system looked at only the testing, evaluation and oversight system, whether it was fair and adequate and verifiable; not at the training side at all. How do we feel about that? This is a new system, and the decision is ours as to how it approaches the two sides of training."

As a point of information, one participant asked whether, in jurisdictions where the two elements are separate, the certifying agency has any control over the training element. And, does it matter to the Congress what the
relationships are? Another individual suggested that the question is tied to the question of reciprocity: "If I'm going
to accept your certification, then I need to know that your certification looks at training."

"Perhaps we simply cannot separate them," an attendee suggested, adding his view that "the combination of the
two (if, in fact, they are organizationally separate in a given state or province) is the key to whether a training
system works." This was agreed to generally, with the final consensus on the matter being that the Congress would address in its accreditation the overall system, whatever might be included in that system within each jurisdiction.

The underlying message of the meeting, which arose repeatedly, was introduced here: the need for the system to
be flexible so that it can meet everyone's needs. Flexibility is critical, was the message. It was deemed necessary
to view each system individually, and consider how it functions overall, whether it accomplishes its objectives in
terms of producing fire service personnel who meet the standards.

During a small-group discussion later, it became increasingly evident that the Congress was wise to opt for a
flexible system, one that would accept and support the many differences in ways states and provinces address
their individual training and certification needs. Some examples of these discussions follow.

One state representative broached an in-state issue and asked the group for its thoughts on whether or not it
might pose any problem in the state's efforts to gain accreditation. "In our state," he explained, "we do not have a
state agency or state government linkage, and we probably never will because that's how everyone wants it. Yet
we're certainly a statewide system. Unfortunately, one of the state associations has pulled out of this program in
favor of the apprenticeship program supported by the national firefighters' union {which has no testing)." The group agreed that this was not a new problem and shouldn't be a roadblock to becoming accredited under this system.

Another participant had a question about how his state would fit into the new system. "In our state," he said, "the
state fire commission oversees certification for the paid fire service while a state association certifies volunteers.
At some point, people in the state may want to combine these two systems under an umbrella of some kind. Will
this pose a problem if the nature of the system changes later, after one element achieves certification?" The
group's consensus was that these issues would have to be addressed as they arose, and that the actual effect of
the change on the training and certification system would have to be considered.

Another participant explained that his state certification operates as a joint venture between state government and
a state instructors association. He noted, "We have a lot to work on but I think this system will work well for us."
The group agreed.

"In our state," another reported, "we've been working slowly toward this point for several years. We have a fire
academy and we've been issuing certificates. This means that, while we don't have a formal certification program,
we are in fact certifying, and we are just one small piece of legislation away from tying all the individual pieces
together to move forward officially with accreditation. It won't be a mandatory system," he continued, "but it will
be there for those who want it. Those who don't-and I know of some who won't want anything to do with it-can
remain outside." He solicited the group's views on the acceptability of a voluntary system. The group concurred
that it is not necessary for a program to be mandatory to be effective or useful.

One participant had a different kind of question. "In our state," he said, "our Firefighter I level does not correspond exactly with NFPA's Firefighter I level; although, someone who completes our levels I, II, and III will arrive at the
same point as NFPA's Firefighter III. Would that be a problem?" he asked. The group agreed that it would not, that "there's nothing sacred about the precise splits between levels I, II, and III in the NFPA standards."

Nonstandard entities: Chattanooga State University and the International Society of Fire Service Instructors

These entities missed the January 1, 1991, deadline for notifying the Congress of their desire to participate, so the issue of whether or not to accept them for participation in the Congress' organizational meeting came before the
group. This was a widely ranging discussion, principally because these are not statewide training and certification systems. It is noteworthy that those states that missed the deadline were accepted with little debate, while this
matter sparked considerable discussion.

One of the two controversial applicants for Congressional membership was the Fire Science Program at the
Technical Community College, Chattanooga (Tennessee) State University. "We want to be able to offer students,
in addition to the fire science degree, certain levels of national fire service professional certification," the school's
representative explained. A representative of the Congress' administration said that the Congress wanted to work
with the school to help it achieve its desire, but observed that accrediting programs within higher education
systems is very different from what the Congress was set up to do, and the relationship would require some
individual analysis and planning. The representative from Chattanooga State agreed to meet and talk with
Congressional administration during the breakout session for new agencies on the following day. "This is an angle
we hadn't considered," an official of the Congress observed, "but there's no reason we can't work with you."

In the end, the Congress' advice for Chattanooga was to work under the auspices of the state's educational Board
of Regents, who represent all educational institutions in the state, so that Chattanooga State's Fire Science
Program can share the statewide status the Board of Regents represents. Working through the president at
Chattanooga State could result in gaining support as the Fire Science Program tries to figure out, administratively
and logistically, who to work with to get this done without having to go individually to the head of each institution. Involvement of the college president also would lend the Fire Science Program representative additional credibility
for communicating with the next higher level and in demonstrating the program's goal to offer, where there is
interest, the opportunity to certify using the fire service standards.

The Chattanooga State representative was also urged to contact the Tennessee firefighters' and fire chiefs'
associations, the state fire marshal, state fire service training program, and anyone else involved to try to get
them on board…at least to let them know what he plans to do and ask if they're interested in being involved.
Notifying these groups of his Intentions will demonstrate good will, the group agreed.

By laying this groundwork, the group believed, the program at Chattanooga State could ensure the Congress that
it is not operating as a "loose cannon" within the state. One individual said, "This will help us to know that a year
from now we're not going to hear from one of those key groups saying they're left out of that system and need a different one."

The International Society of Fire Service Instructors' request for Congressional membership posed more thorny
questions for participants. "Our interest is to be able to get some of our training programs-principally our industrial program- accredited so that we can issue nationally recognized, third-party certification," the organization's representative explained. The group has an accreditation system currently in place, accrediting industry to certify
fire brigade members at incipient, interior structural, instructor, and petroleum chemical levels; 14 certifying entities
are currently accredited under the system. "We'd like to have our program reviewed and approved so that it will
have the additional credibility that this Congress will offer," she explained.

Several participants expressed reservations about including a national organization and foresaw possible problems
of having two groups certifying in a single state in conflict with one another or even in conflict with legislative requirements in the state. Attendees also voiced concern over what standards ISFSI programs measure against, to
which ISFSI's representative replied that the organization had prepared its own standards for the industrial program based on various existing standards, including NFPA 600 and OSHA 1910.120, -.127, -.156, and -.157.

One attendee reported that he felt unsure about how his colleagues within his state would want him to vote on
this matter. He had not been aware before the meeting of ISFSI's desire to join the Congress and he felt that the involvement of a national organization would introduce different issues and questions than the involvement of one
state organization or another.

Another participant expressed concern about the association's intentions and future plans as well as about the
impact of its programs on state or provincial training systems. He suggested that it might not be the proper role of
the Congress to address whether or not such an organization's programs can be accredited. "I hear them saying
that their goal is to work compatibly with states," he pointed out, "and I see It being a state-by-state decision
whether to accept and incorporate ISFSI programs or not." The ISFSI representative stressed, "We have no desire
to undermine state programs; in fact, we always talk with state training people before coming into a state and
have no plans to change that approach. We are not interested in going into states and certifying their fire service people."

An attendee noted that, if that was the concern, then attendees should remember the question currently being considered was not whether or not ISFSI's programs should be accredited, but only whether or not ISFSI should be seated to participate in the Congress. Another attendee pointed out that, as he understood it, if there were only
one approved certifying agency within each state or province as the group currently intended, then the problem of
ISFSI's certifying people in an area that already has a certifying body would be moot: They wouldn't be able to.

"The only reason this question arises," another attendee noted, "is because ISFSI did not get their letter of intent
in before the deadline of January I. If they had, they would have been seated without question and without
debate," he went on. "So, the only real issue is that they missed the deadline, no different from the states that
missed it." This individual then reiterated the question of allowing ISFSI to sit at the table and participate would
not in any way imply the Congress was or would be accrediting the association's training programs.

One attendee voiced a concern over the possible appearance of hypocrisy in these discussions. "During the St.
Louis meeting in August," she noted, "one of the complaints voiced about the old ProBoard system had been that
it had excluded some organizations or agencies unfairly. Participants in this Kansas City meeting might want to
keep that in mind during this discussion. To those not present at this meeting, the appearance will be that we
have excluded a group from our system."

Another participant noted that, "In those jurisdictions having industrial fire training programs, conflicts could
possibly develop, but that a lot of areas don't have such programs. Because of those differences the question really must be left to a state-by-state basis to decide. NFPA may pose the same question with their inspector training
and testing program, and ISFSI may get into hazardous materials certification as well at some point, so this
question really needs to be addressed and resolved," he concluded.

"What we're really talking about is avoiding overlapping jurisdiction," an attendee injected. "ISFSI can come into
my state and run programs-and some of their programs do fill needs in our state-but I have to be the certifying authority, so that they would have to work with and through me," he said.

"In many states, we consciously use the programs of outside entities-national associations, the National Fire
Academy-as part of our training systems," said another, "and it might be useful for us to know that those programs
have met a formal accreditation standard so that we can effectively integrate the programs into our systems. But whether any state accepts some outside accreditation or not must remain entirely the state's prerogative. "

Another suggested, "The way I see it, we're dancing around the issue of reciprocity. To me, just because ISFSI
certifies someone from one of my metro cities as an XYZ doesn't mean he's state certified as an XYZ. Whether or
not I will accept the ISFSI certification in relation to my state standards is up to me."

A participant added another perspective: "Allowing private entitles, such as ISFSI, into the system speaks for those multitudes of firefighters not represented here by any state body, enabling them to access certification in states
where the state is not meeting that need. It's a way to serve those firefighters, and that's what this should be
about-serving the needs of the fire service--not about glorifying ourselves.

"This also brings up another question of jurisdiction," someone added. "Those of us in states that already offer certification often have firefighters coming in from surrounding states who want to be certified because their states
don't offer it. Perhaps we should discuss that as a police issue, too: If a state or province is accredited as a
certifying authority, does that apply only within that jurisdiction? What about people coming in from other states?"

"There are ways to use flexibility and options to deal with our concerns without saying we won't accept national organizations at all," a member of the group suggested. "The draft SOPs already address this by saying that, if no authority exists within a state or province, then some other body can come forward and serve the need. But if the
state agency gets organized and decides to apply for accreditation, then the state body would be the organization
that takes precedence."

Another added, "Let's remember that, where there is no certification offered within a particular state, there's really
no one to blame but the fire service of that state. In other words, if the state government consistently refuses to
pass legislation designating a certifying agency, then there's no reason that the state firefighters' association
couldn't come forward and fill that void. It's a matter of self-determination. Lf they really want certification, they
need to work for it themselves."

"We have, in the past, been concerned about accreditation without representation and the importance of peer
review," one participant noted. "Let us be judged by our actions," he went on. "I fear we may be about to do what
we complained about the old system doing: excluding from our system a group which is a genuine actor in the
training and certification field simply because they are different from us. In addition to ISFSI, the IAFC, NFPA, IAFF,
and IAAI also train and certify and have an impact on our state certification programs. I believe those training
programs need to be inside the system and involved. If they're involved, we can review and assess their programs
for possible accreditation, and that will help us know what to do when people in our states ask us to recognize
training that they took from these organizations."

Once more, an earlier point was reiterated: What we're really talking about is avoiding overlapping jurisdiction and,
if we're flexible in our accreditation criteria, there will be room for the whole range of possible certifying entities.

Ultimately, the group acknowledged that this was a complex issue which needed further discussion as well as
personal thought and consideration; they tabled the question until Sunday's session.

On Sunday, the debate began again. After a brief discussion centering on the same points which arose the previous
day, one participant suggested delegating the question to the soon-to-be-elected Board of Governors to draft a recommended policy. "We need a consistent and coherent policy based on a rational philosophy," he noted." A suggested policy could be drafted by the Board and then addressed by this group at the next meeting. The draft
policy would then provide a framework to which we could tie our discussions."

A new motion was introduced which, according to parliamentary procedure, took precedence over the main motion
by its nature: to commit the issue to the Board of Governors for study and to draft a recommended policy on such
matters which would be submitted to the Congress for consideration at its next meeting. This motion passed unopposed.

Operation of the System

Site visits

A substantial segment of the weekend's deliberations centered around the broad issue of site visits as an element
of the accreditation process. A great many questions were expressed and concerns revealed, and a wide-ranging
discussion took place. Would there, in fact, be site visits? What would they entail? Who would perform the visits?
What about repeat site visits for subsequent levels? Should site visit teams include non-fire people? Should site
visits be conducted according to a detailed set of requirements? Should there be a defined means for allowing
visited organizations to correct noted deficiencies within a specified period of time and according to a specified plan without the state's having to restart the application process from the beginning?

The very basic question of whether or not there would be site visits was reviewed extensively. One participant
began the discussion by saying, "I have a problem with site visits as such. I think each agency should make a
proposal on how it will meet the standards to which it intends to certify and, if a site visit is needed to verify the information, fine. But do we really need a whole team to visit every entity that wants to be accredited? Things
would move more quickly if we could eliminate this step," he noted.

"Site visits by the old ProBoard," explained one attendee, "took place after the applicant had submitted its
proposal. The visit provided the opportunity to verify, observe, and provide input to the applicant's people," he
reported.

"Is a site visit really required," another asked, "or are we just planning to do it because it's always been done that
way? Is there a better way for the entity to present its system for approval and verification to take place simply administratively, and leave site visits for appeals?" Many participants agreed that the key to an accreditation
process is the self-study document, while the site visit may have become assumed through tradition. "It's valid
for us to question whether a site visit is needed," one attendee noted, "but site visits do have a valid role in verification. And, in almost all kinds of educational accreditation systems, there is a site visit."

"No matter how many inches of documents the applying entity submits," one group member pointed out, "there
are things you can't really know or understand fully without seeing the program in operation and talking to the staff
people involved. The site visit and its independent verification of the information as viewed by the applicant is also
very important to the issue of reciprocity, I think it's a vital element of the process of what accreditation is all
about," he observed.

"But, unless the evaluation criteria for the site visit says you're going to come watch me do certification testing," another interjected, "then you're only going to see offices and paper, and I don't see the value in that."

One person, who had experienced a site visit under the old ProBoard system, said he had found the visit productive. "The people who visited us had some valuable suggestions for fine-tuning our fledgling system." Another agreed
that the site visit is important and valuable. "A person sitting in an office reviewing paperwork simply cannot
provide the level of assessment you can accomplish by being there," he said.

Further, one participant suggested that, in his case, he would welcome such a visit for the benefits he might derive
from the interchange. And, "if any deficiencies are pointed out by the site visit team," he noted, "I plan to use that information to go to the fire marshal, fire commission, and legislature to get the money we need to correct the problems."

One realist in the group added, "We should also keep in mind that some people are naturally capable of generating
more and better paperwork than others, and that shouldn't be what this system is about, I've seen programs that
looked awfully good on paper but whose reality was something less impressive; the reverse is also true."

In the end, the consensus of the group was that site visits have sufficient value to be included In the Congress' accreditation process. That decided, details began to be addressed. An administration official advised the group
that, as the system currently stands, the entity receiving the site visit would be responsible for paying the travel
expenses of the site visit team. In recognition of that, the administration would try to assign site visit members
from not too far away from the state or province being visited to try to keep those costs as low as possible, he explained. "If we become a wealthy system," he added, "we might be able to start supporting such travel out of
the program's budget; but that will have to wait."

In light of that Information, an attendee suggested that, if an application package or proposal arrived at the administrative offices lacking certain information, then the administration should notify the applicant of those shortcomings before it wastes its resources (time and money) unnecessarily on a premature site visit.

Another piece of advice came from an experienced member of the group: "The intent of a site visit is to verify that
what the applying entity describes in its documentation as what takes place does, in fact, take place and does, in
fact, work. So," he said, "when you get ready to schedule a site visit, you can make the experience worthwhile for
both your organization and the site visit team by being fully prepared and by enabling the team to meet with
members of your staff who are the key players in the system. You should arrange for the team to visit a testing
site and, while there, to talk to students about their perceptions of the process," he added.

"Keep in mind," he concluded, "that beyond the verification element of the site visits is a learning element for the
site visit people: When I went on ProBoard site visits, I learned something new every time. I brought home good
ideas that I've used and passed on to my colleagues in other states as well. The way you do things may be so
good that it warrants being shared with your peers."

Another point of discussion surrounded the question of who should hold the responsibility for conducting site visits.
One participant suggested that, if site visits are to be done, they might more appropriately be a role of
administration rather than of the Board of Governors or the Congress itself. "Since the Board of Governors is the appellate body, if they're also involved in the initial site visit and decision, then they become judge and jury," he
noted. "With that in mind," he suggested, "it might be better if site visits were simply an administration task."

Another suggested that, in his view, the Board should be a policy group rather than an operational group. In
contrast,he viewed the site visits as an operational function wherein the policies set by this body are simply implemented by an operational group. "Perhaps," someone suggested, "site visits would be better done by an established site visit team managed by the administration. Then, if any problem arose, it would come to the Board
of Governors for settlement. This might make it easier to separate out the appeals process," he offered. "Further, members of the site visit team could then be specialists in site visits with training and experience in conducting
site visits," he concluded.

But another participant was unsure of the wisdom of a too-great role for administration in the site visit process. "If administration has the lead role in site visits," he feared, "decisions might be made based on budget or other
factors not related to quality of programs." Another pointed out that, according to the existing draft SOPs and what
had been discussed in St. Louis, the administration representative on the site visit teams would not have a vote on
the accreditation or denial of the applying agency.

"If there were detailed criteria to guide the site visit team in assessing what they find, that could provide the
ultimate control," someone suggested. "After all," he added, "if we don't do a good job of setting criteria both for accrediting entities and for selecting the people to sit on site visit teams, then our entire system will be weak on
its face. It's up to us to define those factors clearly. The Board of Governors can draft those criteria for our review
and address the whole issue of ensuring accountability for the quality of site visits, " he said.

"Would it be more valid if a limited, standard, small group of people always made the site visits so they would be consistent?" an attendee asked. "Certainly, some people on the site visit team would always be the same-such as
the manager of the Congress system-to lend that sense of stability and consistency," another noted. "On the other
side, having a group of three, including two people from the Congress who do not represent the administration,
offers a sense of peer review," another suggested. "In the academic field," one participant reported, "the site team would include people who have certain specific and relevant specialties that would apply in the case of the entity
being reviewed, with each individual specifically addressing his or her specialty during the site visit." In addition, it
was suggested, having certain permanent members of the site team would be a good idea because those people
would see all the programs and thus become strong resources for the system, advising applicants as to who might
help them with a particular problem.

A new question arose: Must members of the site visit teams be members of the Congress? Not necessarily, the
group felt. Each simply must offer some meaningful knowledge and skill in an applicable area. Congress members
could designate someone else who would be qualified to serve on such a team.

"Accreditation looks easy if it's done well," a group member observed, noting, "but it's really a complex process,
and I think we'd do well to include non-peers in our validation process: professionals in such areas as education,
test -validation, disparate impact. I think the best thing this Congress could do would be to create a resource cadre
who might be able to develop a list of criteria or guidelines for us to use in some of these areas."

The group ultimately agreed that site visits would be an administration responsibility with participation of the
Board of Governors and members of the Congress. The administration would be responsible to select appropriate
people to serve on site visit teams and, if any problems were to develop, they would be addressed by the body,
which might direct the administration to change the process, they agreed.

Guidelines to be provided to site visit teams, against which organizations would be measured for accreditation,
were discussed at length. Initially, the group appeared to agree that there must be strong criteria and a specific checklist for evaluation. The early consensus appeared to be that strong criteria would be the key to effective site
visits.

However, further discussion threw doubt on this assumption. One participant broached a different idea, saying, "I'd
like to see a little more flexibility to allow for realistic differences in different places. For example, one state's application to the old ProBoard was sunk by the requirement that the person proctoring the exam could not have
been involved with training the student. In a sparsely populated rural region, that was just about impossible to
ensure; yet the fairness and credibility of that state's testing process seemed unimpeachable." Discussion
continued in this vein, with several members of the group providing examples of unique, progressive programs that might never gain approval if guidelines were rigid.

Ultimately, the group reversed its original assumptions on this question. After beginning by seeking firm guidelines
for accreditation criteria, participants ended by agreeing that the process needs to be flexible, allowing for
innovation and individual approaches. Consensus was that the criteria need to be specific but flexible, with
objectives for results but not a defined methodology of how a program has to arrive at the desired result. The
general agreement was that developing the criteria must be a top priority for the system so that the Accreditation Congress can get underway with its work.

As a final point, one participant suggested that a means be considered wherein, for certain kinds of shortcomings
that might be uncovered during the accreditation review, a jurisdiction could receive a provisional accreditation for a specified period of time, providing that it show it is working toward correcting those shortcomings. "The way budget cycles, regulatory, and other systems work," he suggested, "we may not be able to turn around tomorrow and
change the way we do something or introduce something new. Some flaws would be sufficiently clear that it would
have to be a yes-or-no decision," he acknowledged, "but some might not be fatal flaws and might allow some
leeway." The group appeared to find this a viable point and suggested that guidelines contain some detail on how
such a provision might be applied. "Perhaps," someone suggested, "we could simply provide a statement saying, in
more formal language, 'You're accredited provisionally, but you must correct this shortcoming within two years and
show satisfactory progress toward it in the meantime.'"

Another question concerned the required procedure to be followed if, once a state's program has been accredited for certain programs, it later seeks accreditation for others. Would that require another site visit? No simple answer
was found during the ensuing debate. It appeared that a complete new process might not be necessary to add an additional level of an existing program-such as adding Instructor II to an existing Instructor I accreditation-but it
might be necessary if the state wanted to add something entirely different, such as a driver/operator accreditation.
For simple program additions, it might be necessary only to provide documentation and to assert that the entity
will use the same procedures as for the level to which it is already accredited. "That shouldn't be a problem since
we're talking about being revisited on a regular basis anyway," a participant noted.

In summarizing discussions relating to site visits, the group appeared to concur that the credibility of the program
was more important than any other considerations, and the means for establishing and maintaining that credibility
are, therefore, of vital Interest to the system.

Testing issues:

A number of questions and concerns relating to testing requirements were addressed. Those participants having
more experience in this area provided assistance for those with less experience, and some matters were discussed
to determine the approach the Congress preferred to take.

"Must the testing process always mean a comprehensive test event taking place at one time, with the student completing a lengthy written test and performing a wide range of skills?" one attendee asked, "or can a system be allowed wherein the firefighter demonstrates proficiency at skills, one at a time, throughout the training process?"
In response to this question, the consensus was that such flexibility must be permitted in order to meet logistical constraints as well as to allow for innovative training approaches such as the new concept known as training in
context.

Another participant wanted to know whether or not it would be considered valid to base the certification on a
sampling, testing some individuals in certain skills, selected at random? Also, in a large, open rural area, if there
were no aerial ladders in the area, so firefighters were unlikely ever to use them, would it be acceptable if students
did not learn how to use these items? The group appeared to agree that such variations should be allowed so long
as the applicant could validate its process and support it, both in the proposal for accreditation and during the site
visit.

The process for announcing tests under a certification system was discussed. The ProBoard required applicants to announce all tests widely and openly to ensure that everyone throughout a state was aware of when and where
tests would take place. The system also had another requirement-which had not been adhered to-that every time
a state or province conducted a test it had to notify the ProBoard "Can you imagine the mail that would have generated?" a former ProBoard member asked. Under that system, states were criticized for giving regional tests
which were announced only in that region of the state. Some members of the old board felt that, whenever a test
was given in any part of a state, it should be announced throughout the entire state.

The group discussed several situations as they might apply to this question and considered means to allow for
individual differences. "In our state," one participant said, "people who take firefighter I training take only
approved courses that are concluded by a test, and that's the only circumstance where we give the test, so we
don't do any kind of statewide announcement of a test coming up: everyone who would want to take the test would have been in that course. If someone takes the course in one place but misses the testing element for some
reason, our catalog lists everything that's going on across the state, or the student can call us to ask when and
where the next test win be, so that he or she can go take it."

The group, as in other instances, agreed that such individual needs should be reviewed separately for each applying entity. "'What we seem to be saying," one attendee summarized, "is that the guidelines for test announcements
need to be flexible: An applicant must show a reasonable and reliable system, but that the system will not require
one specific way. The site team will make a judgment as to whether an applicant's process is open and fair."

"As time passes, and we finish with the initial large-scale testing and settle down to small numbers of people,"
one participant pointed out, "the way we need to handle testing issues may change, too."

Another set of questions surrounded the matter of who performs the testing: How separate from the students
being tested must the testers be? Can they be from the same department if they weren't instructors in that course?
Can they have taught the students in other courses if not that one? The group appeared to agree that, so long as
there is credibility and validity in the process, the specific regulations should not prohibit too strictly who can and
cannot be involved in the testing process. In processes wherein the students are tested on skills throughout a
course-which concept the group had already approved in principle-the instructors of the course often also do the
testing, and that should not on its face be prohibited. It was this question, someone reiterated, that prevented one state from receiving ProBoard accreditation, though not every member of the site team had agreed with the
rejection. In fact, one participant who had been a ProBoard site visit team member for that state told the group
that, from his perspective, it had appeared that the state watched its process very carefully to ensure it was fair
and valid. "There has to be some trust somewhere," he observed, adding, "although any system has to be
monitored to ensure it's credible."

Another question was, how do you know how many questions a test bank must contain? One participant reported
that his state no longer has much of a written test for Firefighter I. "We began to question the validity of
immediate-recall written tests for some topics," he explained, adding, "our university's adult education
professionals have said our testing is valid, and validity is a greater issue than sheer numbers. This system has
enabled us to be both flexible and innovative.

"We weight questions according to how 'important' or difficult each question is," he continued. "We create tests composed of some relatively basic, some intermediate and some fairly difficult questions. We also apply the
concept of training in context," he added. "It clearly is very different. For some questions-what we call 'open
resource' questions-we don't care whether the student has the answer in his head or simply knows where to find
the answer.

"After all," he noted, "there aren't many situations wherein a firefighter must answer a written question,
immediately, alone and without help. There are some practical skills that any firefighter must be able to perform immediately and without hesitation, such as donning breathing apparatus, but there are few such vital pieces of information that lend themselves to written responses. In the real world, the way this information is applied, a firefighter can and perhaps sometimes even should seek out resources. We're more interested in rewarding a
candidate for knowing where to find information than in rewarding a steel-trap memory, " he said. "An example of
what I mean is the definition of fire: In all my career I have never needed to verbally define fire as I entered a
burning building, and that simply doesn't seem like it should be on the same level of importance as the ability to correctly don SCBA.

"That doesn't mean that we don't test cognitive information at all," he explained, "because we do think that the
signs and consequences of a flashover-as one example-are pretty significant. We have applicants watch a
videotape and tell us what they see that's worthy of mention. They have to be able to articulate that.

"We've tied the whole testing process into a task analysis and it's been validated by our professional educators. I
can assure you that it hasn't been easy to do, but we believe that it's the most directly relevant fire service testing we've ever seen.

"And that's why I believe we need to be flexible, progressive and tolerant," he concluded, "although the site team
does need to be able to verify that it works, just like in any system of checks and balances." The group concurred.

Grandfathering:

A series of issues arose which fall under the umbrella topic of grandfathering, though the specific questions differed.

For example, one attendee wondered about the assumption that entities already accredited by the old ProBoard
would automatically be grandfathered into the new Accreditation Congress without further analysis. "I don't think we should assume that that process was infallible," he said. "Organizations that were accredited by the ProBoard have never been re-examined and, besides, by the time we get our own standards for accreditation refined, they may be
quite different from ProBoard requirements."

Another participant agreed, saying, "I think that we all ought to begin in this system from ground zero; I think that
will make it more credible." A representative of a ProBoard state said he agreed with that concept. But an official
from another ProBoard state expressed concern that they might be left in some kind of limbo without grandfathering. "I've continued to issue certificates on the assumption that they would be recognized by this Congress," she said,
asking whether "perhaps we could be offered conditional or provisional status for a limited time so that we can
continue operating effectively. I want to be revisited, but I have to be able to go on until then."

But another attendee questioned the need to perform this service. "Since the old system is still operating and you
still carry that recognition," he asked, "you can continue to issue those certificates until you receive accreditation
from this group, can't you?"

An official from the Congress' administrative arm said, "Logistically, we had assumed that our first priority should
be those jurisdictions not yet accredited but ready for consideration, followed by revisits to former ProBoard entities.
Since, at best, we can probably perform only one visit each month, it's going to take a long time to get to that
point."

One attendee suggested that the group keep in mind that, when they had met in St. Louis in August, their
assumption was that the ProBoard accreditation system was gone and it would be necessary to grandfather
ProBoard states just so they could keep operating, but that has changed. Now we know that the old system 18 continuing and those states can continue to operate within it. "So the issue now is whether this Congress will
recognize ProBoard accreditation," he suggested. "It's no longer a grandfathering but a recognition matter, and I
tend to agree that everyone ought to start from ground zero in this new system."

"Nine entities which are ProBoard-accredited, want Congress accreditation and are present at the Kansas City
meeting," one participant observed. "In light of the logistics involved, it might be more prudent to offer provisional accreditation to those states simply because it' s going to take a good many months to visit every jurisdiction, so
that the system doesn't become overwhelmed," he suggested.

"There's a new issue, as well," another attendee interjected: "We had been told earlier that no more entitles would
be accredited by the old ProBoard system but, in fact, one was accredited later and another recently heard that its application to the ProBoard was being considered anew. What will be our position on entities that the ProBoard
accredits from here on out? I'd rather see every entity that's submitted a letter of intent to this body be given provisional status than to offer that status specifically to ProBoard states, since we have no way to judge the
validity of a ProBoard accreditation."

Another participant asked, "What about those of us currently operating under the National Registry Examination
System, which is going to cease operations at the end of this year? Could we be given a provisional status to carry
us through until a site visit can be made, too?"

"Why can't existing ProBoard states simply continue to offer ProBoard certificates until we get around to visiting or revisiting everyone?" a participant reiterated. "I don't understand the problem since you can still issue those. I think that's the most valid thing we can do and I can see no real need to do otherwise. I think we should all come into
this new system in the same way."

"Keep in mind," an administration official reminded the group, "that the revenue to operate this system has to come from selling certificates, and we've got to get started with some jurisdictions so that we don't continue to dig into
the red financially. If we could get started with former ProBoard people, even on a provisional basis, it would help
our system." In response to this point, an attendee suggested, "Perhaps we could also offer provisional
accreditation based on initial paperwork submitted, whether or not the entity is an existingProBoard entity. The Congressional administration could review the paperwork and, if it looks okay, provisionally approve that entity
pending a site visit. Remember," he noted, "it's also going to take some time to write our standards for
accreditation before we can even start conducting site visits."

"I don't think anyone has a problem with some sort of limited provisional acceptance of ProBoard status," one
attendee added, "although we're all a little concerned about taking on some ProBoard baggage."

One participant was concerned with the talk of provisional accreditation. "I don't want there to be any provisional
status, for myself or anyone else who has not yet been visited," he stressed, and several unaccredited entities
agreed. They didn't want to be accredited without being properly reviewed.

In the end, the group determined that jurisdictions accredited by the ProBoard as of February of 1991 would be
approved to continue accreditation under the jurisdiction of the Accreditation Congress at the same levels they're currently approved for, but would be required to be re-evaluated within three years. By limiting the grandfathering
to entities approved before this date, the group acknowledged that it could not foresee how that system would
function in the future.

Another form of grandfathering was considered as well: What about individuals who have already been certified
under another system? Will they be recognized for progression purposes? "Perhaps," a participant suggested, "it's
up to the states and provinces to decide how they'll deal with this matter; it seems it must be a state issue." "We couldn't issue a certificate from this system that says you're certified under this system because you weren't
certified under this system," an administration official said, "although the state could do something to register such individuals under this system once the state is approved if it wanted to. If a state wants people already included
in the old system to come in under the new system, that state will have to take care of getting us the information."

"In many cases," one attendee noted, "the state may not know who in the state has gotten national certification
for themselves, so we might just want to let people know that a change is taking place and that from now on this
is the system."

"As far as progression is concerned-whether someone who qualified as a Firefighter II under the old system still
counts as a Firefighter II for promotional purposes and for certification at the next highest level-that would seem
to be up to the state to make the policy," someone else added.

"I don't see why we need to re-certify the person under the second system," another said. "If you have a degree
from one university and move to another part of the country, you don't worry about getting a degree from a local university in order to be recognized, nor should another university grant one just because the degree program you participated in might have been similar to theirs." "We could simply issue a letter of equivalency to those already certified in the old system stating that their certification at their current level is still recognized and that future certification at higher levels for them will be under the new system," another suggested.

Some members of the group believed a policy statement on this matter was required, while others felt it was and
should remain a state-level issue.

"What about people who certify through our state system before it becomes accredited?" a member of the group
asked. "For example, what if a group of people have worked through the same system that is approved for
certification through the Congress, but these 200 people went through it a month ago instead of tomorrow?"

"Whenever you begin any certification program, grandfathering is an issue," a participant suggested, "but we have
to keep it in perspective. It's a problem that goes away after the first few years. So, we may want to address it,
but we also need to recognize it as a short-term problem and not let it become wrapped around our axle."

"Maybe," another offered, "the answer is for each applicant to include within its plan or proposal a mechanism for certifying people who went through your approved process before it was approved. I have trouble with Its being completely automatic," he noted, "and I think you have to control it very carefully. You can't go back 20 years and
certify everyone who ever took the program; at some point there's got to be a cutoff. But you could submit to the Congress for approval your plan for working these people in. In other words, you would have to address
grandfathering in a rational way in your proposal for accreditation."

"Grandfathering within a state can create an interesting set of assumptions and surprises," one participant said.
"Early on," he related, "when our state was first doing certification, we went to a department that wanted to
challenge the test and become certified at the Firefighter I level. They were so sloppy in the skills test that we
could scarcely believe it; they hadn't taken it seriously. We stopped the exercise, called the chief over and said,
'Let's just pretend we weren't here today and this never happened, and you call us when you think you're ready to
try again.' Their jaws dropped, because they had thought it was a Mickey-Mouse deal. So, keep in mind you may
face things like that at first. But we saw it only that one time; after that, everyone we saw took it seriously. In
fact, we returned to the same department three weeks later and they looked like a different fire department
altogether and were approved."

Reciprocity:

The question of reciprocity-whether a certification from one entity is automatically transferable to and accepted by another entity-was a thorny point. "Certification is not a mandatory employment ticket," one participant pointed out. "Just being certified in one place doesn't mean that someone else has to accept that and give you a job." And
another noted that there may be differences from one place to another that would mean that, no matter how much experience a person has or what level they're certified to, you might still want that person to go through your recruit training program to ensure that he or she does things the way you want them done.

"Reciprocity is a very important issue that we may or may not want to get involved in," a member of the group suggested. "We may just want to leave it up to the states to decide what they will accept and what they won't."
The group concurred.

Re-accreditation:

This subject was brought up as part of a broader discussion, but the group as a whole felt it was premature to
consider this point. "Let's just get up and get going for now," one attendee urged. "But we should say up front,"
another added, "that we will, at some point, discuss this issue. It's the only way to ensure validity in the long term."

"The old system nominally required annual re-accreditation but, in reality, it was never done. We were on the verge
of making it an enforced, five-year re-accreditation process," a participant in the ProBoard system reported, "but the system was dissolved before we ever got the change approved by the Joint Council."

"The Board of Governors should consider what kinds of issues would trigger re-accreditation" one attendee stated.
"It's not just the passage of time, but significant changes in standards, systems, program leadership, organization,
or resources might trigger substantive changes in a system that would warrant re-accreditation." "This needs a
thorough examination," another concurred.

A related issue-decertification-was discussed briefly: "If someone leaves the fire service for several years, is under suspension or in some other problematic situation," a group member asked, "and we decertify at the state or
province level, will the national system keep up with that?" The administration agreed that it would, as long as the state or province notified the office just as it would when adding people to the list.

The group agreed that re-accreditation is a substantial issue that needs to be addressed at some point, but could
be tabled for now to enable them focus on more immediate issues.

Board of Governors:

A lengthy discussion surrounded the subject of the Congress' Board of Governors.

One participant began by suggesting that, based on discussions in St. Louis and during the present meeting, the
group appeared to believe the Board of Governors should take the general policy discussions of this body and draft
a general policy document reflecting the intent of the entire body, as well as an accreditation criteria document.
The Congress would review documents as drafted or proposed by the Board, and the Board would then interpret
and apply those documents and criteria as adopted by the Congress. The Board would also make judgments on
appeals and recommend to the Congress when revisions to the guidelines might be needed.

The group appeared to concur: We will formulate intent here: the Board of Governors and administrative staff will translate our intent into specific verbiage.

The size and composition of the Board of Governors was then discussed at length. In beginning the discussion, an administration official reminded attendees that, at the August meeting in St. Louis, where the Congress had been introduced, a Board of Governors consisting of seven members, with three at all times appointed by the Congress' administration, had been suggested. The three representatives of the administration to serve on the Board were
then named: Doug Forsman, who brings accreditation and standards-making background and who would serve as
interim Chair of the Board until the Board is more fully organized and elects it own Chair: Glenn Pribbenow , who
also manages a state training program, as OSU's internal representative and who, as the youngest of the group,
would serve as the program's historian: andHugh Pike of the U.S. Department of Defense Firefighter Training
Program, bringing to the system that outside dimension as well as the huge numbers of firefighters he represents.
The administration suggested that these three appointments serve for more than a year-perhaps three-to enable
the organization to get up and running without a lot of changing, while suggesting that Board members elected by
the body begin with one-year terms following this first election. "Some first -year Congress members may drop out
of the system, since we're in the organizational stages, so we don't know what the group will look like a year from
now," he explained. "After that," he suggested, "Board members can begin rotating terms, with one-third of the
Board standing for election each year." The group appeared to agree with these suggestions.

Extensive discussions revolved around the question of what would be the responsibilities of the Board. Participants offered a review of their perspectives on the Board of Governors: that it would not be a policy-setting body (the Congress as a whole does that); that at least one member of the Board would serve on every site visit committee;
and that Board members would not necessarily have to be official voting members of the Congress.

In reference to the participation of Board members on site visit teams, one attendee observed that, because all
states and provinces wanting to be accredited by the Congress, including the states involved in the old ProBoard system, would need to schedule site visits in the initial year or two, members of the Board would be very busy.

An administrative spokesperson advised the group that members of the Board of Governors would not receive any honorarium, nor could the program support the Board's travel for Board meetings. Some Board interactions could
take place by telephone, fax, or mail, it was noted, but meetings would from time to time be necessary. Perhaps,
in the future, the system might be able to support Board expenses, but it was not possible at this time.

Discussion proved that some initial assumptions about the role of the Board of Governors required further
assessment. There remained some question as to whether the Board should be a policy-drafting body (not setting,
but drafting, final policy) or an administrative or operational group.

There was also a question about whether members of the Board should be restricted to the designated voting
member from each member group, and whether the Board seat would be assigned to a state or province or to an individual.

The process for nominating members of the Board of Governors was discussed. One member asked whether the
group would make nominations from the floor or by written nomination to the Chair of the election committee (an interim election Chair selected by Congressional administration for immediate needs during this initial meeting).
After some discussion, the group determined that all nominations would be made from the floor with a written nomination given to the election committee Chair to serve as a paper record. Nominations-as usual under Roberts
Rules of Order-would is open until the moment the vote is taken, and the group would be advised by noon of the following day who had so far been nominated. This update, a few hours before the election would take place, would enable participants to talk with nominees to learn their views before the vote took place. After further discussion,
the group decided that nominations should be made only by the designated voting member from each participating entity.

The question of who would be eligible to serve on the Board of Governors proved a difficult one. "Personally," one attendee suggested, "I don't believe that the Board of Governors, if elected by this group, needs to be from this
group. We should elect people who are most knowledgeable in doing whatever it is we feel the Board should do, no matter who those people are," he added. "In fact," another pointed out, "OSU has already done this by their appointments to the Board."

"There may be people who would be great Board representatives but who are not members of this group at all,"
another interjected, while someone else noted that the ProBoard had gone outside the fire service, appointing a
member of the federal civil service commission as well as several others, who served effectively in those roles.

But another participant warned against the possible risk of creating a system that may not be peer-driven. "We
have said In the past-and this organization is based on the belief-that the people who are involved in the programs should govern the system," she noted, "and I can see us getting Into a situation of being expected to have representatives of different organizations as members of our Board." "Perhaps the Board should be an internal, peer group until we have some maturity as an organization," another attendee suggested, "and we could revisit the
subject later."

"There is no reason to believe that the problem of organizational representation that plagued the ProBoard would
affect this group," another argued. "I believe that the structure of this organization will ensure that it is peer driven, because a member of the Board of Governors would not be appointed because of his or her affiliation with an
outside organization, but elected by this body as an individual. There is no Joint Council here influencing such
decisions. I think we are short changing ourselves if we don't go outside ourselves for people who might bring skills, credibility or other elements to the Board. ..to tap a Lee Iacocca or some other such individual.

"It also might be practical for political purposes to go outside," he continued, "because, while we may call our
system 'peer driven' and consider it important that the system be controlled by those who are affected, there are,
in fact, others besides ourselves who are affected by what we do. We have the most vital control by electing Board members ourselves; we don't have to look only to ourselves for members of the Board."

"Perhaps," another member of the group suggested, "we should retain controlling numbers on the Board, so that
the majority of Board members will be sitting members of this body."

Another attendee urged broad-mindedness. "I think that we should look at people who have skills we could use
but who may not even be from a state that's involved here. I served on a national board of an organization where
every board member was from inside the group and it was very inefficient: we would have benefited greatly from
outside input," he said. "I would support keeping a majority of board members from the body," he concluded, "but allowing some to be selected from outside."

"Must every elected Board member be the official voting member from the entity? an attendee asked. "I don't see
why it needs to be," he said, "but I believe we should be choosing an individual, not just saying we want a representative from a particular jurisdiction." Yet another participant disagreed, urging that only the designated
voting member from a state or province be permitted to serve on the Board. "If a state wants someone different to serve on the Board," he said, "then there's no reason why they can't simply have that, person be the designated
voting member." Following discussion illustrated a variety of reasons why such a decision might not be that simple.

Ultimately, the Congress developed a consensus on the structure of the Board of Governors: First, the Board would consist of nine members, three appointed by the administration and six elected from the group. Of those nine
members, at least five must at all times be voting members of the Congress; non-Congress members may be
nominated and may serve, but the nomination must come from their home state's voting member.

With these factors decided, the floor was opened for nominations of candidates to be elected to serve on the first
Board of Governors. During the period before the election took place on the following day, the following names
were placed in nomination:

*John Anderson, Washington

*Timothy Bradley, North Carolina

Brian Crandell, Montana

*John Daley, Canada

Russ Daly, Nebraska

Russ Mason, Missouri

*Glenna Senger, Illinois

*Alan Walker, Kansas

*Ricky Ziebart, Arkansas

Those marked with an * were elected to serve on the Board of Governors by a simple majority of those present. The election took only one ballot to complete.

It was determined that a two-to three-day meeting of the Board would be scheduled within the next 60 days to
begin work on draft policies and procedures for the Congress, which in turn would be submitted to the Congress for debate at the next meeting.

Administrative Matters

During the remainder of the weekend's discussions, a number of principally administrative issues arose and were defined. Brief summaries of these decision points follow.

Formal letter of commitment:

Once entitles have made the final decision to begin the process of seeking accreditation from the Congress, it was agreed that the entities should send a letter formally advising the Congress' administration of that commitment, signaling their imminent participation in the Congress. For those already accredited by the ProBoard and who would
be granted provisional accreditation by the Congress, that letter also would include the first batch of names and
other information for registering certified individuals. The letter also could be used to advise the administration
which registration or certificate option the state or province has elected to use as well as how it will transmit its
data to the administration (paper, fax. computer disk). The administrative offices should send a letter to all
entities that have expressed interest in the Congress, advising them of this point.

Fees:

This group recommended that the basic registration fee for each registered or certified individual be raised from $2
as suggested in preliminary discussions to $5 to help support the costs of maintaining a registry and other administrative expenses. The administration committed to maintaining fees established at this time for three years without increase.

Data collection and exchange, record keeping:

Several participants expressed their pleasant anticipation of the exchange of information with other members that
would be enabled by participation in the Congress. But detailed discussion of precisely how data would be
exchanged was postponed to a later date. The group agreed that, given the complexity of electronic data exchange
and the many possible variations, such details might best be handled one-on-one between administration and each individual entity.

A member of the group suggested that "the question of information exchange about individuals is a big issue, not
just in terms of how we're going to get all our computer systems to talk to the administration office, but legal
issues of what information we collect, how it's used, how long its kept, and so on." Perhaps state directors and
other interested people should come together, talk with experts in the field and formulate some kind of standard
for training and certification data collection, one suggested.

Initially, there had been some question about whether this accreditation system would include a registry listing all certified individuals. Some participants believed such a listing was beneficial, while others did not. In the end, the consensus was that certification of an individual should automatically enter that individual into a computer file of certified individuals. It was agreed that, when a state sends its list of certified professionals to the Congress' administrative offices to obtain certificates, the states would send the individual's name, Social Security number,
name of department, and a notation of the level at which the person is certified. "In the past," one attendee noted, "we've left it up to the individual whether or not they wanted their names sent for national certification, but we
think it would make the system stronger to have the most complete record possible of how many people are
involved. We would prefer that this not be optional, that there should definitely be a national registry and that
every accredited entity should send the information on each individual to the central administration and pay the
basic fee for that," he said. "Beyond that point, the certifying entity would remain able to decide which way it would prefer to handle certificates: whether it wants to order certificates from the Congress or issue its own."

Another participant recommended that there be no fee for use of the Congress' logo for those entities wanting to
print their own certificates. "The logo belongs to the Congress as a whole, not just to OSU or the administration,"
he explained. "If the $2 fee discussed in St. Louts is not enough to cover the costs of the system without charging
for the use of the logo, then raise the fee," he added. "In other instances where an organization is allowed to print
a logo on its documents because of its affiliation with some organization," another attendee added, "there is
normally no fee for that use; it's simply part of the cost of having joined the group in the first place."

"What if a certified individual wants a transcript of her or his certification?" a participant asked. "Should such
transcripts be provided by the Congress itself or by the state? At what cost?" These points were not decided
directly, but the consensus appeared to be that transcripts should be available for a fee. "After all," an attendee
pointed out, "you can't get a transcript from a university without paying for it."

It was also determined that, if an individual wants a separate certificate of his or her own directly from the
Congress, then that person should pay $15 for the cost of the certificate. Since the state or entity will already have handled certification in its usual way, this would be additional work.

Logo and certificate designs:

After being asked by the Congress' administration officials to review and comment on the Congress' symbolic logo, name, and other elements, it was determined that the title should refer to "international" rather than "national"
scope, and that the name of the organization should be part of the logo itself.

It was also suggested that the logo should not be produced in its current orange-and-black form because it cannot
be photocopied effectively.

One member suggested that those who would prefer to adopt the option of creating their own certificates should be permitted to use the wording or logo or whatever elements they choose, but that the Congress should have the
right to approve the usage so that all such products meet some standard. The group agreed. According to an administrative official, it also would be possible for each state to have its own custom-designed certificate kept on
file at the administration office. For those who prefer to create their own, the logo can be provided in PostScript (or other electronically readable format) and/or high-quality reproducible PMTs (photomechanical transfer material).

Another participant asked whether it would be possible to provide participating entities with certificates or plaques demonstrating the entity's accreditation under this system. An administration official reported that this was already planned.

It was also determined that the Congress would develop a set of standard wording that each accredited entity could print on its letterhead indicating the program's accreditation by the Congress.

Certificates should include effective dates and expiration dates, if appropriate, the group agreed.

"What signatures should be on the certificates?" asked an administrative official. Each certificate should carry the
name and signature of the director of the Congress and anyone from the certifying entity, whether personally signed
or electronically scanned. Each entity would have the option to choose what state or provincial official(s) would
appear on its certificate.

Then followed some discussion of certificate formats: "We have supposed that the certificates would be a standard
8-1/2"x11" size to enable them to feed readily through a laser printer," an administration official said. One
participant suggested the method his state uses for its own certificates: the certificate itself is 8-1 /2"x 11", but it
is part of a larger, perforated sheet of legal-sized heavyweight paper with the end tab consisting of a tear-off 3"x5"
card (used for departmental record keeping) as well as a wallet card. "This is especially useful for programs for
which certification is mandatory," he explained.

Newsletter:

The Congress' Manager told the group that the administration hoped to introduce a regularly scheduled newsletter
as a communication device and asked for input from the group about frequency, distribution, and content.

The attendees agreed that distribution should be to the official designated as the voting member from each entity
plus additional copies to any other representatives officially involved in the state system who have aright or need
to know what's happening with the Congress. The officially designated organization should notify the Congress in
writing of who should be on the mailing list.

It was also pointed out that significant news about the Congress could be submitted to the Speaking of Fire
newsletter published by theInternational Fire Service Training Association, although that newsletter has a long publication lag-time so it would not enable timely distribution of information. And occasional news releases would
be sent to the major national fire service publications. Further, information could also be distributed by way of the electronic bulletin board ICHIEFS, since a large number of the group's members participate in it.

One attendee asked that participants receive reports on what the Board of Governors does during its deliberations
and would like to see such reports either in the newsletter or as a separate communication. "In fact," he added,
"we'd like to keep track of even things that the Board discusses but does not adopt."

Summary

While the meeting progressed according to a very different route than had been originally intended, the group nonetheless produced meaningful guidance and direction for the fledgling accreditation system. Participants
expressed their views openly and without reservations, and began creation of a new system that will meet their programs' needs and expectations.

It is evident from reviewing these meeting notes that the International Fire Service Accreditation Congress will
fulfill one of its creators' primary objectives: It will be user-governed and peer-driven, not controlled by a small governing group. Of primary importance to participants in this meeting was the need for the system to serve its
users, not vice versa.

Participants stressed throughout the sessions that state and local needs vary and that the criteria applied by the
system must recognize that uniqueness. As one participant stated, "The bottom line is, are the people coming out
of the system able to do the job right?" The details of how an entity reaches that foremost goal are less important
than the outcome. Flexibility was viewed as positive in that it will ultimately permit the system to grow and
progress, incorporating innovations as they develop, rather than rigidly defining the shape and nature of programs
and forcing all systems to meet preconceived assumptions. "If you write your guidelines so there can't possibly be
any abuse, then there also can't be any innovation," one participant stressed.

As the meeting progressed, those with broad experience in the old ProBoard system shared their experience as
well as their encouragement with those entering into accreditation for the first time. Said one, "The point at which
a state thinks it's ready to be looked at for accreditation is something the state must judge for itself, but from experience I can tell you that you're probably all farther along than you think you are."

At the conclusion of the weekend in Kansas City, the group began to plan for its next meeting. A great many issues
had been delegated to the new Board of Governors that would require review by the Congress as a whole. In order
to ensure that the new organization progress without becoming overtaken by the passage of time, a meeting was scheduled tentatively for September of 1991. After some discussion about preferences, it was agreed that meetings would be conducted whenever possible at either the beginning or the end of the workweek so that attendees can
extend their trip over Saturday night to take advantage of lower airfares, and that meetings take place somewhere
in the middle of the country, near an airport that's easy to get to and from, but where hotels aren't too costly.
Again, the group was adamant that it determine its own future, both in general questions of philosophy and in the functional details of conducting business.

Appendix A: Formal Agenda

Friday, February 22

Registration
Opening statements of meeting objectives
Membership discussion and approval
Nominations for Board of Governors
Open discussion
Election discussion

Saturday, February 23

Discussion of draft standard operating procedures
Discussion and approval of fee structure
Individual study groups:
New agencies in accreditation-How do we proceed?
Old agencies in accreditation-How do we continue?
Other agencies-How do we fit in?
General session review of group activities

Sunday, February 24

Review of objectives and accomplishments
Election of Board of Governors
Certificate and logo design
Data exchange and communication
General discussion and review
Adjournment

Appendix B: Participants

John Anderson
Washington State Department of Community Development

Charles Baker
Indiana Fire Instructors Association

Dan Belanger
Louisiana State University Firefighter Training Program

James Bowie
South Carolina Fire Academy

Mike Brackin
Mississippi State Fire Academy

Timothy Bradley
North Carolina Fire and Rescue Commission

Susan Brown
Oak Ridge Associated Universities
Tennessee

Wanda Burke
Oklahoma State University Fire Service Training

Jay Carnegie
Seattle Fire Department
Washington

Dave Cauble
North Carolina Fire and Rescue Commission

John Coburn
MO State Fire Marshal

Brian Crandell
Montana Fire Service Training

John Daley
Canadian Department of National Defence

Russ Daly
Nebraska Fire Service

James David
Michigan Firefighters Training Council

Patrick Doheny
Minnesota Fire Service Certification Board

Alan Dupuis
Ontario Fire Marshal's Office
Canada

Robert Finley
University of Missouri Fire and Rescue Training Institute

Douglas Forsman
Champaign Fire Department
Illinois

Leonard Grimstead
Columbia Fire Department
Missouri

Clare Harkins
Idaho Division of Vocational Education

Patrick Hughes
Texas Fire Protection Personnel Standards Commission

Ken Johnson
State of Colorado

Tony Johnson
Indiana Firefighting Personnel Standards Board

Kirby Kiefer
Minnesota Fire Service Certification Board

Harold Mace
International Fire Service Training Association
Oklahoma

Russ Mason
Missouri Division of Fire Safety

Fritz McCameron
Louisiana Firefighter Training Program

Mary McCormack
International Society of Fire Service Instructors and Fire Department Safety Officers Association
Massachusetts

Gerald Monigold
University of Illinois Fire Service Institute

Jay Murray
Iowa Fire Service Institute

William Neville
National Fire Protection Association
Massachusetts

Hugh Pike
U.S. Department of Defense Firefighter Certification

Bruce Piringer
University of Missouri Fire and Rescue Training Institute

Glenn Pribbenow
Oklahoma State University Fire Service Training

Michael Robinson
Maryland Fire Service Personnel Qualifications Board

Glenna Senger
Illinois Fire Marshal's Office

Kenneth Sharp
Virginia Department of Fire Programs

John Standefer
New Mexico Firefighters Training Academy

Thomas Sturtevant
Chattanooga State Technical Community College
Tennessee

Freddie Thompson
U.S. Air Force Fire Protection

Nancy Trench
Oklahoma State University Fire Service Training

Ed Vineyard
Missouri Division of Fire Safety

Alan Walker
University of Kansas Fire Service Training

Gary Warren
Columbia Fire Department
Missouri

David Wickersheim
University of Kansas Fire Service Training

John Wolf
Univ. of Kansas Fire Service Training

Ricky Ziebart
Arkansas Fire Academy

International Fire Service Accreditation Congress Staff

William Westhoff, Manager
Lenel Rymer, Assistant
Fire Service Publications Building
Oklahoma State University
Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078-0118
465/744-8303

Report Production Staff

Jan Thomas, Proprietor
Terry Spoor, Technical Services Coordinator
Jan Thomas Communication Services
1000 Willow Creek Lane
Columbia. Missouri 65203