To the editor:

Three emails were received this week about the last Prudential Committee meeting with comments from two older, former members of the District 2 Fire Company and also as past members of the Prudential Committee and one potential Prudential Committee election candidate in April 2023.  The comments I read missed the point entirely of what happened at the last Prudential Committee meeting when Sergeant Scott Brooks was appointed as fire chief by two members of the current Prudential Committee who, in my opinion, do not understand or care about the District Bylaws, nor the management or best practices required of the fire chief to oversee the Russells Mills Fire Company.  They proved this by voting for a candidate who does not even possess the Fire Fighter One and Two Certificates. He may have taken the courses, but he has told other folks that never took the tests.  

First, none of the interview questions for Brooks were pertinent or applicable to what may be demanded of the chief of a modern call fire company during the course of his duties. Only one Prudential Committee member had the temerity to suggest that Brooks is unqualified for the chief’s position. But, then again, if you really don’t know what the chief’s job is, then how can a judgment be made about whether a candidate is qualified for the position? The comment was made by one of the PC members that two existing chiefs and a former chief supported Brooks’ candidacy. This was not true. The chief of Fire District One, if you ask him, will tell you that he does NOT support Brooks. Further, the opinion of the former District 2 chief was sought about Brooks. How can that chief even comment about Brooks’ qualifications, when he has no idea what Brooks’ experience level as a firefighter is, which is none that can qualify him as chief, in my opinion, since he really is not a firefighter. 

Secondly, what questions should have been asked of Brooks? 1. Equipment: One of the fire chief’s major responsibilities is to manage the fire fighting and other equipment inventory necessary to maintain the standards of the fire company’s safety and firefighting capability. This is in the District bylaws. The P.C. has no jurisdiction over the fire chief’s acquisition, management and use of the equipment house in the station. None. The chief’s word is final in this matter. So, the question is whether Brooks even has the basic knowledge required to fulfill that task. 

For example, a question about one piece of equipment might have been: do you understand the basics of the design and the systems of and how to operate the “Dartmouth Engine”, Engine 6? Purchased a couple of years ago, this engine is a hybrid designed by a committee comprised of member of the Russells Mills Engine Company of which Greg Edgcomb was a member. The design, executed and built by E-One of Ocala, Fl, was so successful, that 100 fire companies from around New England have come to view and inspect what E-One calls: “the Dartmouth Engine”, and at least four in the region have ordered engines based on this design. So: what is the capacity of this engine’s water tank? How does the foam system operate? How many feet of hose can this engine deploy?  What kind of equipment does this engine carry in each of its equipment bays and how is this equipment put to use? What is battery powered and what is not? How do you start the engine? What kind of power unit does it have? What kind of transmission? How is the “cab-forward” design different from a standard truck chassis? What is the clear height of the tilt cab? What kind of radios does it carry? How does it handle in snow and ice conditions? Which members of the fire company are qualified to drive it? How many crewmembers are needed to man this engine? How many crew members can it carry? Can you bring this engine past the end of pavement on Blossom Road in Fall River to fight a forest fire in the Fall River-Freetown State Forest? And these are just a few of the questions for only one major piece of firefighting equipment this district possesses.  There are more major vehicles to learn and operate. Should a chief not know the details of and have the ability to operate these vehicles before he takes a job? 

Members of the Prudential Committee have already misled Brooks by their comments regarding equipment. Neither member understands or knows that the fire chief has full control of equipment, because he is supposed to know how to use the equipment and deploy it. The PC members are not supposed to interfere with the chief’s decisions and management in this regard. And yet, they already have. They want to discard the ladder truck, a vital piece of fire fighting equipment today. But Brooks would not know that, because he does not have the training required to know that the PC is misleading him. They don’t want the airboat or the jet ski: two vital pieces of equipment for use in both summer and winter seasons along the Slocum River. If that equipment is not available from the firehouse, who will assist in water-safety related issues on the Slocum? They don’t want the “mule”, a critical forest fire and brushfire fighting piece of equipment which I saw in action on my own property during a brush fire incident last summer. How is Brooks to know about this? Has he ever fought a forest fire? Has he ever fought any fire, especially a fully engulfed house fire, where he must direct the crew safely and manage to life, safety and property of the property owner? Ad, finally, at one of the PC meetings, a PC member commented extensively about the airboat, stating that there should be a qualified, certified airboat operator sitting in that driver seat when the airboat goes out. And yet, this very same PC member, Bill Coutu, moves to hire a totally unqualified individual as fire chief of the District, without batting an eye. 

Has Brooks ever arrived at a public event where an audience member has suffered a heart attack and he is the first on the scene and had to revive the victim? Does Brooks know how to deploy the call firefighters at any emergency event? As one of the emails I read said: how can the “…professionalism of our department …make it work for the district” when the chief does not know what to ask or how to direct when the call firefighter is looking to the chief for leadership and decision-making which can be relied upon without question. Are we, the residents of the district supposed to pay Brooks almost a hundred thousand dollars while he learns on the job and is not even certified as a firefighter? This situation begs the attention of the district residents, since what the PC has just done by selecting Brooks, in my opinion, is to put the entire fire company and the district residents at risk of loss of both life and property because of his lack of training and experience. The PC has been derelict in its duty to protect this district, in my opinion. 

A fire chief is supposed to possess multiple years of experience, which translates into an ability to direct others in situations which require an innate ability to put people in the right place at the right time; to assist folks who need professional help when its required; and to be able to impart his body of knowledge as a firefighter to those younger folks who are call volunteers. That word volunteer is very important. Because if you don’t have a chief in charge who inspires confidence and is respected, then you end up with a situation that occurred when Greg Edgcomb became acting chief. Greg brought the fire company up to is current level from 17 to 28 firefighters in less than a year. What the PC has accomplished is to set this fire company back to a period which goes much further back than one year ago. Brooks should have never been selected to be chief of this call department. He is not qualified.

Bernard P. Giroux,

District Resident, South Dartmouth, MA