News
Sheriff Paul Fitzgerald’s statement at the April 23, 2013, meeting of the FirstNet board
I will now lay out my concerns, which are reflected in the content of this motion.
My first concern relates the company’s startup planning document that I received last Friday. For the reasons I have expressed in my motion, the plan presented to the board for the development of the public-safety broadband network is flawed.
I’m not saying it’s necessarily a bad plan, but I do say that the process by which it was developed undermined its ability to be supported by public safety.
This 400-plus-page startup plan—which, by the way, I first saw this weekend—requires (1) an independent review by an outside body, (2) testing against alternatives, (3) and, most importantly, obtaining serious public-safety input before any plan is presented for consideration by the board.”
My second concern relates to the role of the PSAC. In my view, more effort [is expended] making sure that no advice is received from the PSAC that would have to be publicly disclosed by this board than is spent trying to hear the PSAC out or involve them in our activities in any way.
In my view, the PSAC is treated more like a necessary evil than a valuable source of public-safety advice. This troubles me to my core. How can we be designing a public-safety broadband network without public safety [being] front and center? Why is everyone sitting quietly while commercial members of this board tell public safety to sit in the corner and watch them work? Whose network is this anyway?
This board can’t turn our blinders onto the PSAC just because it’s more convenient for us not to have to disclose the advice they have to give us. If we’re not listening to our public-safety advisory committee as we plan our network, and we’re not listening to all of the public-safety members of this board, who are we listening to? If we are open to hearing the advice of public safety, then we should show it in our daily commitments with the PSAC. If we are not, then we should all go home.”
My third concern relates to the matter of process and the need for transparency. In my view, the likelihood of the adoption and use of the public-safety broadband network depends, in large part, upon the confidence of public safety in the processes followed by FirstNet in relation to—among other matters—the development and implementation of plans and designs for the public-safety broadband network.
In my view, the process thus far employed by FirstNet [is] killing our credibility.
It appears to me that directors of FirstNet do not have equal access to documentation information. For example, I have not had access to financial information. Other directors must have had that information, since we’re paying for services. I do not know what the consultants working for FirstNet are being paid or how they were hired. Other directors must have that knowledge. I have not had access to the agreements pursuant to which they’re working. Other directors must have that knowledge.
The board of FirstNet has meetings and conference calls with a quorum of directors present that are not treated as board meetings, are not publicly announced or disclosed, and are not subject to the public observation. The proceedings of the public board meetings are generally well-rehearsed performances, while the real decision-making takes place in other forums. I want all my public-safety colleagues to be able to see what we are doing.
I worked hand-in-hand with [the] Public Safety Alliance for quite some time to see this network created, and I will not sit by and watch it built by my industry board-member colleagues in accordance with their commercial vision, rather than the vision of the public-safety users of the public-safety broadband network. This is supposed to be our network.
In conclusion, I represent to you that I will continue to focus upon the issues I have raised today for the duration my membership on this board, and each of you can expect that will not be muffled, sidelined, pressured to back down, or circumvented. No one on this board wants the public-safety broadband network to succeed more than I do.
In making this motion, I am neither pursuing any agenda nor seeking to further any interest, except those of the public-safety community. I appeal to you for support of my motion.
I’m public safety avionics
I’m public safety avionics radio design and the only way I found out about Firstnet was by reading it here.
Nobody from firstnet has even thought of contacting us and this is important because there are only 2 major players in public safety avionics radios so how are we supposed to design our radios to be compatible with the radios used on the ground if we don’t know what’s going on?
Way to go Mr. Fitzgerald, I
Way to go Mr. Fitzgerald, I work in public safety avionics radio design and the only way I knew about firstnet was by wandering over to UC and reading it here.
How am I supposed to design my Helicopter radios to be compatible with the radios used on the ground if nobody has told me about the grand plan.
It’s really simple, there are only 2 major players in avionics Public safety radios so how about letting us in on things instead of cultivating us like mushrooms.
Well said! This network
Well said! This network should be based on the needs and desires of public safety, not what Motorola, Harris or some other vendor wants. I think the vision of FirstNet is severely flawed and disconnected from what public safety really envisions this network to be.
The technology works now,
The technology works now, today, kids and business people have the hand held devices, they are running various apps and they work! Perhaps you have missed the news bulletins on the multiple P/S agencies presently adopting their own WiFi, 3g based hand held devices. Additionally, this comment from Sheriff Fitzgerald is not about making the technology work, it is about making a service and providing that service to Public Safety / First Responders before creating a hidden agenda business organization, a huge specific & unique service and devices in a lethargic time frame. And with the high potential of run-away costs as has been seen so many previous times. I applaud Sheriff Fitzgerald for standing up for Public Safety and open activities. His goal is completely and vehemently visibly in support of our valuable Public Safety Personnel, and yes, his claims strike a blow against the hidden deals “good-ole-Boy” situations seen far too often in USA politics. Back to your focus, Public Safety uniformed folks DO have the answers as to what they need, where they need it, and when they need it. There isn’t a techie around who can fully understand the uniformed points, views, and desires, although a few do give it a good close attempt. Your insinuation , and I interpret it, is that the uniformed folks should just sit back and wait for what the techies give them. Sorry, wrong approach from my view, desires , and textbook… Hurray for Sheriff Fitzgerald in his goal of open activities and appropriate solutions, the correct goal and methodology to support Public Safety.
I will take issue with the
I will take issue with the statement “There isn’t a techie around who can fully understand the uniformed points, views, and desires.” Wrong! Techies do understand.
Techies are not in command, the first responders and manufactures sales personnel are in command. Believe it or not techies do not build LMR radio systems. LMR radio systems are built by high ranking First Responders and the bean counters who tell them how much money they have to spend. Salesmen, of course, promise the moon. You get what you pay for.
All to often I have seen “well, let’s build a trial system first and see how it works.” Trial systems never ever meet the expectations First Responders anticipate. Trial systems are never built out with the necessary in-building coverage required by First Responders because they are a trial system. Yet, First Responders will look at the trial system and claim the system won’t work.
I submit one of “Rick’s Rules,” All First Responders know how to build a radio system. There isn’t a single one of them that can actually use it.
Very good comments. Would
Very good comments. Would have been nice to have seen his actual motion.
As long as people like
As long as people like Sheriff Fitzgerald sit on the board, we may get a good network. If left to the vendors, they is little chance that the network will be what public safety needs, it will become just an extension of the commercial networks with as much proprietary equipment as they can squeeze in.
I work for a state agency
I work for a state agency that has had dealings with FirstNet and know personally that Fitzgerald’s remarks are dead-on. I encourage all public safety professionals to speak up – don’t allow big business to intimidate or bully you into believing that the path they are taking takes your needs into primary consideration!
I applaud Fitzgerald for standing up and speaking for those first responders working out in the field.
I support Mr. Fitzgerald in
I support Mr. Fitzgerald in making this motion.
It is far better to avoid the appearance of any conflicts at the beginning, instead of at the end – where all public confidence would be lost!
I applaud Sheriff Fitzgerald.
I applaud Sheriff Fitzgerald. From the onset of FirstNet and the appointment of its membership, it has and continues to not only ignore public safety but also to truley represent public safety as a whole. Retired police and fire chiefs have long forgotten what it is like to be in the trenches and not have a radio that works.
FirstNet even ignored the presidential directive that the board be composed of public safety persons form across all areas including tribes. Yet no tribal representation or even outreach tho tribes. FirstNet is comprised of retired individuals with a monetary agenda not necessarily an agenda that provides for the safety of current law enforcement or fire personnel. I have seen and witnessed the lack of communications from FirstNet to the thousands and thousands of first responders. The board needs a good wake up call and lets truly represent first responders by putting them on this board rather than Chief’s who haven’t responded to day to day incidents unless the press is looking for a comment.
Having industry solution
Having industry solution providers as voting members of the Board of Directors creates an inherent conflict of interest. The only voting members should be those representing the users and those representing the investors, i.e. government funding agency. Industry representatives should only be involved in providing comments to draft requirements documents, acquisition strategies, solution alternatives, etc. Any companies providing technical advice and assistance should be excluded from providing products and services. All of this is “standard” Federal acquisition policies and procedures prescribed by the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) and while FirstNet may not be required to follow them, they provide a well-documented guide. The entire process should be conducted as transparently as any applicable Federal statutes permit. It is also important that the user representatives really represent the views of current field level users, rather than only those of the leadership of professional associations. Frequent virtual focus groups using social networking should be used to ensure that the field level public safety officers and their tactical communications support specialists have a strong voice.
I think Terry’s comments are
I think Terry’s comments are spot-on. It will be a true test of the real intentions of Congress, Commerce/NTIA leadership, and the members of the FirstNet Board to see if they meaningfully address these serious criticisms with effective corrective actions, or simply “hunker down” and continue as is, hoping that the critics will become discouraged and go away.