News
Fitzgerald blasts FirstNet’s actions
In the first public sign of discontent within FirstNet, board member Paul Fitzgerald — former president of the National Sheriffs Association — yesterday leveled a series of allegations regarding the board’s actions, including conflicts of interest, improper hiring practices, failures in communicating with board members and efforts to suppress or ignore public-safety input into the plans for the network.
“I ask all of you, as fellow FirstNet board members, where are the checks and balances?” Fitzgerald said during yesterday’s board meeting, which was webcast. “Where is the openness and transparency promised in the law that created this agency? Why are certain public-safety board members being sidelined, while a faction led by industry members proceeds without us?
“Again, I ask each of you: If I don’t know what we’re doing, how can the millions of public-safety members, for whom I sat in this chair, have any idea how the network being envisioned will meet their needs? I wish I had an answer. For those of you for whom these concerns are new, I expect that you have no answer either. And an answer is surely required.”
Fitzgerald was scheduled to present a report on the public-safety advisory committee (PSAC) that was created to provide input to FirstNet, based on the board’s agenda for the meeting. Instead, Fitzgerald read a motion that describes a proposed network plan provided to the board on Friday as “flawed.” In the motion, Fitzgerald said the plan was developed by members with a “possible conflict of interest — or the appearance thereof — that has not been publicly disclosed.”
The motion also calls for review committees to evaluate the work done by the board to date, including the proposed network plan. The motion was tabled, and FirstNet Chairman Sam Ginn called for an immediate investigation, although he later noted that Fitzgerald did not provide evidence to support his claims.
“I am very troubled by the allegations of misconduct,” Ginn said. “I want those issues dealt with immediately, in some way, whether it’s counsel in [the U.S. Department of] Commerce or wherever. I want those issues dealt with — front and center — now, so this board can understand whether, in fact , the allegations are true or not.”
Prior to the motion being tabled, Fitzgerald explained the reasons for his motion (read a transcript of Fitzgerald’s statement), noting that the procedures being followed by FirstNet “are killing our credibility” with potential public-safety users.
Fitzgerald outlined the following concerns:
- The proposed network plan — “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.”
- FirstNet’s relationship with the PSAC — “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?”
- Resistance to sharing information with board members — “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.”
- Improper meetings–“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 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.”
Fitzgerald reiterated his opinion that the FirstNet board is being driven by members with commercial-wireless backgrounds instead of those with public-safety experience.
“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.”
Other members of the FirstNet board with public-safety background acknowledged that there have been some issues regarding internal communications within the board, but all spoke in opposition to Fitzgerald’s claims of impropriety.
“The tonality of this motion makes it sound as if public safety has reservations about this board, and that is not true,” FirstNet board member Jeff Johnson, a retired firefighter, said. “Paul does, and he made the motion. That’s his right as a board member. I know he’s frustrated; I get it. But I don’t want a member of this board to believe that is a broadly held opinion by public safety.
“As I said, I am public safety. And, at some level, I resent this constant assertion that we have to go out and find public safety to listen to and to review the decisions that we make. I am public safety, and I sit here, and I have a clear, unimpeded view of every aspect of this operation that I’m interested in. I merely have to ask for it. I think to reach beyond that and to level an allegation of this nature — especially without an opportunity to remedy — is not appropriate.
“While Paul and I have known each other for a lot of years, and I have tremendous respect for him, I could not disagree with him more on this motion.”
FirstNet board member Charles Dowd — a deputy chief in the New York Police Department — expressed a similar sentiment.
“In my seat from public safety, I don’t see anybody on this board who I don’t have confidence in and doesn’t want my trust,” Dowd said. “It’s certainly a legitimate concern, to try to understand, Paul, all of the information that goes into these documents. And your desire to understand it better — again, to a lesser degree — those are legitimate concerns that I think we can talk about.
“When it comes to the issue of personal integrity and trustworthiness, I’m completely comfortable with the makeup of this board.”
FirstNet board member Kevin McGinnis echoed this opinion.
“We have heard issues of transparency raised,” McGinnis said. “This certainly raises it with a sharp edge — perhaps sharper than it needs to be. But I have to say that, at this point in time — with the efforts of the chair and the efforts of my fellow board members — I am very satisfied with the direction that we are headed in, dealing with issues of transparency, in making sure that our work is understood, and making sure that the information that we are dealing with when we make our decisions is shared with the public-safety world.
“So, I’m very optimistic about our near future and our future. I also do not share the degree of concern that Paul has reflected in this motion. I look forward to sort of tearing it apart and analyzing the specific issues that he’s raised, so that we can get past them.”
FirstNet board member Wellington Webb said that he was “blindsided” and a “little taken aback” by the motion, adding that he supported Fitzgerald’s efforts during a work session on Monday to seek more openness and expand outreach programs.
“It’s the wrong motion, wrong time, wrong place,” Webb said.
After the meeting, Fitzgerald declined to answer questions from the press about his motion.
Sometimes the uniformed folks
Sometimes the uniformed folks think they have all the answers and want to run the show. In reality, the technical people need to be more involved because they know how to make the technology work.
This is more about proper
This is more about proper methods of moving forward in a transparent and ethical manner, than “running the show.” Fitzgerald was calling for a review committee, not for Public Safety to be in charge of technical aspects. He’s asking for review, open dialogue and accountability, which is in no way unreasonable for a $7 Billion + project.
Amen! Just because you are a
Amen! Just because you are a lab engineer, police officer, or fireman doesn’t give you the credentials to be an expert on two-way radio.
I agree PS seems to be afraid
I agree PS seems to be afraid of new tech. Reference NPSTC’s Why Can’t PS Just Use Cellphones article. Its like all or nothing, no mention of mixed communications networks or public/private partnerships or moving from one network to the next seamlessly. Some seem to be stopping there own progress towards a much better, versatile and safer communications platform.
Another example of how
Another example of how bigger, and federally driven, is not better. This pig will never fly!
Anonymous: One problem with
Anonymous: One problem with your comment, that is the technology works now, today, kids and business people have the hand held devices, 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.
Anonymous: One problem with
Anonymous: One problem with your comment, that is the technology works now, today, kids and business people have the hand held devices, 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.
It has nothing to do with
It has nothing to do with uniform members my friend.
This national broad band network is a farce, a sham, a big money making scheme by a bunch of well connected politicians and industry folk.
The only people that will be coming and are coming out on the losing end IS PUBLIC SAFETY. This has NEVER been about public safety from the get go, just money. From the secret meetings specifically leaving out public safety to the strong arm tactics by the FCC t band freeze and give backs, and the fact that tax dollars will be basically building out systems for private industry.
I feel bad for this guy Fitzgerald, he is the lone ranger. Keep blowing it up and keep exposing it for the crock of crap that it is!!! There is no one on that board that has a clue what they are actually doing except raising their hands when the puppet masters tell them to and placing them into the pockets of the few flush with cash.
The technology is not there
The technology is not there for and of itself, nor is it there to display the marvels of innovation. If the uniformed people it is to serve cannot understand it, they won’t use it and in the end we the taxpayers lose. Uniformed “subject matter experts” must be involved in all phases of the design. The requirements for the system come from USERS….
Anonymous; What I believe Mr.
Anonymous; What I believe Mr. Fitzgerald is saying, is that this is a public body, where meeting notices and agendas MUST be published ahead of time, and decision making information disseminated to all members WITHOUT ASKING, instead of acting like they are commercial project committee meetings, where nothing is open for public view, and decisions are rubber stamped by ‘public’ boards.
This has to do about a few in
This has to do about a few in the telecom industry making large amounts of money without proper input from Public Safety, First Responders. Think of NEXRAD as an example of government waste of funds!
I wonder why the rest of the
I wonder why the rest of the board didn’t agree with his point of view? A new wave of impartiality and transparency with the new GM? Doubtful. Such a heavy reliance on cellular for public safety, when it’s been the most vulnerable and unreliable? Are the voices of the SWIC’s and RECCWG’s going to be heard? Who is pressuring the Commerce Committee to generate so much money? Wait, everyone’s going to have come off the “T” band. Can we say, unfunded mandate?
“I think the government
“I think the government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem and very often makes the problem worse.”
Milton Friedman (31 July 1912 – 16 November, 2006)
I can tell you that as
I can tell you that as basically a “state point of contact” for FirstNet we are so out of the loop it’s not even funny. We get our information from presentations at various conferences we are not even told about. Communication has been very frustrating and poor at best. While I’m not sure about everything he said, hopefully this will move to fix some of the issues. FirstNet you should be telling the state points of contact your plan before letting board members go to conferences. Thanks for telling us about the listening sessions you are planning to have with each state and territory.
LTE is fast becoming the
LTE is fast becoming the global wireless broadband standard. It is at the beginning of its lifecycle and there is no emerging technology that is likely to challenge it in the forseeable future. It will ultimately eclipse LMR, including PS LMR. Although It is true that some may profit from this transition and urge its early adaption, it is equally true that others have a vested financial interest in maintaining the status quo as long as possible.
LTE will succeed wether or not public safety adapts it. However, public safety LMR advocates will not succeed in maintaining the status quo indefinitely. Already, public safety agencies use wireless broadband devices and apps routinely. This trend will only accelerate as younger officers familiar with broadband devices and networks move up in rank within their agencies.
Ultimately high cost sIngle function narrowband LMR devices will be replaced by lower cost multi function broadband devices. Interoperability will be native to the network and transparent to the user when public safety wireless devices operate on a common air interface and spectrum band.
Public safety officials and technical staff should seek information and advise from a variety of sources, and not rely solely on their LMR vendors. They should learn the new broadband wireless technology since this is where the future lies. Either public safety will build its own LTE network or it will be a customer on someone elses LTE network.
As a key state official who
As a key state official who will make very important decisions about this network for my state that will affect tens of thousands of its users, I fully support and endorse Sheriff Fitzgerald’s statements.
I cannot say these things while representing my state in any official capacity and so I post anonymously. Thank you for covering this story.
FirstNet is easily the most
FirstNet is easily the most important communications issue public safety has ever faced. I recall that a leading public safety communications manufacturer conducted an extensive survey of technical managers (PSAP) prior to engineering their new console system. The finished product included less than 30% of the operational requirements that were considered a ‘must’ by those interviewed leaving those that purchased this system to come up with their own workarounds to make a critical dispatch system fulfill their needs.
This can’t happen with FirstNet. We have to get it right the first time.
A properly designed public safety broadband network can solve ALL of our needs. Data,VOIP,ROIP, telemetry, and most importantly-Interoperability at a fraction of the cost of existing methods. Think of a direct connect voice system over IP with local, county or regional, and FEMA talkgroups. Portable, mobile, and base station systems with traditional RF platforms with the addition of Wi-Fi.
We must insist on licensing of the technology platform used for FirstNet through the Department of Commerce and that any manufacturer that varies from that standard be barred from offering equipment that operates on FirstNet – period!
We as public safety practitioners have only ONE agenda. A robust communications tool for all! Any one FirstNet board member that doesn’t share that view should reconsider or step down.
Consider me in Sheriff Fitzgerald’s corner.
Two-way radio will always
Two-way radio will always have a purpose. LTE and Cellular just provide enhanced capabilities to the first responders.
LTE is a well defined
LTE is a well defined wireless network technology, adopted and being implemented and operated by numerous commercial operators around the World, including Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint in the US. This is the one-in-the-same technology adopted by the Public Safety community and by Federal legislation for the NPSBN. NPSTC has developed and delivered to FirstNet a set of 1,300 launch requirements for the NPSBN based on this same LTE technology and specifications. FirstNet’s consulting with State and local agencies will not add substantially to the LTE system knowledge already know, and thus, moving ahead with the NPSBN system design should continue in parallel with consultation. What is at issue is MUST the NPSBN use/share commercial LTE network assets to be affordable — most interested parties believe this is the case — thus, how can this partnership be accomplished to be acceptable to the Public Safety Community and to the commercial operators. If one looks at the BTOP LTE budget for the seven grants ($380M), it is 5.4% of the $7B FirstNet budget. These seven systems certainly do not account for 5% of the Public Safety users in the US!
What will come from the FirstNet consultations with State and local agencies are a variety of important operational requirements specific to their operations, including specifics of coverage and throughput. But these data will not change the fundamentals of LTE and the NPSBN structure. And, LTE as a technology is inherently flexible enough to accommodate most if not all of these operational requirements.
Its a nice discussion
Its a nice discussion