[EAS] New EAS Forum posting: A vision for what to do now that the FCC has eliminated the GMC

[Mike McCarthy]

I don't think there should be a limitation as to who would have access. 
The role of public dissemminator can be any one of a number of positions
depending on the location. Law enforcement leadership would be but one,
but not the only one. Mayor, County Board Chair, County EMA Director,
County/City Medical Director, Fire Chief/Commissioner, are but a few who
could also make decisions and they should not be hamstrung by an artifical
boundary.

It should be up to the state or local jurisdictions to define the
person(s) or position(s) with that vested authority to initiate a call to
action message.

In so far as which one was more objectionable, I would have to side with
the G as opposed to MC. As others point out and I concur, emergencies are
mostly local. Not at a state or even regional level unless the event is
state sized. And I can only recall a couple of those recently and the
states weren't very large.

That's not to say the G should not have the authority. The G should not be
the only authority vested with MC. ***Local*** must-carries serve a
specific purpose and it should be those locals controlling that decision. 
Not someone in the ivory tower at the capitol unless the coming of days is
upon us.

Cheers...

MM

> For the sake of clarification, could we specify - in a sentence or two -
> what the core objection was to the GMC ...  from BWWG's perspective,
> NASBAs,
> and/or NAB's perspective.
>
> Is (a) giving a politician (i.e. non emergency management / non law
> enforcement) such a capability.  Is it (b) giving anyone such a
> capability?
>
> In other words - was the core objection to GMC the "G" or the "MC".  Or
> was
> it something else?
>
> This clarification would - at least for me - help guide additional
> comments
> on the list...
>
> (just to recap what GMC actually meant, per the ECIG guidelines adopted by
> FEMA ... the GMC capability was to basically tag an existing EAS event
> code
> with a "true/false" CAP info parameter block that (if marked "true") would
> have simply overrided device Originator and Event Code filtering for
> automatic forwarding. Local device Location Code filters, duplicate alert
> prevention, and the alert duration limit would have still applied.)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: eas-bounces at radiolists.net [mailto:eas-bounces at radiolists.net] On
> Behalf Of Richard_Rudman
> the FCC has eliminated the GMC
>
> Thanks to Ed, Bill, Mike and Tom so far for views on what should happen
> first. I certainly agree that training is important, but I think we first
> have to agree on exactly what EM community warning training needs to
> accomplish that current training does not accomplish. At this time I
> remain
> unconvinced that warnings are truly integrated into the practice of
> emergency management as an essential and valuable first response resource.
> IC247 can be improved.
>
> I have a great deal of respect for the expertise and professionalism of
> emergency managers, but I personally believe there is still too much of a
> disconnect between the warning resource as it relates to overall emergency
> management. I'll give you a good example. I doubt that those in charge
> when
> a gas main explosion happens would fail to immediately dispatch key first
> responders. But, as over 60 years of warning research has documented,
> warnings fail most often at the origination point. CAP can and will help,
> but operational changes have to happen too.
>
> The research I refer to resides at the Natural Hazards Center of the
> University of Colorado at Boulder. When the Partnership For Public Warning
> (PPW) was founded in 2001 we drew heavily on this repository for reports.
> Many of them were authored by someone I consider to be one of the foremost
> experts in the field, Dr. Dennis Mileti, Professor Emeritus at the U of C,
> Boulder. Dennis was also a key supporter and member of the PPW.
>
> I would suggest that anyone interested in the priceless body of  knowledge
> accumulated on warnings at the University of Colorado, Boulder and the
> work
> of Dr. Mileti check out these links:
>
> http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/research/qr/
> http://urbanearth.gps.caltech.edu/about-2/dr-dennis-s-mileti/
>
> We can discuss the merits of what happens first "post GMC", but if there
> is
> one overall vision coming out of this discussion that I'd like to see:
>
> When emergency managers everywhere treat warnings as a key element of
> first
> response, we will be a lot closer to winning the hearts and minds of Part
> 11
> entities so they will willingly volunteer to carry all EAS events in their
> local EAS plans. If this happens, people at risk will receive better,
> timely
> warnings that can help save more lives and property.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Richard Rudman
>
> On Jan 14, 2012, at 3:33 PM, Tom Spencer wrote:
>
>>Certainly when the FCC opened up EBS for local and regional alerting,
>>the state, county, and municipal agencies should have been brought on
>>board with what it is and how to activate it, rather than leaving it up
>>to the discretion of the stations.
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the EAS Forum Discussion List
>
> Please invite your friends to join our Forum!
> http://lists.radiolists.net/mailman/listinfo/eas
>
> And, remember the main page: http://eas.radiolists.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the EAS Forum Discussion List
>
> Please invite your friends to join our Forum!
> http://lists.radiolists.net/mailman/listinfo/eas
>
> And, remember the main page: http://eas.radiolists.net
>