STATter 911: Just say no: Tennessee fire chief is against residential sprinklers. Doesn't think city code should be different than state.

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Just say no: Tennessee fire chief is against residential sprinklers. Doesn't think city code should be different than state.

Click here and then scroll down for the latest fire and EMS news from STATter911.com

Chief Jim Swindle from City of Spring Hill website.

From Tennessean.com, an article by Jill Cecil Wiersma on the City of Spring Hill:

City Fire Chief Jim Swindle is asking city leaders to rethink a proposal that would require sprinklers in newly built homes.

Swindle said the state commissioner of Commerce and Insurance and the state fire marshall will not adopt the 2009 edition of the International Code Council, which includes the requirement. He suggested the city follow the state and stick with a previous edition.

"In my career I've never wanted to have a code differ from what the state gives us. There's too much conflict," he said at the Board of Mayor and Alderman's work session last week.

"The state doesn't want to do it, so I don't think we should do it," Swindle said.

The board unanimously approved the first reading for the proposed sprinkler requirement earlier this year. But it deferred the final vote for two months at the request of area builders who wanted time to voice their objections, which include added construction costs and possible liability if the sprinklers malfunction.

Nolensville Fire Chief Presley Hughes said these sound like the same arguments that were made before the town passed its own ordinance five years ago. He said sprinklers are especially important with today's building materials, which include quick-burning laminated lumber and lightweight truss construction.

# posted by Dave Statter @ 1:30 AM

Comments:

Wow, what a dinosaur!!! If you work for this man, practice defensive firefighting cause he dosn't care about your safety that obvious

# posted by

Anonymous : June 16, 2009 7:32 AM

Looks like that town should look for a new fire chief.
one with some brains and the citizens in mind

# posted by

Anonymous : June 16, 2009 8:06 AM

While there IS a benefit to having a UNIFORM fire code across the state, it should NOT be "uniform" on the backs and lives of firefighters! This guy heads to seek immediate medical attention to correct a severe case of rectal-cranial inversion. In fact, WTF is wrong with fire officials all across Tennessee???

# posted by

Anonymous : June 16, 2009 8:21 AM

I think his name tells it all SWINDLE!!!
Take some initiative chief thats what leaderships about.
jb FDNY

# posted by

Anonymous : June 16, 2009 8:22 AM

I can understand the Chief's hesitance to have differing rules from the state because that will certainly add to confusion and problems down the line.

But at the same time who is going to take the leadership position and get these sprinklers everywhere? If the support for ideas like this don't come from the grassroots level then the upper levels of government have an excuse not to implement such changes and can blame it on everybody else for not wanting it.

Make the sprinklers mandatory! Local, regional and national building regulations are all about HEALTH AND SAFETY, both of occupants and FIREFIGHTERS!!

# posted by

Anonymous : June 16, 2009 8:39 AM

I find it hard to believe that this man has ever commanded fire fighters at a fire or else he has no conscience at all. Beyond that I've always believed that it is better to be an inovator than a follower.

# posted by

john cummings : June 16, 2009 8:49 AM

You just gott wonder about some of our leaders (and I WAS one of them!) To say no to residential sprinklers, just because the state code is different is pure BS. Saving lives is the big picture here, civilian and firefighter. Chief, maybe it's time to pursue other emplyment opportunities?

# posted by

Anonymous : June 16, 2009 9:00 AM

I'd be curious to know how it made it to the FIRST reading at Council. Did the Chief NOT know it was being proposed for adoption?? Is he out of touch with his Fire Marshal? Are their office's even in the same building?? Sounds like a huge disconnect. Prevention should be preconnected prior to any Council mtg. where code changes or adoption is discussed and/or proposed. I'm thinkin the Fire Marshal (if they have one) is hiding under his desk right now.

# posted by

Anonymous : June 16, 2009 9:06 AM

It's time we extinguish the dinosaurs and get some forward thinking leadership in these chief positions. If the chief doesn't care about his firefighters, then who will?! I guess residential sprinklers aren't necessarily a "no brainer" if you're not willing to use your brain. Come on Chief Swindle, do what's best for your guys and stop listening to the whining of the contractors!

# posted by

Anonymous : June 16, 2009 9:18 AM

I am surprised the IAFC hasn't made any comments about Mr. Swindle. I'll bet he will use the law firm of Cheatem & Howe to defend his stance on residential sprinklers.

# posted by

Anonymous : June 16, 2009 9:35 AM

LIFE SAFTEY!!!! DOES HE NOT GET IT. WTF!!!

# posted by

Anonymous : June 16, 2009 9:48 AM

I can't imagine working under that guy. How can his men and women look to him for direction and guidance when it's obvious he doesn't have their backs! At first I thought he was just the kind of chief who buckles under political pressure, but then I saw the picture Dave posted and realized nah, he's' just a jagoff!

GutsyGirl

# posted by

Anonymous : June 16, 2009 11:09 AM

The notion that local Code should not differ from those adopted by the state or county is total hogwash. There are lots of instances in which local codes are at variance - it's just something that you learn to deal with as an architect, engineer or contractor.

Somebody has this guy's ear and I don't think it's the firefighters. The fire chief's job is to enable his officers and firefighters to deliver the highest level of service possible to their community and to do so safely and consistently. Sprinklers are a great way to assure that. This chief should look for work in the private sector...

# posted by

Peter : June 16, 2009 11:23 AM

"Department Functions

• The Spring Hill Fire Department is also involved with the public as an instructor on Fire Safety and Fire Prevention."

How involved? Mildly?

# posted by

Anonymous : June 16, 2009 11:34 AM

Question---How many of you guys posting comments have taken on the financial burden of installing these in your own families homes?? Aren't there lives as important as of those you want to save??

# posted by

Anonymous : June 16, 2009 12:43 PM

This is the home of Saturn. I wonder if the Saturn plant is sprinklered? You can bet it is....This guy is completely off track with his comments.

# posted by

biscuit32533 : June 16, 2009 12:52 PM

This fellow is obviously misguided and catering to some sort of special influence.

This has got to be one of the lamest excuses I have ever heard..

I think that this gentleman never learned the First principle of leadership which is that leaders lead...they don't worry about rocking the boat when the waters get rough.

# posted by

Anonymous : June 16, 2009 1:38 PM

WHOA there folks!!!!
Once again someone has taken everything totally out of context!!!!
The city has sprinkler requirements in it's ordinances for multi-family homes and commercial properties over 10,000sq/ft. What they were voting on was the ICC 2009 version. That one has the requirement for new homes constructed to be sprinkled starting in 2011. The state has this matter before them and decided to adopt the the 2006 ICC and I agree the city needs follow suit and adopt the same codes as the state has. The Chief has campaigned for sprinklers for all construction in Spring Hill ever since he has been here..... so maybe all those post from folks not familiar with Chief or Spring Hill would want to do some home work before they so quickly pass judgment or make comments they would not want to read about themselves if they are in fact not true.
Oh... I live in Spring Hill... just saw this and wanted to respond.... didn't have time to set up an account, hence posted anonymous.

# posted by

Anonymous : June 16, 2009 3:59 PM

The Chief presents no valid argument against resiential sprinklers. Either he is living in the past with no regards to data or he is under political pressure from local developers. Either way, the public's best interests are not being served.

# posted by

Capt. Schmoe : June 16, 2009 5:05 PM

Smells like home cookin Mr. I live in Springhill.

# posted by

Anonymous : June 16, 2009 8:01 PM

YOU'RE FIRED!

# posted by

Anonymous : June 16, 2009 11:20 PM

Before Everyone gets on there high horse and burns this chief in effigy, Lets all sit back and take a minute to think about this. Ok say the local institutes this and makes sprinklers mandatory, Does the water supply have the capacity to deal with the load? Who checks that the systems are installed correctly? that's just 2 off the top of my head. Before we spout off don't you think we should get some answers?. You See I happen to be one of those special CRAZY people who RUN into Fires to Put Them Out FOR FREE. I am a Volunteer Firefighter And PROUD OF IT..

# posted by

Mike : June 17, 2009 8:09 AM

I vehemently disagree with the stand taken by Chief Swindle. Whilst there is a good case to be made for uniformity in code materials, it is also clear that sometimes leadership for positive change begins at the 'smallest' levels of government. It is apparent that the state officials within Tennessee won’t take steps to protect the residents and fire fighters by positively acting on a residential sprinkler code amendment. I don’t accept, but understand the State’s position. Sometimes when the State fails to act, positive actions neeed to be taken locally. That is one reason that there are different levels of governmental structures within states. When action won’t be initiated at the state level, communities can, thru local self government processes, take positive action to choose their own destiny. When enough localities do this it can be effective in pushing the State toward a positive change from “the bottom up”.

I also don’t subscribe to anonymous commentary. I don’t believe that it serves the cause of change well. I believe that if you can’t write something openly in an effort to effect change, you should consider not writing at all. For that reason I have added my name to this posting.

# posted by

Walter Groden : June 17, 2009 9:19 AM

Well, I know this chief personally and have been watching all the sprinkler stuff since they boarder us. He is not against sprinklers at all. In fact him and his fire marshal were asking the city to go to the 2009 with sprinklers city wide until the contractors got to the alderman and feed them a bunch of BS about liability and that residential fire deaths are rare.
Chief Swindle is a retired Fire marshal and 100% supports Fire Sprinklers and was miss quoted.

# posted by

Anonymous : June 17, 2009 10:06 AM

I happen to live in Spring Hill and know that the Chief is a retired Fire Marshal, hmmm guess now we know why he had to retire. A scary thought when the man in charge is 1) retired and 2) previously a Fire Marshal and still does not take care of his men and citizens. I vote for a new Chief hands down, the articles that he writes in our local paper are also ridiculous.

# posted by

Anonymous : June 17, 2009 9:07 PM

Everyone talking bad about him and the City should man up and leave your name on the message your posting. Can you say COWARD!!!
Its easy to hide behind the computer and say these words when in fact you probably don't even know the whole story.
Chad

# posted by

Anonymous : June 18, 2009 7:46 AM

WoW, this post is heated....So let face the facts, he recommended to the city, that the city should use the same codes as the state, and the state codes only recommend the use of residential sprinklers. Correct so far? But the other proposal would have made residential sprinklers mandatory in the city. And that proposal made it through the first reading? But because of confusion and headache that could be caused by the city and state being different, the Chief recommended to stick with the state. Am I still on track? If so, looks to me the Chief and probably Fire Marshal chose conveniance over the life safety, life safety of both the public that they serve and the Firefighters they are suppose to LEAD! I would doubt the Firefighters of Spring Hill agree with chief on this.With new construction and the materials used sprinklers are more important than ever. I would think that a man with so much experience would be willing to stand up for that - Steve

# posted by

Anonymous : June 18, 2009 11:31 AM

Actually most of the fire fighters I know at that department can care less of the sprinkler ordinance. If they did why was their Association backing the sprinklers law? This was evident at the hearings where none of them showed up to support their fire marshal and the life safety or their brothers. The Fire Marshal was quoted in the paper of selling his loved motorcycle to get a sprinkler system to protect his family. That to me sounds like he is for it.
I bet the city or the builders association put some pressure on the mayor and alderman and as we all know crap runs down hill.
I know at my job I have been told to do something even though I did not want to.
Again like someone said a few comments back, we all don't know what truly happened, but are very quick to point blame and call names. We all should grow up and think that we need to help educate this city rather than put it down.
Chris

# posted by

Anonymous : June 18, 2009 10:49 PM