This question comes from a CFA volunteer. It is
… a question relating to social media in particular the posting of photos by CFA members whilst at an emergency. There are a range of policies, etc governing this but I am concerned that these are written by anti social media Execs. I also have a firm belief that locals who are near or in the path of the fire would appreciate me as a responder (if safe to do so) taking photo and posting these on social media. If I posted photos of fires in particular bushfires, could I argue that I am supporting the organisation to comply with S50B of the CFA Act?
I’ve made a number of posts about taking photos – see:
- Taking photos, recording sound (February 23, 2015);
- Taking photos on the fireground in South Australia (January 9, 2015);
- Lifesavers as law enforcers? (July 6, 2014);
- Taking photos whilst on duty with the NSW RFS – amended (October 26, 2013)
- US legislation on taking photos at emergency scenes (August 24, 2012); and
- The use of photos taken at accident and emergency scenes (August 6, 2011).
But this question relates to the use of photos and s 50B of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 (Vic). Section 50B says:
Duty to warn the community
(1) The Chief Officer must issue warnings and provide information in relation to fires in the country area of Victoria if—
(b) the Chief Officer considers that the issuing of warnings or the provision of information is necessary for the purposes of protecting life and property.
(2) The Chief Officer must have regard to any guidelines, procedures or operating protocols issued by the Emergency Management Commissioner under section 44 of the Emergency Management Act 2013 for the purposes of carrying out a duty under subsection (1).
(Section 50B(1)(a) was repealed in 2013 so the omission of paragraph (a) is not a mistake).
The CFA may establish volunteer brigades and ‘every brigade … and all officers and members of brigades … shall be under the order and control of the Chief Officer’ (s 27). The Chief Officer may delegate his power or authority to a person or office holder approved by the CFA (s 28).
Discussion
The duty to warn the community is a duty vested in the Chief Officer and he or she may delegate that obligation to others. The obvious person to receive that delegation would be an incident controller who would set up the necessary team within the IMT. The Chief Officer is unlikely to delegate his or her authority to a front line fire fighter.
There is no general duty or power upon anyone to ‘assist’ the CFA and it certainly would not be regarded as assistance for a person to undertake, on their own initiative, some action in the belief that it would assist. For example a private citizen who observes a bushfire could not seriously light a fire as a ‘back burn’ and claim some immunity because they were intending to ‘assist’ the CFA.
Equally a firefighter taking a photo and posting it on a website is not assisting the CFA Chief Officer to meet his or her obligations. In some circumstances such action may actually hinder the Chief Officer or his or her delegate.
The Chief Officer has ultimate control of all brigades and their members and can set out the policies and procedures that they are to follow. It is not up to members to decide that they don’t need to comply because in their view, the policies are badly written, ill-informed or not helpful.
Conclusion
My earlier posts have addressed the issues of taking photos at the scene of an emergency. The presence of s 50B in the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 (Vic) does not affect those answers. A person, whether a fire fighter or not, cannot argue that posting photos on social media is a legitimate exercise of the powers or obligations set out in s 50B nor is it somehow justified as ‘supporting the organisation [or the Chief Officer] to comply with’ those obligations. One supports the Chief Officer to achieve his or her obligations by following his or her directions.
Succinct and useful! Sharing this on Face Ache
For your volunteer –
The point of this social media policy is extremely sound. It is not, as your correspondent suggests, written by execs who do not understand or are scared of social media.
The policy comes back to something known in emergency management as “one source, one message”. In disasters such as large fires and floods, people turn to authorities like the CFA to provide relevant information. In the past, an issue developed (there are lots of examples domestically and individually) where units and individuals within these authorities passed on information to the public which was actually not to their immediate benefit. This was due to the unit only having a localised situational awareness rather than the big picture that the command centre has.
In the past, this unit led approach has caused mass panic, provided incorrect information, and ultimately led to deaths. It has also meant poor quality info has been passed on to the public by volunteers or staff who seem to have authority (as they often post these photos or comments in uniform, on a truck, or leveraging their involvement with the organisation to lend it some ‘veracity’. Thus, the public reading a message on Facebook by a cfa volunteer may assume that the message comes from the CFA and act accordingly, leading to poor results.
“One source, one message” is currently the international gold standard in how community service organisations with a legislated public role should provide information in these instances. It is seen as the gold standard through decades of research into large and small scale disasters and has become a key component of emergency management. It stops the ‘Chinese whisper’ effect and seeks to provide one clear, accurate communication channel.
The challenge lies in fitting this in with modern technology and brigades and services around the world have been slow to respond to the changes in the social media landscape. One approach that is working here and overseas is for local units to pass on their photos, videos etc to management through a dedicated line on days of emergency, and for management to quickly determine its veracity, legality, impact, and perhaps use it as a component of a message or warning.
One common response given to these arguments is that ‘head office’ may not pass on information to the public. In the past, sadly, this has indeed sometimes been the case. However, it is imperative that the correct information is passed on, not all information, to ensure its veracity. Thus CFA units should provide their info to head office, or through an official channel, and their organisation should ensure its veracity and large scale impact before posting a community safety warning.
The use of social media in disaster response is a fascinating one. I could write a thesis on how it all fits together with community resilience – it is a hot topic and has not, as your correspondent fears, simply been ignored because management are ‘scared’.
Information shared by the public becomes a key and important component in the response and recovery of any disaster and is also becoming more important in preparedness. Community resilience is massively improved when members of the public use social media to share information about disasters. The opposite is the case, however, when this approach is adopted by individual members or units in official emergency response organisations who have a legislated role and must consider the big picture outcome of every advice and warning they provide during disaster. The public will consider it as always correct and official as it comes from a person of perceived authority, even if it may be causing more problems than it solves. Thus your correspondent should understand that them sharing information in social media during an emergency is counter productive and against their organisations policy and guidelines.
If your correspondent does not like the policy, their options are to:
• leave the organisation and provide information as a member of the public with no perceived link to an official emergency response organisation like the CFA
• get into a high enough position of power within their organisation to effect change to one of the key tenets of emergency management
• lobby their organisation for a change in policy
• post to social media in contravention of CFA policies and as a rejection of the studies of numerous disasters internationally that have developed the policy.
I suggest your correspondent discuss the matter and logic behind “one source, one message”. Their are lots of short, free courses in emergency management around they can do to gain a greater understanding of the big picture issues beyond their localised outlook.