PAX Centurion - May / June 2013

Page 36 • PAX CENTURION • May/June 2013 617-989-BPPA (2772) Leadership is solving problems By James Orsino, Boston EMS President “Leadership is solving problems. The day soldiers stop bringing you their problems is the day you have stopped leading them. They have either lost confidence that you can help or concluded you do not care. Either case is a failure of leadership. ” – Colin Powell C olin Powell, to the members of a uniformed service such as Boston EMS, is a living example of a contemporary leader whose accomplishments unquestionably qualify him to speak directly to the nature of “leadership.”As a solider, diplomat, and scholar, Colin Powell’s career path has always led him to the highest levels based on his ability to lead effectively. Leadership as a concept is difficult to define based an illustration of its qualities across the entire spectrum of possibilities. Powell elo- quently demonstrates, within the context of his quote, that leadership either exists or it does not. Consistent with these principles, the House of Representative of the EMS Division BPPA has unanimously af- firmed that “leadership” does not exist at the Boston Public Health Commission (BPHC). Powell sets forth two distinct example of “failure in leadership”; a lack of confidence and a lack of caring. While either example quali- fies as a failure of leadership, in the current state the BPHC qualifies under both examples. The “lack of confidence” in the ability of the BPHC to “solve problems” by this membership has existed for quite some time. The “lack of caring” was best demonstrated in their recent antics. In the immediate aftermath of the events of April 15 th , includ- ing the chaotic days that followed, the membership of the BPPA/ EMS Division concentrated its efforts towards a return to normalcy. This effort was the strategic goal of the City of Boston, the Com- monwealth of Massachusetts, and the Nation itself. The resiliency of this city, state, and Nation depends on our ability to recover quickly. Normalcy also needed to be established on a more personal level for those who lost loved ones, the injured and their families, and the first responders and their families. During this timeframe the BPHC was apparently concentrating on other matters regarding EMS and without regard for all of the victims. The BPHC was busy planning to break off negotiations and to violate the rights of an entire class of individuals. Throughout the span of negotiations the one and only concept that has remained exclusively consistent, from the management side of the table, was that they had no authority to make decisions “at the table.” Obviously this BPHC position has been the greatest contrib- uting factor to the protracted nature of the process. From the very first meeting various outside interests had to be consulted before any decisions were made. Often times these outside decisions were never actually made. Even the proposals that were not in dispute couldn’t be signed off, due to a typographic error on the part of the BPHC negotiator, which he refused to correct without “authority.”And yet in the days following the bombings, while everyone else in the City was concentrating on resiliency, the BPHC was busy planning and launch- ing a scheme to break off negotiations with BPPA/EMS. Sun Tzu in the “Art of War” spoke about striking during distrac- tion. Of course he also was a champion of cutting off women’s heads as a form of acceptable discipline and his collective works were writ- ten as a method to deal with those that one considers to be the enemy. In all future dealings with BPHC, no matter how concentrated we are on events and incidents of the utmost importance to the public that we serve; we must always remember that the BPHC will attempt to take advantage of our distractions and treat us as an enemy. But there remains another glaring problem, beyond the obvious fact that breaking off negotiations was reprehensive behavior and in bad faith on their part. The consistent excuse was that their negotia- tions team lacked authority to make decisions “at the table.” Their actions during our last session either represent evidence that they had been lying about their only consistent position all along (a condition that would be far less than shocking to our negotiating team) or they planned to break off talks. In either case there was a lie being told by BPHC in order to excuse reprehensible behavior. Further examples of this type of “lack of responsibility for one’s own actions” approach would soon follow. Certainly breaking off negotiations would fall into a category of authority higher than that of fixing a typo. The negotiator refused to even fix a typo, which he himself made, and to sign off on the items that we have agreed to without checking with his principals’ first and yet he didn’t hesitate when he stated “we are at a dead end.” He used his own typo to depict that no progress had been made, despite the fact that the inverse was true. The BPHC entered the room knowing that their intended result was to break off negotiations, no matter what else occurred that day. The BPHC negotiator simply took yet another bad faith and disingenuous position in the face of counter proposals and the tentative agreements document in front of him in order to execute the preplanned attack. It simply didn’t matter what occurred during our last session. The BPHC was going to break off talks and their hired fabricator was going to do what he does most in order to achieve the plan. The BPHC simply “didn’t care” about the reality of the progress made in negotiations. The next attack on this membership by the BPHC came in the form of anApril 30 th letter from the Executive Director to all of the local hospitals and outpatient clinics requesting the private medical information of the “victims of the Marathon Bombings” without the knowledge or consent of those that sought treatment. It must be stated that this attempt to violate the U.S. Constitution’s FourthAmend- ment was not exclusively focused on the membership of the BPPA EMS Division. This scheme included anyone, including all of the first responders, who sought treatment and could be subjectively identified as being a “victim”. The reason given by the BPHC in this secre- tive attempt to violate “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” was so that they could “deliver information as they, the BPHC, coordinated the care that the victims would receive.” Not only did the BPHC use it’s federally supported “intelligence” wing to engage in clandestine “surveillance” against theAmerican public, but the intent was to “coordinate care” for the group of individuals, pre-qualified as “victims”, who were already under a doctor’s care? Apparently, the BPHC feels that the U.S. Constitution does not apply to its “surveillance” efforts, but also that they have the ability to make medical decisions, based on ones “complaint” and “treatment”, and then “coordinate the care” the care that a victim chooses without the consent or knowledge of the patient. If this were in any way a cred-