In another bit of news regarding bird flu (aka avian influenza), the H7N9 strain of the virus has infected a citizen of British Columbia who recently traveled to China. This release comes just a few days after H5N1 had been confirmed in a duck in northern Washington. Certainly coincidence, but the discovery of the presence of both strains in North America – both for the first time – is daunting.
© 2015 – Timothy Riecker
Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC
In news released by the media this morning, the presence of H5N1 (aka bird flu or avian influenza) has been confirmed in the US. While many dusted off communicable disease plans with last year’s (and continuing) Ebola threat, we need to ensure that we take into account the wildlife and agricultural implications of H5N1 along with the threat to human life. While one positive finding certainly does not make an epidemic, the confirmed presence should be putting certain actions into place for many public safety partners, including federal and state agricultural and fish and game offices. Hunters, farmers, and veterinarians need to be aware of signs and symptoms just as much as our health care providers.
Be on the lookout for more information from authorities on this. Consider the implications it can have within your area of responsibility and be sure to think broadly and consider cascading impacts.
© 2015 – Timothy Riecker
Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC
I’m a firm believer that professionals need to keep current on trends and major discussions in their field of practice. Homeland security and emergency management are no different, which is why I spend a great deal of time reading – books, blogs, newsletters, etc.
A book I finished in recent months was Next-Generation Homeland Security by John Fass Morton. The book offers a great history of the roots of emergency management and homeland security, insights into the politics involved in the evolution of the two related fields, and thoughts on how preparedness agendas of the federal government and preparedness needs of local and state governments can be better merged moving forward.
Mr. Morton provides a highly detailed history of EM/HS – the most detail I’ve ever seen published anywhere. This history doesn’t just cover new laws and changes in agency names, but also identifies key players and influencers, missteps, and practices along the way. His detail of EM/HS over the past two decades is even greater as he has been able to obtain information and insights from his own experiences and those of his colleagues and contemporaries. These details include all of our current programs such as NIMS, EMAC, and others – including many of the predecessors of those programs. If you have interests in history or politics, much of the book will be very interesting to you simply based on this content.
Much of the book’s focus is on all-hazard preparedness, so you won’t find a great deal of information on DHS member agencies and their mission areas. The book primarily follows the evolution of emergency management and its relationship with homeland security, while also providing some insight into the roots of homeland security which well predate 9/11. Mr. Morton’s research certainly demonstrates how cyclic these evolutions have been.
Mr. Morton offers some interesting perspectives on our current state of preparedness and offers thoughts on organizational models which can enhance the coordination between the federal government and state and local authorities through strengthening of the FEMA/DHS regional offices, particularly the regional preparedness staff. It’s apparent that there often conflicts between the federal government and state and local governments in regard to EM/HS priorities across all mission areas. Mr. Morton’s perspectives offer a viable solution.
As I read I marked a lot of pages in the book for future reference, particularly in the second half (about 200 pages). If you don’t have much interest in the histories Mr. Morton provides, as they are quite detailed, the second half of the book is where there will still be great value to you as this is where more contemporary practices, policies, and organizations are detailed as well as Mr. Morton’s thoughts on the further evolutions of our practice including the Federal regional approach and other topics such as professional development. This is an excellent book for the dedicated practitioner who is looking for not only a detailed history but also thought provoking insight, not just a regurgitation of doctrine. I believe it would also serve as an excellent book for graduate level academics, as it not only provides a great deal of information but can certainly stimulate quite a bit of discussion. I hope to see some of Mr. Morton’s ideas get discussed broadly for the benefit of our profession.
Situation reports or SitReps have a great deal of importance in conveying information on an incident or event to a variety of stakeholders. Having worked for many years as a Planning Section Chief in a State EOC and county and local EOCs and command posts on a variety of incidents and events; well structured, well written, and relevant SitReps have become a bugaboo of mine. SitReps are intended to provide a snapshot of a common operating picture for stakeholders involved in the incident or event. Creation of a SitRep should be viewed as a process, similar to incident action planning.
The information contained in a SitRep provides them with the information they need to know to perform their duties in support of the incident. Keep in mind that stakeholders may not be involved in the operations or support of an incident but still need to have awareness as they may be impacted. A series of SitReps can also contribute greatly to the historical record of the incident or event.
Looking into the New Year and toward your next incident and event, I’ve provided some things I’ve learned along the way which can bake your situation reporting more effective and meaningful.
Defining the Audience
In the first step to building a benchmark SitRep, regular readers of my blog will recognize one of my common themes – identifying needs. Just as we do in training, we need to be aware of who are audience is what their needs are. The primary purpose of a SitRep is to meet the information needs of your audience.
Who are the stakeholders that see your SitReps? Are they operators, decision makers, or executives? Generally, based on these three categories, here is the information they need:
Operators. These are the folks who are ‘boots on ground’ getting the work done. While they might love to see detail of what is going on throughout the incident or event, they don’t NEED this information as it can, in fact, be simply distracting to them. Very rarely are SitReps geared toward this audience as you want them tactically focused on the tasks they are assigned to. Usually a brief incident summary satisfies their limited need to have a bigger picture of what is occurring. Those who are managing them should be providing them with the information they need to know.
Decision makers. Decision makers are found at many levels throughout an incident structure. They may be task force or strike team leaders, division or group supervisors, facility managers, branch directors, section chiefs, functional managers of agencies or departments, or others functioning in similar capacities. Decision makers have the greatest functional information need. The information being provided to this group strongly supports their role in the incident, the planning and management of the incident, and the safety of personnel. The information provided to them should have some degree of operational detail and should include information on hazards and safety issues as well as potential problem areas.
Executives. This category includes chief elected officials, high level appointed officials, and organizations with ancillary involvement. Executives are of course decision makers in their own right, but aren’t often involved at the level of detail of the decision makers discussed above. Generally executives don’t require a great degree of operational detail, but they do like numbers and statistics. Like the decision makers, they also need to be aware of potential pitfalls on the horizon as they need the information to make high level decisions to address the problem or be prepared to deal with the outcomes politically. You may have to be the most aware and response of the needs of this audience as they may have different information needs during an incident.
Where the Information Comes From
We know from communications training that information we convey must be timely, relevant, and accurate – this must be the litmus test by which you judge all SitRep content. The Planning Section should be obtaining information from all relevant stakeholders. They need an overview of what has, is, and will be happening operationally (and the outcomes/impacts of these operations) as well as all support activities and external influences (such as weather, crowd activities, etc.). Information from field operations should come, ideally, from individuals functioning in the field for the sole purpose of obtaining and providing information (field observers). Often times, however, we don’t have this luxury and have to obtain information directly from field-level managers themselves. Caution should be exercised with the information you receive from them, or anyone really, as some will alter information based upon their own agendas or bias. Information should also be obtained from support services, usually found through your Logistics section.
In an EOC environment we will also usually obtain information from the agencies and functions represented there. These agencies are also audiences for the SitRep so they get to see first-hand how their situational awareness contributes to a common operating picture. You may also be obtaining a lot of raw data. If it’s relevant, track this data and report on it, ensuring that it is meaningful to your audience. Leverage the talents of GIS to display this information in usable and meaningful formats. As the years have progressed, I’ve seen SitReps with less narrative and more GIS.
In obtaining information, I’ve found that a form or script can be of the greatest help. It ensures not only consistency in the information being gathered but it also ensures that nothing is missed. Often those reporting information will have a particular perspective which will be the focus of their reporting. Asking additional questions encourages them to think more broadly. Be sure to get your information sources on a firm schedule so you are not waiting on their information. Late information from your sources will result in a late or incomplete SitRep. Personnel may need regular reminders to compile and submit their situational information. Also be sure to give GIS plenty of time to do their work. Set a publication time and work backwards to establish reporting and work schedules for everyone involved.
Remember – timely, relevant, and accurate. While a short summary of previous actions may be important to provide context, it is not necessary to provide a long historical narrative. Be sure to report on the outcomes or effectiveness of actions. This detail of progress is important for a situation report. As far as accuracy, work to verify information to the greatest practical extent, especially any information that is speculative. Inaccurate information can be career ending.
Organizing the Information
Typically you only have time to assemble one SitRep, despite having to serve multiple audiences. Inclusion of an executive summary is then a very appropriate means of providing an area within the SitRep for those audiences which need a shorter overview. After the executive summary you have a great deal of flexibility on the structure and formatting of the document, but keep things organized and largely consistent from report to report. Often times SitReps are organized the way we organize the incident – have you organized functionally or geographically? It may be a mix of the two, so organize your SitRep based upon that. Simply find a format that makes sense. I like to arrange information that applies to everyone first, such as a weather forecast. You may have information such as statistical tables or GIS products which are best provided as attachments so they don’t interrupt the flow of the narrative.
Keep in mind that this is NOT a document providing operational direction – that comes from an Incident Action Plan (IAP). Therefore, all associated operational information such as safety matters, communication plans, etc. should be included in the IAP and generally not replicated in the SitRep. Those who need access to that operational information should be also receiving copies of the IAP. A short synapsis of the SitRep can be provided in the IAP to add context and to provide information for operators but should not be replicated to any great extent.
Conclusion
Creating a situation report takes a lot of time and patience and is not something to be hurried, but their publication is something counted on so they must adhere to a schedule. It is very much a ‘garbage in – garbage out’ activity, so the quality of the information coming in is extremely important. A large incident or event may require a largely staffed Situation Unit to collect and organize information. SitReps should always be reviewed before being finalized. It is a professional report so attention should be paid to things like grammar and spelling.
So what have you learned from your experiences in assembling situation reports?
Need help building SitRep templates and standard operating guidelines? Emergency Preparedness Solutions can help! www.epsllc.biz
© 2015 – Timothy Riecker
As I work with jurisdictions and discuss their capabilities I find a broad range of perception among emergency managers about their jurisdictions’ capabilities and limitations. Some overestimate their capability, thinking that they can handle anything and don’t need any outside assistance. Others underestimate their capabilities, with their emergency plans defaulting to calling for help or making someone else responsible for nearly every scenario. Fortunately some jurisdictions are spot on and have an informed and realistic perception of their capabilities. Having the wrong awareness of what your jurisdiction can and cannot do can be dangerous.
Be Responsible
First of all, jurisdictions need to be responsible for their people. Far too often I see an automatic assumption that someone else will handle an incident or a certain aspect of an incident, apparently abrogating the jurisdiction of all responsibility. One of the more common occurrences of this is with sheltering where I rather often hear ‘The Red Cross will take care of that.’ with no further discussion even considered on the subject. With no slight intended toward the Red Cross, relying on one entity to provide an absolutely critical capability is simply foolish. If the Red Cross or any other outside entity is for some reason unable to provide these services for the jurisdiction, the jurisdiction is still left with the responsibility to provide this care for its citizens. A jurisdiction without a plan to address this need is not being responsible for the welfare of its citizens.
The primary goal of a jurisdiction is to provide for its citizens. Take this seriously and remember that you can’t assign this responsibility to others.
Be Realistic
Know your capabilities and your capacity. In other words, know what you can and can’t do; and for what you can do, know how well and how long you can do it for. Know what your limitations and dependencies are. If your jurisdiction’s ability to provide advanced life support (ALS) care is dependent upon the only paramedic you have as a member of your ambulance service, you have very little capacity and quite a bit of vulnerability.
A good start to having a realistic view of your jurisdiction’s capabilities is conducting and regularly updating a comprehensive threat and hazard identification and risk assessment (THIRA). THIRA is an in depth assessment which combines a traditional hazard analysis with a reference to DHS’ 31 Core Capabilities in the context of the threats specific to a jurisdiction. I strongly suggest that a jurisdiction conducting a THIRA extend this assessment into an analysis of five key elements (Planning, Organizing, Equipping, Training, and Exercising – POETE) for each of their capabilities. Go here for my post on the POETE analysis which explains the benefits and the process a little more.
A good THIRA helps jurisdictions identify not only their hazards but also the potential worst-case scenario impacts of these hazards. It then provides an opportunity for the stakeholders of the jurisdiction to take an honest look at their capabilities and their ability to leverage these capabilities against those impacts. Being honest in this assessment will help jurisdictions see what can hurt them most and identify the gaps and limitations they have in their capabilities.
Bottom line – be realistic in what you can do, how well, and how long you can do it.
Be Resourceful
The ability to endure the impacts of a disaster and, at a minimum, address the critical objectives of life safety, incident stabilization, and property conservation can require a jurisdiction to be creative and resourceful. This is a key aspect of resiliency. While assistance may still be needed from outside sources, a jurisdiction’s ability to survive and provide lifeline services for its citizens in the interim is extremely important. Being resourceful can help a jurisdiction shore up its capabilities in times of need. Key to being resourceful are good contacts and connections within the whole community. Religious groups and social organizations, private companies, and even individual citizens can all provide services which can aid a jurisdiction in shoring up capabilities – at least in the short term. Incorporate these as options within your emergency plans. While these entities may have issues and commitments of their own during a disaster, they may also be able to help.
Use all available resources to get the job done and to sustain for as long as you can. It can absolutely be the difference between life and death.
Going into the New Year I’m endeavoring to write a few posts on best practices in emergency management. The New Year is a great opportunity for us to take a broad look at our emergency management programs to identify needs and develop and implement some strategies to improve. Instead of looking back in a rather cliché “year in review”, let’s look ahead toward improvement!
I also wanted to express appreciation to all of my blog readers. Some of you find me directly through my blog’s home at WordPress, some through LinkedIn or Twitter (@triecker or @epsllc), and some through my company’s website – Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC. If you like my blog please share it with others. Comments are always welcome.
On to our topic… Standards in Emergency Management Programs
All emergency management programs – government, private sector, and not-for-profit – should strive for their programs to meet accepted industry standards. The two most significant standards in the United States are the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1600: Standard on Disaster/Emergency Management and Business Continuity Programs and the Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP). The two standards are very similar in content and in fact complimentary, with the most significant difference being that EMAP offers an actual accreditation process. Both programs offer copies of their standards free of charge, which is reflective of the spirit of sharing and improvement that exists in emergency management.
The NFPA offers the most recent previous version of their standard as a free download from their website. The NFPA 1600 standard is quite detailed and can be initially overwhelming but really should be referenced piecemeal. The free EMAP standards are published in a bit less detail, but they provide a very detailed assessment tool for those who initiate the formal accreditation process. Because neither standard references specific laws or FEMA documents, they are also great references for governments, private sector, and not-for-profits outside the US.
How should you review the standards?
They both essentially serve as checklists for what is programmatically needed for successful emergency management programs. They are both organized by functions, such as planning, training, exercises, and logistics allowing a program to see what activities within each area are needed. Neither standard will tell you how to meet any particular section of their standard, as they don’t want to be seen as favoring any particular published processes or products and want to encourage innovation and resourcefulness. This also lends itself well to either/both standards being applicable and achievable by large and small organizations alike.
Examining your own emergency management program through the lens of either of these standards provides a great opportunity to see where you stand. Examine your functions piece by piece, function by function. Check off what areas you feel meet the standards and highlight those which you feel do not. Use these areas as a point of reference for improvements. Conduct a bit of a needs assessment in these areas to identify exactly what needs to be done to improve and meet the standard then create an improvement plan to make it happen.
Having helped organizations with both NFPA 1600 compliance as well as EMAP accreditation, I’ll attest that much of it simply comes down to paperwork and good systems management. Many of the standards can be addressed through creating and applying polices and solid practices and procedures. Organized and thorough record keeping is very important for these matters.
What if you don’t have a specific emergency management function or certain activities are conducted by someone else?
Of course you probably should have a specific emergency management function within your community, company, or organization; but many do not. Needs are often met in these circumstances through an amalgamation of functions found throughout the rest of the jurisdiction, company, or organization. Hopefully you at least have an emergency management committee (or one which can serve this purpose such as a safety committee) which has representation from these various entities. Such a committee is an ideal group to review these standards. An emergency management program isn’t necessarily a specific agency or office; it’s really the entire system. These standards should be examined through the entire jurisdiction, company, or organization as responsibilities and functions may be spread around.
What advantages do these standards offer for emergency management programs?
There is certainly a piece of mind knowing that your program meets these standards which are based upon industry best practices, even more so if you took advantage of EMAP’s accreditation. These standards also provide documented justification for grants, budget allocations, resources, and activities which will contribute to a thriving emergency management program. Overall, however, you will find that your program will be more professional and more responsive to the emergency and disaster needs of your constituency – be it a community, company, or organization.
Meeting these standards is an investment, but mostly of time and effort. Sure, there are ways you can meet certain standards better by purchasing some cutting edge software or hiring six more people, but these standards are not intended to serve only the most fortunate and affluent emergency management programs. A program run by a part time emergency manager with minimal funding can still successfully meet these standards.
Maintaining compliance with these standards is important and is an ongoing effort – it’s quite easy to fall off the carnival ride, especially when distracted by our daily routines and changing priorities. Set a schedule to conduct an annual review of the standards, incorporate your compliance efforts into strategic plans, and regularly refer back to the standards to keep them fresh in your head.
Of course help is available! Emergency Preparedness Solutions can help your jurisdiction, company, or not-for-profit conduct a Standards Assessment to determine what standards are met, what standards need to be met, and develop a strategic plan to meet these standards. Through our full range of preparedness services we can also help you meet these standards and develop a maintenance plan for your program.
If you have questions please contact me at tim@epsllc.biz.
Have a wonderful, safe, and productive New Year!
@ 2014 – Timothy Riecker
Last week I posted a YouTube video shortly explaining how care facilities (shelters, warming centers, family assistance centers, etc.) should be positioned within an Incident Command System structure.
© 2014 – Timothy Riecker
We know that good emergency plans are the cornerstone of preparedness. Often times it is local governments that have difficulty putting quality plans in place because they don’t have knowledgeable personnel or funds available to make this happen. This gap is critical since we know that all disasters begin and end locally, so quality local plans are an imperative.
States provide financial assistance to local governments through a local allocation of the Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG), which is an annual grant program through FEMA/DHS as a component of the Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP). While there is always some variance in the goals or focus of EMPG, the overall concept and allowable costs are fairly static and the emphasis is always on preparedness.
Preparedness, however, encompasses a lot of activities. The best breakdown is POETE – Planning, Organizing, Equipping, Training, and Exercising. Just from this we can see a lot of opportunity to spend money on a lot of needed activities. Planning, however, regularly needs to be revisited. While funding the other activities may be important, they mean very little without a quality, up to date plan. All preparedness activities should relate somehow back to the plan, such as equipment and training efforts to shore up capabilities identified for need through the planning process. This applies to everyone by the way – federal, state, and local governments; private sector; and not for profits.
How can states (or any other grant or budget managers) continue to emphasize the importance of planning? I’ve recently seen a best practice by the State of New Hampshire which is similar to the federal administration of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) programs. First, they make funds available for, and only for, planning. This includes new plans and plan updates. Once plans have been developed that meet their standards, then additional funds can be requested for supporting preparedness activities. This building block preparedness approach helps provide targeted funds solely for plan improvements while helping to ensure that subsequent funds are provided for activities that associate with the plan and addressing or identifying (by way of exercises) gaps. While it can be a bit cumbersome, I think it’s a great model for promoting preparedness the right way.
Thoughts?
©2014 – Timothy Riecker
Be an archaeologist and DIG DEEPER!
An old boss of mine once told me that to find the real root of any problem you should ask ‘Why?’ five times. This sage Yoda-like advice has served me well ever since. Of course it’s not always necessary to ask it the full five times; in fact you often find the foundational cause sooner. Nonetheless, this approach will inevitably guide you toward discovering what needs to be fixed.
Those who follow my blog know that I post mostly within two thematic areas – emergency management or training. The ‘ask why’ methodology applies to both of these areas and darn near anything else I can think of. My thoughts are below on both themes. Of course training in the field of emergency management is a combination of the two!
In Emergency Management
I’ve posted numerous times on topics such as hazard analysis, Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA), and other similar topics in emergency management. It is so incredibly necessary for us to identify needs and vulnerabilities, and to understand our community’s capabilities in order to properly prepare for future disasters and emergencies. I’ve learned that in public safety, when asking a question, you often get a story and that story is often related to a past incident. While the story may be elaborate, it usually gives you little substance. Anecdotes aren’t enough. You need to dig deeper.
As a culture within public safety we are still trying to drive practitioners to be more analytical. Quality after action reports are a big step in the right direction. The benefits of after action reports for incidents, not just exercises, are huge. After action reports should lead to improvement plans, but without identifying the real reason behind what went wrong we can’t fix the problems. After action reports require an analysis to dig deeper into the observed action to discover what really needs to be addressed.
In Training
In November I published an article in Training Magazine titled The Importance of Analysis to Identify Root Cause. While I didn’t reference the ‘ask why’ methodology directly, the subject matter of the article lends itself to this approach. As a trainer, when a problem is presented to you to ‘fix with training’, you need to figure out what the real issues are so that 1) you can confirm that it is in fact a training issue, and 2) you can determine what the objectives and methodologies of the training need to be. Without properly identifying and defining the needs you are doomed to fail and will likely be putting forth a lot of effort with little gain. While the results may put some people on the defensive, they can point the organization in the right direction to address inefficiencies and performance problems.
In any needs assessment, don’t simply accept the first answer given to you – dig deeper! It’s amazing what you will find!
© 2014 – Timothy Riecker
For the past decade and one half we have seen documents such as Civil Preparedness Guide (CPG) 1-8 (1990), State and Local Guide (SLG) 101 (1996), and two versions of Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 101 (2009 and 2010) provide us with continually advancing standards and guidance for emergency planning. We have seen the focus points of planning evolve from assumption-based, to threat and risk-based, to capability-based planning through each of these iterations. With the release of each new standard, however, the lessons learned from the previous have been preserved, bringing with them remnants of the earlier standards. Our current standard, Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 (2010), maintains a focus on capability-based planning but still stresses the importance of formulating assumptions in our planning as well as identifying threats and risks. Each of these elements is important, but in these examinations we seem to be forgetting something very important – what is the need?
Planning assumptions, risk and threat, and capabilities assessments are all important informers of emergency planning and must remain in the lexicon for us to be successful. It seems, though, that while these elements contribute to our planning efforts, they still don’t define the true need. In examining the real need in any jurisdiction, we need to identify these other elements but we can’t take the jurisdiction itself for granted. Identifying the needs of the jurisdiction will help us, along with the other elements, to identify what the impacts of a disaster will be and how prepared we are to address them. Too often we see emergency planning efforts which are very rote, paying little attention to the real needs of the jurisdiction.
If you have followed my blog for any length of time, you likely recall that I am a huge proponent of needs assessments. As a trainer, a proper needs assessment is everything. It leads us to the identification of what the desired behavior is and is a critical first step in determining how we will effectively train individuals to achieve it. Earlier this month I had an article published in Training Magazine on the Importance of Analysis to Identify Root Cause. The same principles of needs assessment can be easily applied to emergency planning. Very simply, needs drive objectives.
The identification of needs for a jurisdiction involves an examination of both the physicality of the jurisdiction as well as the population. Elements of the physicality of the jurisdiction include size and geography, accessibility of areas within the jurisdiction, and critical infrastructure and key resources contained within the jurisdiction. Examining the population demographics includes age ranges, income levels, disability, vulnerable and at risk populations (the CDC Social Vulnerability Index is a great resource), languages, cultures, religions, population densities, and the ratios of full time residents to transients/visitors, and commuters. GIS can provide us with much of this information both individually and in aggregate.
Once we collect this data, an analysis is important to identify what it all means (aka defining the need). Where are there vulnerabilities within the jurisdiction in a steady state? Under which scenarios exist increased vulnerabilities – such as a bridge that provides the only access to an area of the jurisdiction being washed out. What religious and cultural matters must be considered in disaster response? What needs exist for communicating with those with limited English proficiency? The answers to these questions will inform strategies contained in our emergency plans and annexes.
Good planners dig to these depths and produce quality operational plans – but most don’t. Plans which have not been written with this detailed process are doomed to fail as the needs of the jurisdiction have not been weighed with our assumptions, threats and risks, and capabilities. The THIRA process helps to move us in the right direction by asking us to provide threats and hazards with context (our planning assumptions) and then establishing capability targets which will address these impacts. Still, it’s not direct or detailed enough to provide us with all the information we need.
While CPG 101 guides us to know our communities and to understand the consequences of a potential incident, the current focus on capabilities, while important, is a focus on us – public safety. The focus must be on the jurisdiction as a whole and an identification and understanding of potential impacts and the resultant needs of the jurisdiction. It’s not so much a change in process as it is a change in emphasis. We must first understand needs before we can plan to address them.
Thoughts?
© 2014 – Timothy Riecker
The Contrarian Emergency Manager 