Jim Anderson is a friend of mine who owns a strange little bar in Tucson, Ariz. Jim is a man in his 60s who’s spent his adult life creating a cult of personality around his personality. One of the most important things to Jim is being seen and recognized. His bar is, for all practical purposes, a shrine to him. The walls are plastered with photographs and paintings of Jim, he wears jewelry made into his image, he has a tattoo of his face on his arm, and all of his employees and many of his customers wear shirts with — you guessed it — a picture of Jim.

Jim’s is not one of those faces that blends into the crowd. His bronze, round head is shaved clean save for the long, white mustache, which he waxes and curls.

Jim once told me his goal was to make people stop thinking about themselves, even if for only a few seconds, and think about him.

Despite that it seems his sole reason to live is self-promotion, no person is one-dimensional. I’ve known Jim for more than 10 years and spend as much time with him as possible when I’m in Tucson. The other side to Jim is that he never calls attention to his good deeds. He never brings up how he hires homeless guys to clean his parking lot, or throws money on the ground in public places, or buyout the flower vendor’s supply of roses to hand out to ladies at his bar. He does these things and more whether his business is doing well or doing poorly and never seeks acknowledgment, credit or praise.

I thought about Jim late last month as I ran in a five-mile race here in Chicago. The weather in Chicago can be foul. And it always seems to be foul for the annual Shamrock Shuffle through the city’s downtown area. This year it was exceptionally foul with driving winds, snow and a good inch of slushy water on the roadways. It was a much better day to stay home than to run five miles.

But I had something to prove to myself. I had to prove that I could do it in those conditions in my turnout gear (pants, coat, gloves and helmet). I’m reasonably fit for my age and others, such as the chief from Georgia who climbed Mount Kilimanjaro and the firefighter from Illinois who ran the Chicago Marathon both in full turnout gear with SCBA, have achieved more. Five miles seemed doable.

I learned a few things along the way.

The first thing I learned is that running in that gear is hard. In fact, I have an easier time running twice the distance in regular exercise clothes.

More importantly, I learned that when people see you at an event like that in something as recognizable as turnouts, they stop thinking about themselves and think about you — even if it is for a few seconds. During the run, countless runners and spectators shouted encouragements, praise and thanks to me. The praise and “thanks for what you do” comments left me uncomfortable because they are unearned. As a probationary volunteer firefighter, I’ve not yet been cleared to do anything other than training and go on standby during a call. OK, I did once save a headless baby doll during search-and-rescue training.

I also learned that by wearing that gear I represented something larger than just a 45-year-old guy out for a run, and because of that, I couldn’t quit. Failure was not an option.

That much attention also made me think of a dilemma fire chiefs face. A positive public opinion of firefighting is crucial to the success of fire departments. It plays directly into tangibles such as funding levels and fire code adoption. And a key component to positive public opinion is firefighter humility. Being highly visible in the community and being humble can be at odds with one another. Several chiefs have told me they sometimes wish we could return to a time prior to Sept. 11, a time when firefighters were less glorified and more humble.

We can’t go back to when the Twin Towers still stood and Rescue Me was unscripted. But fire chiefs can manage public opinion by setting the tone in their departments to strike the right balance between visibility and humility.

As the Internet evolves, so to does the way humans communicate with one another.

Most news media outlets that have a Web presence now have the technological capability to allow visitors to post comments about stories they read at the site. This provides near-instantaneous feedback from the public on issues of the day. In some respects, this is a sign that we are drifting back to the core of an ideal democratic society: one where issues are debated and the public arrives at a consensus decision based on the best-informed argument that represents the greater good of the people.

This comment function, which you’ll find at the end of this and every FIRE CHIEF article, also serves as a barometer of public opinion. There will be those who use the anonymity of the online comment posting to write untrue and outrageous things that they would not if revealing their identities were required. This is why many magazines and newspapers do not publish anonymous letters to the editor. Likewise, the same anonymity will give some the courage to write the truth that fear, perhaps of retribution, would have kept them silent on. This is why anonymous surveys are so revered. Assuming these extremes will more or less cancel one another out, you are left with a sense of where public opinion resides on a given issue.

Like many in the fire service, I’ve been following the events in Charleston, S.C., since nine firefighters died in the Sofa Super Store blaze in June 2007. The Charleston Post and Courier, and specifically reporter Glenn Smith, has done a very good job covering this hometown tragedy. The Post and Courier also has a comment section at the end of each story. And these comments can be as interesting as the story itself. Particularly unsettling, are the comments deriding the paper for continuing to run stories on the fire.

Following a story earlier this month about Charleston prosecutors weighing criminal charges, a person who logged in as Reality_Woman wrote that enough was enough and she was tired of seeing this story. Another commenter wrote that it was time to move past this story. And commenter going by SomeTruthPlease called the issue a worn-out news story.

When it works as it is supposed to, the news media provides a vital component to a democratic society. It gives information untainted by personal interest that enhances debate and ultimately leads to better decision-making.

There is a compelling argument that having the public revisit the Sofa Super Store fire via the media drags up pains that those closest to the situation are trying sort through, that it slows the healing process. However, a more compelling argument is that learning from this tragedy and taking measures to prevent others like it takes precedent over healing.

There is still much to be learned from the Charleston tragedy, and that knowledge can have a positive influence in communities around the nation. Allowing the story to die either out of desire to speed the healing process or out of a feeling of news overload, removes the information, lessons learned, debate and decision making from the public sphere. And that does not serve the greater good of Charleston, the fire service or our country.

I’ve had two conversations recently that bear repeating. The first conversation was a formal interview with Mark McMullen, a senior economist for Moody’s Economy.com. McMullen’s area of expertise is government finance. I first interviewed him nearly a year ago when it seemed obvious that the economy hadn’t merely stumbled but was in recession. The U.S. housing market was in bad shape, driving down home prices. It was a troubling sign for fire departments that depend on property-tax revenue.

We didn’t realize just how deep the problem ran, but we’d soon find out. The number of foreclosures on homes bought with sub-prime loans indicated that lending institutions were in for tough times. Fuel prices were at record highs and several fire departments started cost-saving measures in anticipation of budget cuts or cost overruns. Then, of course, giant financial institutions toppled, banks became squeamish about lending to each other and almost anyone else, job losses ballooned, prices started on a dangerous deflationary path, and people on Wall Street and Main Street held tight to the money they had.

Early this year, McMullen said that one warning sign that fire chiefs should look for that the economy is worsening is a sharp fall in retail sales. That’s because it would be a double gut punch of lower property taxes and lower sales taxes. That, of course, happened and many municipalities are doubled over with the wind knocked out of their budgets.

My most recent interview with McMullen appears on page 88 of FIRE CHIEF’s December issue; a longer version of the interview will be posted later this month at firechief.com. He says the economy is now worse than most experts expected. Most fire departments already feel the pinch, some through staff reductions. McMullen expects the economy to bottom out in the second half of 2009. Recovery, he says, will be slow.

Here’s what struck me: In both interviews, McMullen said that fire departments are in a better position than school districts when it comes to competing for public money. He reasons that because there are fewer children in K-12 schools, there is less demand for building new schools. That, he further reasons, should free up money for fire departments. Departments, he said, should be in position to get a bigger chunk of the pie, albeit from a smaller pie.

The second conversation I had was with a progressive fire chief of a medium-size department. His city administrator asked how much the chief could trim from his budget. He told the administrator that he could cut as much as he liked. The only thing the chief needed to know was how much risk the administrator was comfortable accepting. In other words, what number of civilian deaths from fire or other emergencies could the administrator live with?

For his part, McMullen takes measurable facts and applies reason to understand a present condition and predict future conditions (fewer children need fewer school space, freeing more money for fire departments).

But public servants’ decisions, especially spending decisions, often are based on factors outside cold analysis and logic. And beyond political pressures, there is tremendous economic pressure right now to make deep budget cuts. Recent data from the National Conference of State Legislators shows that, collectively, state governments need an extra $100 billion to break even over the next 18 to 24 months.

It may be that federal money will bail out the states and that the states will funnel that money to municipalities and counties. Even so, chiefs will face a tough battle to hang on to the money they need. At the least, it will take combining cold facts with an emotional appeal, as did the chief I spoke with, to get the attention of those holding the purse strings.

The conversation between the chief and his administrator did not end in enlightened resolution. And I suspect those two will be having that same conversation several more times in the coming months. I also suspect many other fire chiefs are having similar conversations with their administrators.

If you are a chief and have not shaped your argument against extreme budget cuts, you need to do so. If you’ve had success in the budget process, please share your strategies with others in the comment section below. (Please log in or create an account to leave a comment.)

For years I’ve held Habitat for Humanity in the highest esteem. In fact, if powers that be at FIRE CHIEF magazine were to call me to the corner office, hand me a pink slip and show me the door, Habitat for Humanity would be among the first to get my résumé.

For those unfamiliar with Habitat, it is an international charitable organization that uses donated money and materials to build housing for the poor. Those receiving the houses in the United States are required to make a $500 down payment, pay a monthly mortgage and donate 300 to 500 hours of work to help build their house and houses for others. The group’s mission is to eliminate homelessness and poverty housing. They’ve built about a quarter of a million homes around the world since 1976.

Disliking Habitat is akin to disliking puppies. I take no pleasure in scolding puppies.

But last month, just before the International Code Council was preparing to vote on adding a requirement that all one- and two-family homes and townhomes be equipped with fire sprinklers, Habitat for Humanity joined the National Association of Home Builders in formally arguing against the new rule.

It was kind of like coming home to find that your puppy had piddled on your best rug or chewed through a favorite shoe.

In a press release, Elizabeth Blake, Habitat’s senior vice president of advocacy, government affairs and legal, said, “Mandating fire sprinklers fails to recognize [affiliates’] varying needs, and runs the risk of requiring something that may be impractical for some of our partner families…. Each home we don’t build due to an added and unjustified regulatory requirement such as this can leave yet another family in substandard housing.”

So I asked Habitat officials, “What’s up?” I wanted to know how many homes they’ve not built because of regulatory burdens. I wanted them to show me proof that sprinklers caused damage by accidentally discharging or bursting in cold climates. I wanted to know why they came out in opposition and if they plan to carry that fight to the local level. Habitat officials didn’t respond by press time (if they respond later, I’ll update this posting).

According to Habitat’s Web site, the average cost to build one of its houses in the United States is $60,000. The National Home Fire Sprinkler Coalition estimates that a sprinkler system adds 1% to 1.5% to the cost of a new home. Even at 2%, that only adds $120 to the cost of a Habitat home. At those costs, they could build 500 homes with sprinkler systems before costs halted the building of one home. Because Habitat is able to build on the cheap, that percentage may be skewed.

In Austin, Texas, there are about 75 Habitat homes with sprinkler systems. The material and labor costs for a 1,000-square-foot home there is $500, meaning you could add sprinklers to 120 homes for the cost to build one home.

NAHB objected on the grounds that in colder climates, pipes could freeze; that it would be impractical in areas with low water supply; and that accidental discharge would cause damage to the home and its contents.

For 15 years, the city of Scottsdale, Ariz., has had a fire sprinkler requirement on its books. According to Fire Marshal, Jim Ford, about half of the city’s homes now have sprinklers. He estimates that 13 lives and $20 million in property damage have been saved during that time. He also says that the average property loss during the last three years for houses equipped with sprinklers was a bit more than $2,000. The average loss for homes without sprinklers was around $45,000. In Habitat for Humanity terms, that means the cost of a new home is equal to 1.5 house fires without sprinklers and 30 house fires with sprinklers. As for the scarcity of water argument, the average annual rainfall in Scottsdale is 7.74 inches; St. Louis records that much in two months.

And those much closer to the situation than I also find Habitat’s position vexing. Jeff Shapiro, executive director of International Residential Code Fire Sprinkler Coalition, tells me that Habitat for Humanity International had previously taken the position of taking no position on this issue. They had, he says, left it up to their local affiliates to weigh in as they saw fit. Habitat had even sent a representative to testify at the Minneapolis hearing.

Shapiro says there was no evidence presented at the IRC hearing showing damage from accidental sprinkler discharge. He also says that they are being used in places like Alaska. As with any technology, sprinklers have their problems. Systems that use antifreeze in cold climates require careful engineering and maintenance. But with greater demand will come greater innovation, Shapiro says.

It is foolish to assume people can be protected against all unexpected events, even their own mistakes. Yet, protective measures with a low cost threshold and a high return cannot be ignored. Mandatory seatbelts in new vehicles did not put the price of cars out of buyer’s range or bankrupt auto manufacturers. Nor will requiring fire sprinklers run home builders out of business or keep Habitat from its mission. Fire sprinklers, like seatbelts, will greatly reduce the damage these tragic events cause.

Habitat for Humanity International isn’t an excitable young pup with bladder-control issues. It’s more like a good and loyal dog that misbehaved.

It is truly a shame that Habitat for Humanity with its outstanding moral mission has come down on the wrong moral side of this issue. For the sake of its reputation, and more importantly for those it works to help, Habitat for Humanity needs to reverse its position on fire sprinklers.

In the July issue of FIRE CHIEF, two editorial advisory board members, Robert Rielage and Mark Wallace, and a long-time columnist, Ronny Coleman, offer their views on what the Phase II report on the Charleston Sofa Super Store means to the fire service. In Size Up in that same issue, J. Gordon Routley, who headed the task force that authored the report, gives his thoughts on the situation. A month prior, task force member Brian Crawford shared a reflection on the year-old tragedy.

The situation at the Charleston furniture store overwhelmed that department and revealed flaws in its incident command, culture, equipment, water supply and communications. It also revealed flaws in how structures are inspected and permits issued. The report is the industry’s leading topic of conversation, and rightly so.

In the variety of directions this industry-wide conversation has gone, one common theme consistently rises to the top: The Phase II report holds lessons that could improve any fire department, and the greater tragedy would be if those lessons went ignored.

The latter part of that summary is, of course, a very real concern. As humans, we exhibit a profound tendency to repeat the mistakes of others and shun the advice of the wise.

My commute takes me past a large roadside cross, placed to commemorate the well-publicized tragedy of a woman and her children who died nearly two years ago when she failed to beat a freight train to a crossing grade. Earlier this week, I came on the scene of three people who were killed trying to outrun a train with their car.

Deciding not to shoot your car around down crossing gates does not come after soul-searching, analysis, research or any of the other weighty elements that lead to safer firefighting. Generally, people resist change and believe that bad things only happen to others. Poring over a nearly 300-page report, examining the flaws of a department (and its chief) and instituting meaningful change is intellectual and emotional hard work.

We can look at the Charleston Fire Department one year after the tragedy to get an idea of how hard that work will be. It is far too early to judge whether that department will improve. Yet there is concerted effort in that direction.

Because the task force’s Phase III report will assess Charleston’s improvements, the industry will have a reliable view of how much change was implemented.

That raises another concern. How can we measure the affect the Charleston fire and the recommendations have had on the larger industry? In truth, we probably can’t. The industry does not have the luxury of having a task force in every department analyzing and reporting on the level of improvement.

In place of a comprehensive solution, let me offer this proposition to all chiefs and chief officers in the United States and abroad: send me an e-mail telling me what changes you are making or already made after the Charleston tragedy, and I’ll publish those in the pages of FIRE CHIEF.

My hope behind this is two-fold. I would like to see and share evidence, albeit anecdotal, that nine Charleston firefighters did not die in vain. It also is my hope that seeing what some chiefs are doing will inspire other chiefs (through idea sharing and peer pressure) to undertake the hard work of self-examination and change.

You can reach me at rick@firechief.com. Please indicate where you are from and that I have permission to publish your e-mail.

Not enough can be said for the value volunteer firefighters provide. But on a small island in the West Indies, the spirit of volunteerism is perhaps more intense than what we are used to in America.

I‘m currently on Providenciales, one of the Turks and Caicos Islands. These islands, about 90 minutes by air from Miami, technically fall under British rule, although for all practical purposes they are independently run. I‘m here at the invitation of former chief Chris Gannon who established the islands‘ first fire service. In FIRE CHIEF‘s August issue, you‘ll read his amazing story.

On my first night, the chief and I had planned to meet for dinner. He phoned to ask if I wouldn‘t mind a change of plans. The department‘s volunteers had just completed a vehicle-extrication course and were celebrating over dinner; we were invited. We sat outside under a cabana among a group of 25 or so volunteers at Horse Eyed Jack‘s, where the menu was heavily weighted with conch and jerk dishes. We eat, drink and make merry. It is a scene much like those I‘ve experienced with volunteers stateside.

The volunteers are mixture of men and women and are largely ex-pats, hailing from the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States. The way the Turks and Caicos Fire and Rescue Service is set up, full-time career firefighters work from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday. The volunteers cover everything that happens outside of those hours. Despite Gannon‘s intentions and efforts, this is still a very dangerous place to be a firefighter.

One of those I meet is Robert Pearce, a retired training officer from the British Fire Brigade. He came to TCI to lead Gannon‘s training efforts. Pearce says the volunteers out pace their career counterparts in their hard work, desire to learn and commitment. That‘s a group, Pearce says, he knows he can count on.

That level of commitment is remarkable, though by fire industry standards, not extraordinary. What is extraordinary is that none of these volunteers are paid — not for travel, gear, the time they spend on scene, nothing. What‘s more, they must buy their own medical insurance. Part of this is due to the lack of money the government gives the fire service and part is due to regulations prohibiting the ex-pats from accepting income from more than one declared profession.

Many of the volunteers, Gannon says, earn decent livings by island standards. Nonetheless, aside from the risk, there is a distinct financial burden that Turks and Caicos volunteers subject themselves to that is uncommon in America. Their level of giving takes the profession‘s admirable qualities to a higher level.

At the volunteer‘s gathering, Pearce and another retired U.K. training expert are awarded drinking mugs made from conch shells with a token of the group‘s appreciation for the extrication program inscribed on the outside. The banquet, the course, and even the conch mugs were paid by fund-raising efforts the volunteers conducted. In the end, they even insisted on picking up the tab for the former chief and his American editor guest.

These volunteers put forth a Herculean effort for the love of the job, and the praise for them and those of their ilk, bears repeating.

In April, the newly merged International Association of Women in Fire & Emergency Services held its first meeting. Several industry leaders offered remarks during the opening session. It was a modest affair of maybe 50 audience members. U.S. Fire Administrator Gregory Cade was among the speakers.

Cade told the women to “continue to make sure your voice is heard.” He said diversity was the strength of the fire service. He said, “We need you to bring that voice to the table, to bring that different perspective.”

He was right. Diversity almost always improves a situation over the long haul. For example, pure-blooded dogs fall victim to the same maladies as their predecessors because of their narrow genetic makeup. Mixed breeds, with their diverse genes, will have fewer incidents of things like epilepsy. Cade understood that a broader “genetic” makeup of the fire service culture will help it ward off illness.

Cade concluded his remarks by opening the floor for questions. At one point, a woman stood, gave the name of her Texas department, years of service and asked why PSOBs could not go to her same-sex partner. It wasn’t fair, she said, that line-of-duty-death benefits could not go to someone she considered a wife, and whose children she considered her own. It wasn’t fair that she was treated differently from a firefighter in a heterosexual marriage when she took the same risks.

She was right; it isn’t fair. But, she was wrong, too. It was explained to her that she could list any beneficiary she liked on her life insurance policy and that any PSOBs would go to that beneficiary. If she listed no beneficiary on her life insurance, the PSOB would go to her next of kin (by blood).

That she felt the need to proclaim her homosexuality in a public setting made for a few awkward moments at the meeting, but is of no consequence. That she must go through one more step than her heterosexual counterparts to ensure the benefits go to intended beneficiaries is unfair, but not a major problem. However, that she did not know to take that extra step is disconcerting.

Yes, it is possible that she knew the benefit requirements. Maybe she had been told and forgot. Maybe she had remembered but used the chance to speak to Cade in public as a way to advance a personal agenda or embarrass her chief. Judging by how she carried herself, I’d say the odds weigh strongly that her question was legitimate.

In a study conducted in 2006, the U.S. Census showed that there were 1.6 million people who claimed firefighter as their profession. A 2005 study by the National Fire Protection Association puts that figure at 1.1 million. The same 2006 Census data also shows that 0.7% of all U.S. households listed themselves as same-sex households. Many in the homosexual community believe this under-represents the number of gays and lesbians. The Urban Institute, a nonpartisan research group that takes money from the government and private sector, also looked at gay and lesbian demographics. One of that study’s findings is that 2.8% of military personnel, active and reserve, are homosexual.

It is probably near impossible to determine how many homosexuals serve on volunteer and career fire departments. That number may be as high as 4,000 or as low as 1,000. Either way, it is a relatively small number.

That small number does not diminish the importance of making sure all firefighters are informed about their benefit options. It doesn’t matter on the fireground if the lead RIT member or ambulance driver is heterosexual, homosexual or asexual, nor should it matter in the fire station. There is no need to belabor how important each team member is in that situation.

There are deeply rooted prejudices in our society toward homosexuals. This was evident in the 2004 presidential elections when a proposed Constitutional ban on gay marriage became a major campaign issue. It also was evident when the Clinton administration tried to solve the issue of homosexuals in the military. In the end, it came up with the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy; in other words, the best it could do was punt.

Because fire chiefs cannot afford to have one of their team enter a burning structure with doubts about if his or her loved ones will be provided for, they cannot punt. As leaders, fire chiefs must rise above society’s prejudices, and perhaps their own, to protect the individual and those on the department who depend on that individual.

A frank, nonjudgmental discussion about all the benefit options is one step fire chiefs can take toward creating a better, more diverse genetic pool in the fire service culture. It also is a step to avoid being called out in front of the U.S. Fire Administrator.

For more on the I-Women and state of women in the fire service, read my interview with the group’s co-president Cheryl Horvath in the Size Up section of June’s FIRE CHIEF.

Apparatus manufacturer Rosenbauer recently held a 10th anniversary celebration. One of the company’s U.S. partners is Kevin Kirvida, who is president of General Safety Equipment in Wyoming, Minn. He was on a mission — he wanted everyone know about three fellow Minnesotans. He told their story to those of us who shared his table at a small dinner in Sioux Falls, S.D. The following evening at the company’s formal celebration, he repeated the story for all the dealers, media and others in attendance.

What makes these men so noteworthy is their charitable efforts. Last year, Ron Gruening partnered with Greg Johnson and Mark Allen to form International Fire Relief Mission. Their mission was to deliver serviceable but unwanted fire apparatus and equipment, such as turnout gear and SCBA, to Moldova. Moldova is a former Eastern Bloc country of about 13,000 square miles wedged between Romania and the Ukraine. The U.S. government estimates Moldova’s population at just over 4 million. Our government also says that Moldova remains one of the poorest countries in Europe — about 30% of the population lives in poverty.

At the Rosenbauer event, IFRM hung a rubber bunker jacket, a thin metal helmet with no liner and bunker pants cut at the knees. Any protective properties these items may have had at one point were long since gone.

Gruening, IFRM’s president and a retired EMT, says this is the gear used by the Moldova fire department trying to protect Chisinau, a city of roughly 1 million residents. In 2007, IFRM collected some used equipment, made a trip to Moldova, presented the gear and provided some training. He says they visited one fire station where tankers were filled by a line of firefighters originating at an old well and passing water-laden buckets toward the trucks. Gruening and his crew connected a pump to the well.

The problem, as Gruening explains, is that the fire service was neglected during the communist era and economic conditions have kept it from recovering since the iron curtain fell in 1991.

Gruening and Kirvida met over lunch to discuss how to do more for firefighters in that fledgling country. Kirvida hooked IFRM up with the Minnesota Fire Chiefs Association, which began soliciting and collecting donations. Kirvida also opened up his facility’s warehouse to store these used apparatus.

Since then, IFRM has made return trips to Eastern Europe, enough in fact, to have set in place checks to make sure the equipment gets to and stays with the fire service. This is important because equipment sent from Seattle and Miami went missing, Gruening says.

Gruening says interest in this program is growing on both sides of the Atlantic. Here, more and more departments are looking to dispose of apparatus with little to no resale value and gear that no longer meets safety requirements. But SCBA that is no longer NFPA-compliant is decades ahead of anything currently used in Moldova. Having seen the equipment coming into Moldova, Ukraine and Romania are seeking assistance — as are some South American and Asia countries.

In addition to fire department donations, IFRM is getting a shot in the arm from corporate sponsors. Besides Rosenbauer (Frontier Emergency Products and General Safety Equipment), Lion Apparel, Gear Grid, Fire Research Corp., Stryker and MSA have signed on as sponsors. Even the State Department has come on board by shipping containers of these goods for IFRM.

The group currently has about three full containers ready to ship, and are planning their next delivery to Moldova late this summer.

There are certainly a number of groups doing similar work, but IFRM is a small operation that is making a big difference in the global fire community. Those interested in more information on IFRM can visit their Web site at ifrm2007.googlepages.com or e-mail Gruening at rgruening@gmail.com.