Discuss, approve new fire deal — in the open

WHILE IT’S a relief that Richland County finally came to its senses and is seeking to continue its long-standing fire agreement with Columbia, it’s also troubling that county officials crafted their proposal in secret.

Instead of discussing this matter publicly, an ad hoc committee of County Council met behind closed doors to draft the proposed agreement, and the full council discussed it in executive session before approving it and sending it to City Council for consideration.

There is absolutely no justification for an elected body to shut the public out of discussions about an agreement outlining the delivery of a service paid for by taxpayers.

As Columbia City and Richland County councils deliberate this matter going forward, they should hold all discussions in public view. Not only do residents need to hear the details first hand, but they should be able to observe how the councils interact as they conduct business on the public’s behalf.

There is enough skepticism and distrust of government as it is. Why create more by trampling upon the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act?

Frankly, a new agreement should have been reached two years ago, but it remained in limbo due to the county’s misguided notion that it could pull out and go it alone, continued poor communication and distrust among city and county officials and disagreement over costs.

The joint city-county fire system stands as a sterling example of the good that can come from the two governments working together to improve services and efficiency. The seamless fire system improved protection and brought insurance rates down markedly.

The county is seeking more oversight and accountability through a proposed city-county fire committee to review operations quarterly and advise the chief on policies, procedures, budgets and planning. County officials also want input in hiring and evaluating the fire chief.

Richland wants to design a system for tracking the use of the $19 million the county contributes to the $37 million joint system. Its proposed agreement would require Columbia to inventory equipment and set up a volunteer recruitment, retention and training program, to encourage more volunteer firefighters in rural Richland.

Requests for more oversight and accountability make sense, as both bodies have a duty to ensure the quality, efficiency and cost-effectiveness of public services.

One thing that isn’t on the table but should be is a fully merged system that includes EMS.

While the county and city have wisely taken steps that would allow firefighters to be more helpful in emergencies, including giving them the ability to drive ambulances in dire situations, that doesn’t remedy the overall lack of coordination between fire and EMS. If they were under one administration, it would be easier to remove barriers to improve service and save lives. It’s an idea that, if not considered now, should be on the councils’ agenda later.

While the city appears to be in agreement with some key issues, Columbia and Richland won’t agree on every point in this proposed agreement. But they must work out the details and, absent glaring problems that would jeopardize the public interest, ink a new deal as soon as possible.