[MRIC] Fwd: IC-213

[BrettHam at aol.com]

Ray,
 
There is a limit to the size of emails that can be sent to the MRIC email  
reflector, so I am going to provide my comments in the next email to the  
reflector.
 
Brett
 
In a message dated 3/12/2007 4:24:12 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
Arbyone1 at verizon.net writes:

Hi Brett,

I sent some suggestions to  Al about the IC-213.  I rec'd an email from Al 
today about the COMMEX and  he listed you as the contact point for changes to 
the IC-213.  Below is a  copy of the text I sent to Al:

Hi Al,

Thanks for presenting the  IC-213 at the meeting.  I agree that we need to
use the IC-213.   But I do have questions...

>From my research I find that one version of  the form was a multi-part form
and was printed by the GPO.  Also, some  groups have written procedures to
process the multi-part form from start to  finish, where each link in the
chain gets a part (copy a,b,c,etc.) of the  message through it's life cycle.
This process also includes another form that  is used in conjunction with the
IC-213, that form is a communications  log.  That form is a transmission by
transmission history of the current  operator.  That form includes date,
time, contact and subject  information.  There is a form number under the
ICS, but I don't recall  it at this time. Between the two forms, most of the
additional information we  seek is already recorded.  What we seek is not a
form but a  system.

There is an urban legend that the Incident Command and he's horde  will not
accept anything other than the approved IC-213.

My  Questions:

When we complete our task and have a finished form and  procedure in hand,
will the State of Maryland accept it?

What type of  IC-213 are we going to use (Multi-Part or  Single)?
A multi-part form or a single part  form will determine to a large part
the modifications we need to make to the  IC-213.

Are we going to use a communications log form?

I have  other questions and suggestions based on the answers for the first
three  questions.

Thanks for your time,

73,

Ray Brown
STMA  RO

Ray,
Glad you asked these three questions - They are excellent ones  and I'll be 
glad to share what information I have about them.  
1. MRIC  is a Committee of the MD Emergency Management Association whose 
members are the  Emergency Managers in Maryland and some strap hangers like myself 
who have a  vested interest.  The MRIC approved motions will be submitted to 
the  MEMAssociation for their approval and forwarded to MEMAgency and the 
other  Jurisdictions for implementation.  Keep in mind that MEMA doesn't tell  
other Counties how they will run their jurisdiction.  But our committee is  
addressing issues of mutual concern so we all have a stake in how smoothly it  
works together. 
2. I think asking each County to use a certain number of  multi part forms is 
something we should leave to the individual jurisdictions  for now.  Unless 
there is compelling reason that all jurisdictions want to  follow the same 
procedure, we should leave it up to them for now.  Later we  may want to 
standardize State wide on a certain multi part form and how it is  used but we 
collectively need to get a little practical experience with it  before standardizing 
that aspect of the form and associated procedures.   
3. I recommend the use of ICS-309 Communications Log particularly for  
TACTICAL messages      

Thanks for the reply  Al.  

It appeared important to me to decide now - before we go any  further, that 
we are going to use the single sheet IC-213 as the basic form to  be modified.  
If we elected to use the multi-part form then a different set  of elements 
would need to be changed compared to the single sheet form.  If  the ICS-309 is 
going to be used with the ICS-213, that would affect some of the  changes to 
the ICS-213 form too.

Just as a personal note; If the  multi-part ICS-213 is available,  that would 
be my choice.  Anyway,  back to the here and now.

Reviewing the IC-213 you presented I would made  a couple of suggestions:

Make line Six the modified preamble, retain the  current data elements and 
add word count after the message number.

Add  line Seven  "Message"

On the last line of the "Message" section  add:
Line Eight "Rec'd by __(call sign)__  Date ________   time _(24 hr)_ local.  
Information Only [   ]  Reply  Required [   ]"

Note: Because the time the  message is written and the time the message is 
sent can be very important  later,
it should be recorded in the original message for  legal reasons and for 
after event debrief and  training.

Because there are a number of informational  type messages handled during an 
event,  the check box's  
can make it clear if a response is required or not.  

Renumber line Seven  to Nine  "Reply" and remove "loc ___  number ___ ..."

Note: The priority was already  set by the originator and should not be 
changed.

Renumber line eight "  Signature..." to nine.

Add line Ten  "Sent by __(call sign)__   Date ________ Time _(24 hr)_ local. 

Note: Because the time  the message is written and the time the message is 
sent can be very important  later,
it should be recorded in the original message for  legal reasons and for 
after event debrief and training.

Well, that's all  I have for now.  I guess we'll have to take a look at the 
ICS-309  next.

Respectfully,

Ray Brown kb3fww
STMA RO

-- Take  care of the little things and the big things take care of themselves
 
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free 
email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at 
http://www.aol.com.