Friday, June 17, 2011

Motiviation for Trying to Hide the Fire Department Stuff

Two Fire Department Misconduct Document Examples:

 1. SANDBAGGING
...purposeful manipulations of the MDC units created hazardous situations and dangerously long response times... endangering the safety and lives or our citizens.




2. BLOWING OFF RESTOCKING & CHECKING SUPPLIES OVER MULTIPLE SHIFTS
A quote from the expert EMS reviewer, "...if my 65-year-old mother had cardiac arrest outside Station [REDACTED]-anywhere from the 6th to the 8th, she would not have survived, and that to me is an egregious lack of duty... we are here for the citizens, and we grievously failed them.



LL and the other folks with the document packet,
You have the full packets. Please provide an overall summary of what's in the packets. Also, note some of the inconsistency in redactions and a few letters being exposed which allow the reader to guess the missing word. It will take some time to comb the material closely to be sure it is redacted correctly prior to posting. Do you offer to help? Also, please note how much was not released as indicated by the attachments list. 


Please post for the blog an answer to: 
Are these excerpts consistent with the story as you know it? 
What does the public need to know about these incidents to understand them?


I think the public will especially benefit from hearing a summary from folks who initially fought against the effort to release these documents and the those initially critical of Steve and the effort to bring this to light. PLEASE submit something.

Steve has been active in traffic calming, bicycle infrastructure, park issues, open government, and city administration. He has certainly paid attention to emergency services, but this story isn't about Steve, except for those who want so badly to deflect the story by taking shots at the messenger. The best way to carry out a vendetta against Steve is to explain away everything in the documents (and what was left out of the packets).


It is time for a Sunshine Ordinance.

 

7 comments:

  1. 1. Yes, the excerpts seem consistant with what has been alleged as misconduct. A little thin as no one actualy died or was affected directly by the lack of adequate following of proceedure to restock the truck. There is no dispute that it was gross negligence on the job on many levels. But again gross negligence and a more serious act of misconduct. 2. The second charge looks worse I agree on principle alone athough I have no real idea of the protocol that they are following.

    I apprieciate the post. It is not my intent to attack the messenger. I have not done a good job of articulating my concern. I know that you and Steve are comming from the right place and your heart is also in the right place. It's just the way you do it sometimes that troubles me. If sunshine is what all this is truly about, then it should work both ways. You will be taken more seriously by the sheeple and the goats (me). When I read about things that might be going on at City Hall I want to make up my own mind with as much information as possible. On a charge so serious I want hard facts to go with the allegations. It was not my intent to defend the Chief. It was always about the rank and file. I have no desire to rehash the Dan drama. Anyone who was paying attention knows that vile things were said. I was not refering to Steve as far as I know. I only brought that up because of the style that Steve had at the time. Emotion was so overcharged at that rally. It is just getting so ugly from both sides now. I am not able to help with the scanning of documents because I do not have enough time in my life right now. Kids are out of school, vacations, etc. I will read all of it and make comments when I can.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Its cool LL, especially when you write up the summary. Are you sure you don't want me to leave a copy at some drop off spot or something?

    We very much want to hear back from you and get your take based on the source documents.

    Comments added for understanding:
    "On a charge so serious I want hard facts to go with the allegations."
    Which is why it was appropriate to approach the city first, which is what was done. I'm very afraid that you don't recognize that.

    The rank and file wanted to be open but got scared of reprisals.

    I did not endorse the Press Conference but played a role because it was going to happen. I had hoped to help keep it from melting down and keep it on issues such as the pension tsunami and open government. You did bring it up again. It seems totally unfair to all to not be able to give an example.

    As for this issue turning the wrong direction: What would you do differently if you were a concerned citizen given a few leaks?

    What would you do differently if you were the city and didn't want it to melt down?

    ReplyDelete
  3. "...If sunshine is what all this is truly about, then it should work both ways."

    I agree.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The first one is the ugliest. They did it on purpose. Looks like the second one was just sloppiness and unprofessional behavior.

    If no one was hurt it was luck, it wasn't because the misconduct wasn't gross negligence that endangered the public.

    ReplyDelete
  6. There are plenty of good HONEST firefighters out there needing jobs. Why is that one's job still protected? Usually dishonesty is grounds for termination, even under union rules. Why does that firefighter still have a job? Not only did he/she engage in behavior that put the public at potential risk, but then he/she lied about it. And given the mention of past problems....it is going to take someone to die before an unfit firefighter is let go?

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for posting on our blog.
Anonymous comments are allowed after moderator review.
The moderator works at his leisure.