Skip to content


Family Ties and Chain of Command

Here is today’s burning question: I have been volunteering with a small rural fire district for about 11 years. I was promoted to lieutenant by the previous chief, but since he left 7 years ago I have had nothing but trouble with the new chief. I won’t bother you with the details, but my problem is this: My wife joined the department last summer. Last week out of the blue my chief told me that although she is allowed to volunteer, she is not allowed to respond to incidents where I play a supervisory role! I make about 60% of all of calls and was hoping this would allow my wife and I to spend more time together.  Now she can only respond to calls that I cannot make. Is it legal to deny someone to volunteer based on marital status / family relationships?

Answer: You need to get some local legal advice. To fully answer your question an attorney will need to look at your state laws, perhaps local ordinances, fire district regulations, fire department rules and regulations, etc. In addition, whether your department is a municipal entity (fire district) or a volunteer fire company funded by a fire district could make a huge difference. Without knowing all of that – any advice I could give you would be half-baked at best.

I agree, given your strained relationship with the chief, it sounds like he may be using your martial status as a way to harass you – but there may be a valid reason for it as well – such as nepotism laws that prohibit a person from reporting to an immediate family member. Most of those nepotism laws apply to paid employees, and you did not indicate if you are paid on call, or fully volunteer. Again the devil will be in the details.

You would be completely within your rights to ask the chief for some additional information on the martial status rule, such as when the rule was adopted and what it was based on (state law, local ethics commission ruling, attorney’s advice, etc.). If he is bluffing, these questions may be a way to smoke him out. On the other hand if he is sincere, acting on advice of counsel and trying to do the right thing it offers a way that you can be assured he is not out to make your life difficult.  You would also be within your rights to ask that the rule be put in writing  (if it has not yet been) to make sure it is applied to everyone equally.

Posted in Burning Question, Conflicts of Interest, Ethics, Volunteers

Tagged ,

Florida Chief Resigns and Department Under Investigation

A fire chief in Florida has resigned amidst an investigation into his having allowed two relatives and a family friend to serve as volunteer firefighters despite their having been convicted felons.

Fire Chief Brad Hall of the Mexico Beach Fire Department had been on administrative leave pending investigations by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the Bay County Sheriff’s Office.

Chief Hall’s nephew, Levi Wilson,23, was convicted of aggravated battery in 2009; his sister-in-law Stephanie McDonald Wilson,41, was convicted of cocaine possession and organized fraud;  and firefighter Michael Brunson,55, who is Stephanie McDonald Wilson’s boyfriend, was convicted of drug dealing and grand theft.

The members are also under investigation for having falsified run sheets and attendance records in order to receive compensation of incidents they did not respond to.

Mexico Beach City Administrator Chris Hubbard has been granted authority over the fire department and a new hiring policy with background checks has been made mandatory.

More on the story.

Posted in Conflicts of Interest, Criminal Law, Disciplinary Action, Volunteers, You Can't Make This Stuff Up

Tagged , , , ,

Albuquerque Captain Wins Right to Run for State Office

Albuquerque Fire Department Captain Emily Kane wanted to run for state representative. Standing in her way (besides her opponents) was a city charter provision that prohibited employees from either running for or holding state office.

When Captain Kane was informed by her department that she faced discipline over her decision to run, she decided to challenge the provision as violating her rights under both the Federal and state constitutions.

In June, Second Judicial District Judge Alan Malott granted Captain Kane’s request for a temporary restraining order preventing the city from taking any disciplinary action against her. Last Friday District Judge Beatrice Brickhouse ruled the charter provision to be unconstitutional, a violation of Captain Kane’s First Amendment Rights.

More on the story.

 

AFD captain can’t be fired for campaign: krqe.com

 

Posted in Civil Suit, Conflicts of Interest, Constitutional Rights, Disciplinary Action, Ethics, First Amendment, Politics

Tagged , , , , ,

Honolulu Ethics Panel Investigating Fire-EMS Merger Contract

Honolulu Ethics Panel Investigating Fire-EMS Merger Contract.

The Honolulu Ethics Commission has begun an investigation into the bid process used to select a consultant back in 2010 to help assist with the merger of the Honolulu Fire Department and the Honolulu Emergency Services Department.

The consultants/bidders were ranked by a matrix scoring system, and the allegation has been made that scores were changed so that Emergency Services Consulting International (ESCI), an affiliate of the International Association of Fire Chiefs, would receive the award. The total amount paid was $175,000.

The ethics complaint claims Fire Chief Kenneth Silva’s relationship with the IAFC may have played a role in what transpired.

Three evaluators were tasked with ranking the bidders by a numerical score. The scores were then tabulated. EMS Chief Patty Dukes gave Ralph Anderson and Associates 31 points, ECSI 26 points, and the other bidders 25 points.

Assistant Fire Chief Thomas Perkins gave ESCI 38 points and Ralph Anderson 35 points.

The third evaluation came from attorney Paul Au, from the city’s HR department. Au gave both companies 39 points. Based on those scores, Ralph Anderson appeared to have won, 105 to 103.

A few days later, Au was allegedly given his scoring sheet back and asked to pick between ESCI (supported by Chief Perkins) and Ralph Anderson (supported by Chief Duke). He downgraded Ralph Anderson to 36 points, giving Emergency Services Consulting International just enough to win, 103-102.

The article has the actual scoring matrixes used by the parties, and does a good job of laying out the issues.

 

Posted in administration-leadership, Conflicts of Interest, EMS, Ethics

Tagged , ,

Nebraska Supreme Court Rules on Fill the Boot Case

Today’s Burning Question: Is it illegal for firefighters to collect money for a charity during their on-duty hours?

Answer: In Nebraska it is now illegal for on-duty firefighters to collect money for charities such as the MDA… well… at least that is what some of the headlines say. But is that what the court really said?

The real answer is somewhat complicated – because the case is somewhat complicated - so please bear with me.

The story began in 2009 when the Omaha City Council (playing the role of Scrooge in Scene I) passed an ordinance that prohibited on-duty city employees (namely the firefighters… playing the role of Bob Cratchit) from soliciting money from the public for charitable causes like the Muscular Dystrophy Association (playing the role of Tiny Tim).

The council then sought an advisory opinion from the Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission declaring the practice of firefighters soliciting funds for charities such as the “Fill-The-Boot Drive” for the MDA to be illegal. The Commission (Scrooge in Scene II) obliged, ruling that such fundraising violated Nebraska Revised Statutes § 49-14,101.01, which states

A public official or public employee shall not use or authorize the use of personnel, resources, property or funds under his or her official care and control other than in accordance with prescribed constitutional, statutory and regulatory procedures…

Here is the Commission’s ruling, issued on March 12, 2010

In anticipation of the annual Labor Day Jerry Lewis Telethon for MDA, the Nebraska Professional Firefighters Association filed suit on August 19, 2010 in Lancaster County District Court to challenge the Commission’s advisory opinion, and order it to be withdrawn. The District Court (Scrooge in Scene III) dismissed the case finding it lacked jurisdiction, and the Nebraska Court of Appeals (Scrooge in Scene IV) affirmed on slightly different grounds. The case went to the Nebraska Supreme Court who issued their ruling last Friday.

Here is a copy: Nebraska Fill the Boot Case

The court essentially concluded that while the District Court and Court of Appeals were right that the Firefighters had to lose, they were not entirely right with their reasoning. The real grounds for the Firefighters to lose was that an advisory opinion was not a “final decision”, and only final decisions can be appealed. Said another way – the Firefighters had not exhausted their administrative remedies. They had the opportunity to challenge the advisory opinion before the Commission. Only after the Commission had ruled on their specific challenge would there be a final decision from which the Firefighters could lawfully appeal.

So where does that leave firefighters in Nebraska who want to help Jerry’s Kids? While the headlines indicate that the Nebraska Supreme Court was the biggest Scrooge of all, if you read the case it certainly is not as bad as many make it sound. The Nebraska Supreme Court did not “outlaw” fill-the-boot drives – it just ruled that the advisory opinion needs to be challenged via a different route. The Firefighters can make that challenge directly to the Commission if they so choose. They just cannot contest an advisory opinion in court.

In the meantime, Jerry Lewis has cut back substantially in the telethon. In 2011 for the first time he turned over the reins to others to host and the show was trimmed back from over 20 hours down to 6.

Posted in Burning Question, Civil Suit, Conflicts of Interest, Ethics, Labor Law, Politics, You Can't Make This Stuff Up

Tagged , , , ,

Ohio Ethics Commission Investigates Conflict in Bargaining Case

Today’s burning question: I am an elected official and my son is an IAFF firefighter who serves in the community that I represent. Can I get in trouble if I am involved in negotiations, or I vote to approve an agreement with the firefighters? Is it any worse if he is on the union’s negotiation team? And what if both sides agree that they have no problem with it?

Answer: It all depends on the state, but ethics laws in Ohio make it a misdemeanor or even a felony for a public official to use “his or her position to secure any contract-related benefits or other things of value for a family member who is employed by the public agency.” That according to Jennifer Hardin, chief advisory attorney for the Ohio Ethics Commission.

The reality of criminal charges is now confronting Madison Township Trustees’ chairman David Spain, the father of firefighter Kevin Spain. Back in 2011 father and son were involved in negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement.

According to Trustee Spain, his relationship with his son, seated across the bargaining table, was known to both sides, and no one on either side objected. Unfortunately, that fact alone is not enough to cure the inherent conflict of interest that exists when a relative makes decisions on behalf of the public that directly benefit a family member.

Hardin was quoted in the Mansfield News Journal as saying “The theory is: When a family member is involved and will benefit, there is always the potential for some impropriety. The parties involved can’t just agree to get around criminal law.”

The ethics complaint was filed on behalf of the Madison Township Fire Department. As the investigation proceeds, it will be up to the county prosecutor to seek criminal charges, or allow the matter to be handled by the ethics commission.

More on the story.                                                              

Incidentally, the case has a different angle, as Madison Township Deputy Chief Chris Wolfgang is being investigated for a Facebook posting he made relative to Trustee Spain. The posting allegedly said: “BREAKING NEWS!!! Deputy Fire Chief Gives Trustee Chairman His Opinion … Details to follow”, and was accompanied by a picture of one man kneeing another man in the groin. Chief Wolfgang insist he was merely exercising his 1st Amendment rights.

More on that story.

Posted in Burning Question, Conflicts of Interest, Criminal Law, Disciplinary Action, First Amendment, Labor Law, Politics, Social Media, You Can't Make This Stuff Up

Tagged , , , ,

Ohio Ethics Commission Investigating Chief for Teaching at College

Today’s burning question: I’m a fire chief and I teach at the local community college. Some of my firefighters attend classes at the college and the fire department reimburses them. Is there anything unethical about that arrangement?

Answer: I honestly do not think so – but apparently some folks in Ohio believe it is, and as a result a fire chief is facing an ethics investigation.

Daryl Meyers is the chief of the Xenia Township Fire Department, and an adjunct professor in Sinclair Community College’s Fire Sciences Department. He is under investigation by the Ohio Ethics Commission, although the specifics of the allegations are somewhat unclear.

What is crystal clear is that Chief Meyers lacks support from at least one of his trustees. Trustee Jim Reed reportedly told reporters that many people are questioning Chief Meyers’ relationship with the college. Reed alleges that by teaching at the college, combined with “sending” firefighters to the college, Chief Meyers is really looking out for his own “job security”.

Here is a news story about the case.

If I am wrong – and this situation does somehow prove to be an ethics violation – and that decision is based on provisions in the Ohio ethics law that are similar to provisions in most other states – then there are going to be an awful lot of upset fire chiefs. And before the non-fire chiefs reading this start snickering, why would the ethics commission stop at citing the fire chief? Why would it be an ethics violation for the fire chief to teach but not, say a battalion chief, or even a lieutenant, if one of their subordinates is “sent” to the class. [Note: that also leads to a question about what is "sent"? If a firefighter's officer strongly recommends that a firefighter take a class - is that enough?]

And why stop at college programs? What if a fire chief is an instructor at the state fire academy and he requires his firefighters to attend classes at the state fire academy?

On the other hand, if the chief (or any officer) requires (as opposed to allows) a subordinate to attend a specific program taught by the officer and the officer received compensation for that student’s attendance, then the case for an ethics violation would be a bit stronger. But if the officer was going to teach a college level fire science class anyway (whether his firefighters attend or not), and firefighters are free to attend any college with a fire science program, I am struggling to see an ethics violation.

Here is a copy of the Ohio Ethics law. I am open for any ideas anyone has. Chip – its your state – any thoughts?

Ohio Ethics Code

Posted in Burning Question, Conflicts of Interest, Disciplinary Action, Ethics

Tagged , , , , ,

Ethics Charges Settled With EMS Chief

The former chief of EMS for FDNY has been slapped with a hefty fine by the city’s Conflicts of Interest Board. Chief John Peruggia, who was demoted in early January following numerous complaints over the city’s response to the December 26, 2010 blizzard, agreed to pay a $12,500 fine to dispose of the matter.

The board alleged that an EMS vendor, Masimo, Inc., gave Chief Peruggia free trips and compensation in exchange for presentations the chief made at various locations across the country. At the time, Chief Peruggia was on a committee responsible for recommending whether FDNY should buy a CO meter that Masimo manufactured.

Most firefighters think of ethics laws as something that only applies to politicians and elected officials. As a result, conflicts of interest laws remain hidden traps for many firefighters who fail to recognize the potential for an ethical conflict until after the fact. In most of the cases I have been involved with, the conflict is blatantly obvious after the fact – yet the potential is missed beforehand by the firefighters involved.

NY1 has a pretty good video on the FDNY case.

Posted in Conflicts of Interest, EMS, Ethics

Circumventing Nepotism Law Creates Larger Problem for Louisiana Fire Chief

Trying to circumvent an ethics problem created an even larger headache for a Louisiana Fire Chief. Former Grand Caillou Fire Chief, Johnny Duplantis, and his wife, Carol Duplantis, recently paid $8,000 in fines for violating state ethic laws. The chief allegedly approved payments to his wife for work she performed using the identity and Social Security Number of another firefighter to claim the payment.

In September 2008, Hurricanes Gustav and Ike struck the gulf coast, and the fire department faced a severe manpower shortage. Carol Duplantis agreed to work for the fire department for roughly six weeks. The problem was that state ethics laws prohibit nepotism, and thus prohibited the chief from being able to hire his wife even in an emergency.

In an effort to avoid the ethical trap, the chief approved an employment agreement, time sheets, and payment of $1,170 to his wife by using the name and Social Security Number of Tressa Verdin, a mutual friend and volunteer of the fire department.

The couple said that they had Verdin’s approval before submitting her name, but Verdin’s denied agreeing to the arrangement.

Verdin told reporters “I was called over to their house to sign a check that was made out to me from the department. I was told this was because Carol had worked for the department during both hurricanes, and she couldn't get pay because she was Johnny's wife and it wasn't fair.” Verdin claims she was pressured to sign the check and later reported the matter to the State Ethics Board.

The State Ethics Board ruling on the matter was handed down earlier this fall. Chief Duplantis resigned from the Department in December, 2009 citing health reasons. The couple is also facing criminal charges related to the same series of events.

For more.

 

Posted in Conflicts of Interest, Criminal Law, Disciplinary Action, You Can't Make This Stuff Up

Providence Boat Ride Under Fire

Offered without commentary:

Posted in Conflicts of Interest, Humor

Tagged , ,

Pension Benefits Case Raises Complex Issues in San Diego

Ron Saathoff, the president of the San Diego firefighters union has sued the city of San Diego, asking it to honor his retirement benefits that were canceled two years ago after an investigation by the IRS concluded that it violated federal tax laws. Saathoff's suit asks the Superior Court to order the city to repeal an ordinance that canceled his benefits and pay him what has been owed from 2002 through 2008, with interest.

At issue is a “presidential leave” benefit. In 2002, the city agreed to let Saathoff combine his salary as union president with his salary as a city worker for the purposes of determining his pension. The creation of that benefit is part of two criminal proceedings involving Saathoff and other former members of the city pension board. The cases, (one in state court and one in federal court), accuse Saathoff and others on the retirement board with self-dealing and fraud stemming from the board's approval of a city proposal to permit the city to put less money into the pension fund than required, in exchange for additional in benefits in labor contracts. According to the San Diego Union-Tribute, prosecutors in both cases allege Saathoff got the benefits in exchange or his support of the underfunding deal.

In response to the IRS investigation, the city enacted an ordinace eliminating the "presidential leave" benefit, as well as other benefits previously agreed to. A group of other firefighters are also challenging the city's action in the same law suit.

Posted in Civil Suit, Conflicts of Interest, Labor Law

Tagged , ,