Campaign Photo Leads to Discipline for 5 Florida Firefighters
Today’s burning question: A candidate for city council stopped by my fire station to pick up something from the union president, who works with us. The candidate asked us to pose for a photo with him in front of our truck and of course we agreed. Now we are being disciplined. Can they do that?
Answer: If posing in the photo constitutes engaging in election campaigning while on duty, and particularly if the photo is used in the candidate’s campaign, some discipline may be inevitable.
That’s what five Pinellas Park, Florida firefighters found out when they were disciplined over a photo they posed for while on duty and in uniform. Lt. Andrew Dezso, FFs Andrew Lusher, Daniel Swinger, Richard Dudley and William Dallam, received varying penalties, from written reprimands to suspensions without pay.
The photo was taken on January 21, 2012 when City Council candidate Eddie Kosinski stopped by Station 34 to pick up an endorsement letter from IAFF Local 2193 President William Dallam. While there, Kosinski asked the crew to pose for a picture with the engine and rescue vehicles in the background.
Roughly three weeks later, Kosinski posted the photo on his campaign web site. The posting was brief. When firefighters learned that the photo was online, union vice president Brett Schlatterer called Kosinski to have it taken down. According to Kosinski, the photo was only posted for 8 to 10 hours.
Pinellas Park’s Fire Chief, Doug Lewis, was quoted as in the Tampa Bay Times as saying that campaigning while on duty violates “one of our rules and regulations in the city. It’s not just a rule but the Florida statute was broken.”
Kosinski claims he had no idea the photo was in any way improper, and attributes the discipline to the fact he is running against a candidate who has the backing of a majority of the council. He was quoted in the Tampa Bay Times as saying: “It’s dirty politics and I don’t like it.”
There is a nagging question in my mind about this case. Posing for a picture is posing for a picture. Campaigning for election while on duty is another activity – one that may involve posing for pictures with candidates, but only if you know the purpose of photo before the photo is taken.
According to the Tampa Bay Times, Kosinski says he told the firefighters the photo “will go good with your endorsement on my website.” However, not all the firefighters heard him say that, and President Dallam was quoted as saying “It was not my intent for that photo to be used with the endorsement.”
Florida has a Firefighter’s Bill of Rights. It is unclear if any of the discipline will be appealed.
To expand on this one: Say mom and dad bring little Johnny in to get a picture with the fire truck and the cool firefighters. A month later dad decides to run for city council and the picture shows up. No intent, no knowledge that is what is going to happen. I understand that they knew who this guy was, but how could they refuse to take a photo with a taxpaying citizen of the community, politician or not?
We get people bringing their kids to the door all the time, families on scavengers hunts, even bachelorette parties stop by. We see it as part of our duty and have been very careful to keep everything on the level. Now I’m almost afraid to let anyone in the station for fear of accusations of rape, pedophilia, or political favoritism. This is getting ridiculous.
Thanks John
Interesting point. I’d probably feel better about this case if the firefighters were charged with violating a “no posing-on-duty policy” rather than a campaigning-on-duty policy.
In the aftermath of the LAFD Porn video scandal last year some departments were looking for policies on photo taking of on-duty personnel, apparatus, stations and equipment. The policies I developed drew a distinction between lewd and immoral photos (prohibited), commercial (permitted with permission from the fire chief), and non-commercial – which are unregulated/permitted.
Your question asks – what if someone takes a photo that we assume is for one purpose (non-commercial), but that ends up being used for another…
It is important to point out, we don’t know who knew what in the Pinellas Park case. Giving the department the benefit of the doubt the personnel knew the photo was going to be used for campaigning. The news reports do not address that issue.
In a time of ever-increasing budget problems, our union and administration agree on the value of maintaining strong relationships within our community. One way we have managed to reach out to the citizens we serve is by having fire companies drop by events put on by various community organizations. Letting the kids climb in the fire engine, telling the citizens know what we actually do, and answering questions builds ties with the community, but invariably these questions turn political. For example, you may recall that the large pensions earned by public employees was the sole reason for the recent economic downturn. Questions related to pension reform, the pros and cons of unions, and other political issues seem to always arise, placing the crew in a tough position: refuse to answer a taxpayer’s question, or get involved in a political debate. So far, crews have managed to walk the tightrope, but I’m sure it’s just a matter of time before we hear a complaint.
And regarding your proposed prohibition on “lewd and immoral photos”: a few years ago, one of our crews was in front of a station, washing their engine. A young lady in a trenchcoat walked up, followed by a young man with a camera. She asked to get her picture taken with the crew. They agreed and posed for the photo with the engine behind them. Just before the shutter snapped, the trenchcoat fell off, revealing… well, revealing pretty much everything. Of course, anyone viewing the photo would assume it was just a bunch of no-good firemen hanging around with a naked lady, like they always do.
Ah yes, those greedy no-good pensioners. The ones who think they are “entitled” to pensions just because they put their time and money into the systems… and then dared to expect politicians would honor their side of the bargain….
And who was it that failed to put their share into the pension funds? Oh yes, they are the ones now blaming public employees for the financial problems…
Trenchcoat… interesting. Did the photo ever resurface? That would make for an excellent “You Can’t Make This Stuff Up”. dot net.
We have had a rash of police firings in the last year or so. From having sex with transexual prostitutes, to corruption, driving drunk, and numerous others.These were public servants that were abusing their position and were then terminated. A few guys take a picture with a candidate and they are being disciplined is outragous. These men work a job where any call could be their last one, as we saw on 9/11. Their should be a release form that the candidate is responsible for filing before using any kind of endorsement from unions, fraternal organizations, and public employees. The man was there to see the UNION President, why would these men think a picture was out of line. We don’t have enough funds to pay firemen,police,and teachers. This is political wrangling at the expense of men who did nothing wrong. Cause a lot of noise about nonsense, and draw peoples attention away from what is really going on. If a political canditate or elected official stops by the VA Hospital, Are wounded soldiers campaigning. Some one needs to focus on real issues