Stanislaus County Grand Jury • 2001-2002

Reason for Investigation The Civil Grand Jury received a citizen=s complaint alleging the Keyes Fire Protection

Published: July 17, 2002 13 pages
View Original PDF

Findings and Recommendations 16 findings

F1
It is common that family members will choose the same career interests and will often work in the same public safety department.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
The KFD by-laws state, AAny person who resides within a ten (10) minute response time of the Keyes Fire Station may obtain a membership application from the Chief...@ (Section B, , Recruitment of Members).
No recommendations for this finding
F3
At least one application, dated 6/23/00, was rejected due to the applicant living Aout of district.@ Testimony revealed three (3) other applicants also were denied a position because they resided Aout of district.@
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The Chief apply the by-laws equally among all members of KFD.
F4
The Chief=s son, who is a member of KFD, resided at an address approximately two (2) blocks south of Tuolumne Boulevard in the City of Modesto from 1997 through March 2001.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The Chief apply the by-laws equally among all members of KFD.
F5
Testimony indicated that it took between thirteen (13) and twenty-five (25) minutes to drive from the Tuolumne Boulevard address to KFD. The driving distance is eight and one-half (8-1/2) miles. Members of the Civil Grand Jury made this drive on four (4) separate occasions with travel times between eleven (11) and fifteen (15) minutes. This was performed under normal driving conditions while obeying posted speed limits.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The Chief apply the by-laws equally among all members of KFD.
F6
The Chief=s son filed a written request for leave of absence on 11/18/97 and filed a doctor=s release to return to work on 7/07/98.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
According to court documents filed with the Stanislaus County Superior Court (case #29507 - Income and Expense Declaration) dated 7/03/01, the Chief=s son indicated that he was receiving disability payments and had not worked since 6/17/99.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
In a letter dated 5/19/01, the Social Security Administration advised the Chief=s son 4 that, according to their records, he became disabled on 2/11/00 and was entitled to receive benefits as of August 2000. As of 2/27/02, the Chief=s son was still receiving disability payments.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
A review of the KFD Participation Detail by Staff Report indicates the Chief=s son participated in 156 calls from November 2000 through March 2001.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
For at least five (5) years prior to January 2001, KFD had a vacancy in the position of Second Assistant Chief. When the Chief=s son returned to work from a leave of absence, he was promoted to fill this position.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The Chief and all members of KFD review and understand Federal law regarding equal employment opportunities.
F11
Although the Chief has the final authority for promotions, it was usual for him to request input from the Assistant Chief and Captains. Two (2) of the four (4) Captains stated they were never consulted about the promotion and, if they had been, they would not have recommended the Chief=s son for the position.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2
The Chief consult with his command staff and seek their input prior to making promotions.
R3
The Chief and all members of KFD review and understand Federal law regarding equal employment opportunities.
F12
There is no formal testing process for promotions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The Chief and all members of KFD review and understand Federal law regarding equal employment opportunities.
F13
Five (5) of the seven (7) volunteers interviewed believed that the Chief=s daughter- in-law received preferential treatment. a. The volunteers detailed an instance where the Chief=s daughter-in-law did not want to participate in a training scenario. When the training officer told her she had to participate, the Chief overruled him and threatened to cancel training if the matter was pursued. b. Other instances were detailed where the Chief=s daughter-in-law did not take an active role at the scene of emergencies.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The Chief and all members of KFD review and understand Federal law regarding equal employment opportunities.
F14
The Chief admitted he gives women firefighters preferential treatment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The Chief and all members of KFD review and understand Federal law regarding equal employment opportunities.
F15
The Chief=s son (Assistant Chief) stated that he responds to emergency calls but, due to physical limitations, selects which duties he can and cannot perform.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
Fire department personnel dispatched to the scene of an emergency have the ability to perform all required firefighting and lifesaving functions. COMPLAINT #2 - LACK OF LEADERSHIP ON THE PART OF THE KFD CHIEF:
F16
There have been several times when the Chief, his son and one (1) firefighter have been the only persons from KFD to respond to emergency calls. CONCLUSIONS The Civil Grand Jury concluded that:
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
Fire department personnel dispatched to the scene of an emergency have the ability to perform all required firefighting and lifesaving functions. COMPLAINT #2 - LACK OF LEADERSHIP ON THE PART OF THE KFD CHIEF:

Additional Recommendations 1

These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.

Conclusions 19