Burning Question on Investigations into Misconduct By The Fire Chief
Today’s burning question: If a misconduct complaint is filed against a fire chief, should subordinate chiefs be allowed to conduct the investigation?
Answer: As a general rule, someone who has a potential conflict of interest should not be tasked with conducting a misconduct investigation. Whether the subordinate chiefs may have a real or perceived loyalty to the chief, or to the extent they may be perceived as harboring animosity toward the chief – it really does not matter. The investigators should be unbiased and impartial. Even the suggestion that the investigators may be looking to “get” the chief in a selfish attempt to advance their own career prospects creates the appearance of an impartial investigation.
Not every fire department will be the same in this regard. In some jurisdictions, subordinates are not beholden to the chief for their positions and have adequate safeguards to protect them from any possible retaliation that may come from a fire chief who believes he/she was wrongly treated by investigators.
That scenario not withstanding, my sense would be to advise against having subordinate chiefs conduct such an investigation in most instances. The perception of a conflict – that investigators have gone easy on the chief or that they were “out to get” the chief – may terminally taint even a well-done, totally objective, investigation.
Curt–who should do it then? I’ve actually thought of this scenario in the past. As a fire IA officer and Varone graduate…I would recommend nominating a retired fire officer from a different department. Having an unbiased investigation is a must. One consideration would be to pass the investigation to police IA. Still–you would have the problem of potential influence –as both the fire and police chief are equals and work together on many issues–especially in a large city.
Tenured – that is an excellent idea – a retired fire officer from another department. A retired police officer or an attorney, would be similar solutions. While attorneys offer a possible benefit (attorney-client privilege to the FD) I am aware of a draw back: some do not comprehend the need to complete the investigation in a timely manner and allow it to drag on – working around their crowded schedule. That is not fair to the accused or his/her family… and is not good for the organization. You can’t rush an investigation but at the same time it cannot be allowed to drag on.
“…some do not comprehend the need to complete the investigation in a timely manner and allow it to drag on…”
I suspect some lawyers — the sleazier ones — would try to stretch it out, for the sake of billable hours.
I heard (anecdotally) of one attorney who managed to bill himself out at an average of 200 hours per week.
200 hours a week…I can see where that would be a problem given there are only 168 hours in a week… there was a joke about an attorney who was welcomed at the pearly gates of heaven as the oldest living man. When he said he really wasn’t that old, St. Peter said they had estimated his age based on his billable hours…
I think, as you suggested, a retired chief from another town could be appointed lead investigator, but that chief may also want to consider asking either State Police or State Fire Marshal for assistance. The State Police in particular may be able to detail an experienced investigator from another county, SP District or whatever, who would have no connection — and hence, no allegiance to or animosity against — the local official. The Fire Marshal, on the other hand, might have its own IAB, or at least be better equipped to handle an FD internal, due to their greater knowledge of the FF world. The big drawback, of course, is no wants to deal with the rat squad, whether police- or fire-based.