Jennings Firefighters and "The Mother Lode"

Like most people I had a knee jerk reaction when local fire fighters and others removed electronic equipment from a scene following a wreck. I wanted to see something done. A few days later lo and behold something was done. I was surprised at the outcome. As time went on my opinion varied somewhat. I'm not going to bore you with the whole story because if your local you already know about it, but here it is in a nutshell..

Fifteen fire and police employees were either fired, resigned or reprimanded following an internal investigation into their conduct in handling an 18-wheeler accident on Interstate 10 in August. The investigation focused on allegations that several thousand dollars worth of computers, televisions, calculators and other electronic equipment were taken during the cleanup. The items have been recovered by investigators and are being held as evidence.

Results from a separate criminal investigation by Louisiana State Police is still pending. The report will be handed over to the Jeff Davis District Attorney's Office, which will decide whether to file criminal charges.

 I have always known about past incidents of police and firefighters being given food that would have spoiled, damaged lumber and other items. I understood that carriers & companies would often distribute the damaged goods to personnel on the scene whether they were police, fire, reporters or even tow truck drivers. This was done to avoid additional expenses and delays, in clearing a roadway and accident scene clean up.

Knowing this was occurring, it is easy to understand how eventually this would turn into a mess like it has. This time in a rare occurrence, the accident produced the “mother lode” for those responding. 

It appears a number of people have opinions about this incident, however their opinions are not based on a large amount of detailed facts about it. Fact is, not many details have been made available. I recognize that my opinion here is also based on limited information.

I have a few questions that have not been clearly answered yet.

 Did the owner of the equipment file a formal complaint or is the City responding to an internal complaint? If the owner of the equipment has not filed a formal complaint then in my opinion there is no criminal act. If anyone gave the personnel on the scene approval whether they were not in a position to give that approval, the most you have is a communication issue, and everyone would be required to return the equipment or pay the value of what they have. Did the trucking company have ownership at the time the equipment was removed from the roadway or the truck?

Usually the carrier is responsible for the load and the owner has the equipment insured. If the driver approves anyone taking a part of the shipment then the trucking company is responsible.

Did the driver protest and later file a formal complaint that the equipment was removed without authorization? If so then you have a theft and all of this is done deal and my letter is a moot point. As far as I know criminal charges have not been filed at the time of this writing. If this were a cut and dry case then you would think the charges would have been filed already.

 As the equipment was removed did the supervisor on the scene catalog everything that was being removed by make, model, & serial number and have each person sign for what they were taking?

Everything should have been cataloged and the firefighters should have been aware that whatever they get can be considered supplemental income and the value may be subject to taxation. 

Knowing that these type incidents occur on occasions, even if rarely, does the city departments have a detailed policy and procedure in place to handle it? Does the city have a clearly defined policy that firefighters and police CAN NOT move or remove equipment from these types of accidents, regardless of permission granted? 

If the people involved knew of this policy and clearly understood it, then this incident would have never occurred. If they knew and took the equipment anyway, then the terminations are justified for failure to follow policy or insubordination, and my opinion is again a moot point.

I cannot imagine so many long-term employees involved, ignoring a clearly defined policy against something that could bring possible criminal charges. 

Those involved clearly made a bad decision, but it appears to me they trusted a system that was supposed to protect them from these type situations.

It is management’s responsibility, in the private sector, to protect their employees from these type incidents. Yes, it is management’s responsibility to make a reasonable effort to protect their employees from themselves.

The terminations that occurred to managing personnel, in my opinion, were justified. It is every supervisor’s responsibility to create a process; procedure, program or whatever you want to call it, to protect their employees. Accountability is supposed to move up the ladder...not down. 

From the limited information I have picked up, it appears blanket terminations went out to all involved and it was done from the hip. A knee jerk reaction! Remember the differences here are between a generally accepted standard and a something that is known to be wrong. If everyone knew their behavior to be wrong then all the terminations were justified and criminal charges are down the pike. If the behavior was a generally accepted standard then the response or the way things were handled “administratively” was incorrect in my opinion.

 In my opinion, the terminations and accepted resignations for this incident should have been restricted to managing personnel. It is there responsibility to insure their employees know and understand the policies and that signed documentation are available for all equipment/material removed from a scene. Signatures of persons granting permission to move or remove the equipment from these type accidents should also be done. These are necessary to remove the city/parish from any liability of damages or false claims. The paper trail should be long and wide to protect our city/parish workers and it is the responsibility of the people in the highest ranks to insure this is in place. We should make sure we are not negligent in protecting our city/parish workers from false claims, whether it is theft, intentional damage or other claims made against city/parish workers. The owners of the equipment should require signed releases that release them of any product liability of the equipment/material recovered. The city/parish should be pro-active in providing this documentation to the owners of the equipment, if it is being distributed to responding personnel.

 From the information I can gather, none of this was done. It is the responsibility of those in charge to set a process in place that protects their employees.  From my perspective, the firefighters and others who were terminated disciplined or were allowed to resign were victims of poor employee management. This reverberates through the highest ranks of the city.  

In my opinion, the terminations of the managing or supervising city employees are warranted. However the remaining disciplinary actions, including terminations should be reversed, with pay for time off. The acceptance of the resignations should be reconsidered and the employees allowed to return to duty without pay for time off, but with seniority status restored. Due to their resignations, which are voluntary, they should not be entitled to pay for time off. The restoration of seniority is a good faith concession. 

It is also my opinion that these accident scenes can continue to be handled as always but with a paper trail and a specific detailed procedure that will protect the city/parish and it’s employees as well as owners of property, equipment & materials.  I doubt that these incidents where Firefighters and police officers clean up a scene and are allowed to obtain the material they pick up, is creating any degree of wealth for them. Most of the time it is damaged junk but sometimes they may luck out and actually pick up something that is worth value. I don’t know about you, but I don’t think I want anything electronic/electrical that was damaged in an accident. Even if someone gives it to me there are certain risks that need to be considered. With electrical/electronics there is risk of fire and electrocution hazards that can develop from these accidents. For those of you who think the employees received something of real value complete with warranties, and free of problems...guess again! I have a little experience with electronics and if someone gave me something brand new that was damaged in a vehicle accident, at best, I would strip it for parts.  

In my opinion, based on the information that has been made available, the handling of this incident was done in haste and was a knee jerk reaction. Those responsible for managing employees, creating policies, and creating procedures to follow, carry the highest degree of accountability. There is absolutely no justification for hurrying a decision that involves so many people.

From my perspective, based on the information made available, the firefighters and officers involved were behaving in a manner consistent with a generally accepted standard. In the absence of a clearly defined policy that tackles the issue of material handling of overturned commercial vehicles, anything can happen and will.

This same management structure has not distributed detailed information to the public. Instead we are left to circulate rumors and grasp at whatever trickle of information we can get. If we cannot get information we need to formulate our opinions about what happened then we can safely presume the persons involved did not get the information they needed either.

I think it is time to re-evaluate what happened and reconsider some of the terminations and resignations.   

Then again your dealing with a city/local government and the civil service board. They don't give a damn what I or the public thinks!

Joe Semmes

Home / Leaning to the Right / Email me