Fire Chief's Budget Cuts Comments Not Protected Free Speech

[Truck4 48]

A Chief in Massachusetts commented about company closings at the scene of a fatal fire and was brought up on disciplinary charges. He sued the city and a federal judge just ruled that he was not protected under the First Amendment:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/03/appeals_court_f.html

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

this has some very serious implications...i hope the chief files and wins an appeal

[INIT915 1,119]

this has some very serious implications...i hope the chief files and wins an appeal

Read up on your case law. He probably will not win an appeal. Public sector employees do not have the same First Amendment rights of the general public.

[hudson144 150]

At least this Chief spoke out and mentioned that the results might have been different if staffing was adequate, Many Chiefs have a GAG order from Mayors,City Managers etc. At least he stood up for what sounds like a daily problem within his dept. I have read in the past that some chiefs would not comment on staffing and in some cases Chiefs have volunteered information to demote and reduce forces. Not the Fire Service leader we need protecting our lives as well as civilian lives.

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

Read up on your case law. He probably will not win an appeal. Public sector employees do not have the same First Amendment rights of the general public.

What I was trying to say, albeit at 3AM was the this might cause for public sector employees to agree with their supervisors not on a factual level that is truly beneficial to the public. What happens when some one in a leadership position disagrees with what the current administration of where ever it may be? Is that person supposed to just sit by and let bad decisions or policies be made or are they supposed to do what is in the publics best interest? The implications of this ruling suggest that those who are informed to an issue will have a more difficult time raising and challenging the status quo that exists within whatever organization or administration they belong too. This ruling can be interpreted in a manor that can imply that as a public employee, one does not have the ability to raise issue with policy and decision and that decent from that policy is subversion. Personally I find this very disturbing because in a way it prevents a series of checks and balances that should exist within every government and every level. While checks and balances does more apply to different branches of government such as judicial, executive and legislative etc, in this instance it can refer to the idea that you may not know that best or right thing to do every time so you have a series of individuals or entities to check and balance your decisions and actions for the best interest of the public that we all serve.

I find it incredulous that this chief was suspended for speaking the truth, despite the obvious lack of true freedom of speech. It seems like someone in the local governmental administration was trying to punish this guy for making them look bad.

In what regards is it considered speaking as "private citizen" verse "government employee"? Could anything that you learned while at work, that is later openly presented and discussed be considered acting as a government employee? Such as discussing a consolidation study or mutual aid plans or hazmat/SOD response, training, staffing etc? If so then much of what is written here is then not protected by the first amendment. That is why I said that this is very disturbing, it is because the implications of this ruling create a grey area of free speech that is seems is loosely defined, enforced and discussed. Anyone here that decides to post information that can be even considered "acting" as a "public official" runs the risk of censorship, legal action and negative implications. I find that to be very disturbing. Scary aint it.

Edited March 11, 2010 by bvfdjc316

[efdcapt115 1,511]

Found a youtube video about this fire. It does not show the Chief speaking about it, but quotes him:

This is an older video of Chief Foley describing another fire:

[efdcapt115 1,511]

The court said there was a "delicate balance" that needed to be struck between government employees' rights to speak out on matters related to their employment and "the interest of a government employer in controlling employee speech that contravenes the employer's goals."

The court noted, in a 17-page opinion written by Judge Norman Stahl, that if Foley had voiced his feelings in a different way -- speaking out at a town meeting, writing a letter to the editor, or even talking to the media in a different setting -- it might have changed the character of his speech.

bvfdjc316, do you get it now? It's a matter of what you say, and where you say it. If you're the Chief IFO the fatal fire building, and you implicate your department with statements that an attorney is going to use against the department in proceedings, THIS court deemed it wrong.

They also basically said, if you got off duty, went home and (MY WORDS: typed a post on emtbravo) or "wrote a letter to the editor" of a newspaper, it "might" have changed the character of the speech. "Might" is a big word when you are talking about millions of dollars in liabilities, courts, lawyers, and possible criminal implications at different times, in different settings.

So, don't rush to judgement that nobody can post or say anything. Most Chiefs know they are "gagged" in certain settings, but they also know the appropriate places to be able to express what they think; the Chief meets with the town board in executive session and states that staffing is inadequate and the town needs to do something about it. He has done the right thing morally, and upheld his obligation as Chief to protect the municipality, and upheld his obligation to protect the firefighters.

Some guys don't realize the consequences of what can happen. Jobs can be decimated by multi million dollar settlements against the department. This could result in layoffs, company closing, etc.

[Bnechis 3,961]

At least this Chief spoke out and mentioned that the results might have been different if staffing was adequate, .......... Not the Fire Service leader we need protecting our lives as well as civilian lives.

While it is only a rumor, there is a claim that the chief was given $200,000 to increase staffing and he did not use it. If this is true, how does that change things? Then he truly would have problems pointing fingers.

[JBE 328]

Regardless of the financial situation, kudos to the Chief for speaking his mind. HOWEVER, bad move for making statements like that at the scene of a fatal fire. There is a code of conduct that we in the emergency services have to follow. There are also other ways for making your feelings known. Like speaking as a citizen and not a member of a municipal agency.

I tend to follow free speech cases since I am a firm believer in it. I have no background in law either, just a little bit of common sense. There's a difference between free speech, and responsible speech. Maybe it's the fact that I'm exhausted, or just an interpretation of what the Founding Fathers meant.

You can say whatever you want, just use your head when you say it. For example, I have every right to say, "I don't like (a specific group of people)" However, I say that loudly in a crowd of those people in the middle of a holiday parade for those people, and I get my @$$ kicked, and a riot breaks out, I'm not being responsible. Bottom line, it's just like being a member of this board, Think before you speak.

[ny10570 745]

Public or private sector you can be axed for speaking in a way that can cause harm to your employer. Depending on the laws of his state, he may not even have been able to go with it to the city council/legislature. Some places have very little whistle blower protection. Generally speaking using facts and going to the people responsible for those decisions is technically safe, however it could also likely be a career killer.

[Guest alsfirefighter]

While I value our constitutional right to free speech and even served my country to ensure it would never be infringed I have to say that I see and agree with where the judge was coming from. If his quotes are correct he could have phrased his response much differently to perhaps not get into the situation he was.

Some on here have the innate ability to not see the big picture. The FD does not exist in a vacuum, particularly in municipalities. The Chief regardless of what many think has to look out for his members, but he also has a boss as well. Question your chief or call him out in public and see what happens...its called insubordination and that is not protected under free speech.