Fire Service Leadership Behavior On Social Media

[x635 4,066]

I'd like to know what you think about how fire chiefs and other leadership should behave online.

Would you respect a Chief that behaves in a vulgar and immature fashion online on social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook? What kind of message does that send to his/her department, the community, and the fire service?

What would you think of a fire chief who enjoys inciting conflict, doesn't play by the rules on purpose, and makes themselves look like a victim of their own actions when they suffer the consequences of it?

Finally, what type of members respect and follow this type of leader? And what type of member blindly follows a leader no matter what? And what if word gets out to the citizens about their fire chief's behavior?

I believe that a fire chief should be allowed to have their own presence online however they see fit. However, I strongly feel that they must show some sort of decorum online, and set an example for others.

[xfirefighter484x 234]

I think it should go one further, and be ANY firematic officer (or line officer of any similar organization, PD, FD, EMS). There are so many people these days that get squashed by their organization for posting on websites such as this, then there are some where the upper echelon/brass posts something that if it was one of their members, would most likely bring retaliatory action.

Final thought, all members should uphold such a behavior, because, what makes any one single person better than anyone else?

[JJB531 652]

I think the simple fact is that anyone in emergency services, whether you want to be or not, is a representative of his/her agency. Conduct that is unprofessional and immature not only makes you look foolish, but reflects negatively upon your agency and the emergency service community as a whole. An individual who is a Chief or other supervisory figure in his/her agency should absolutely be held to a higher standard, since they are expected to be the utmost professional and possess the qualities of a mature and professional leader. When I see individuals exhibiting childish and unprofessional behavior, it makes me second guess their abilities as a leader. We dont have to act like professional robots all of the time; we are all human. But unprofessional conduct when it applies to situations involving conflict resolution, or improper conduct that can be viewed by the public or those outside our little world, is inexcusable if you want to be taken seriously as a competent leader.

[99subi 121]

Forget about online. how about in the field? Ive seen a LT with a confederate flag sticker on the back of his helmet... Professionalism right out the window....

[jack10562 414]

That's another perfect example, 99subi. While displaying any symbol may be considered a form of free speech, some people might interpret the confederate flag as nothing more than an innocent display of southern-pride, others see it as an evil symbol representing treason, racism, hatred and bigotry.

Pretty wide emotional swing happening right there.

You don't even need to make a sound, just displaying something seemingly innocuous like a sticker or paraphernalia on your gear or equipment can have negative implications. For the viewer who does not find any cuteness of what may be regarded as an offensive symbol, it can make them very uneasy and automatically creates an entirely different perception of the wearer, usually contempt.

[1075thebox 1]

According to an attorney-friend of mine, who shared some recent cases along these lines, he basically stated that anyone can post their opinions on any forum / social media that they choose to. Just like one can write letters to the editor of a local newspaper. However, the writer must abide by the rules of the website / media source that they are composing their thoughts on.

Also, if they identify themselves as "Joe Firefighter of the XYZ Fire Department" or speak "on behalf of their department" then they could face disciplinary actions from their department or even the municipality of that department.

This kind of thing also relates to those who may go on Facebook or Twitter and rant about their job or their boss. It's a fine line you walk, but as long as you don't speak about certain aspects / occurrences / people - you generally aren't violating any laws. (IE: going on Facebook and saying "I hate working Mondays," is "acceptable," yet saying "I hate working for ABC Marketing, my boss Mr. Smith is stealing from the company!" is not acceptable.)

I know many departments either have or are drawing up policies on the use of social media due to the concerns voiced here, as well as members posting photos/videos and using their "membership" as a platform for political views. Be sure to check around the internet for fire department social media policies. Some places implemented these and found themselves tangled up in union rifts and lawsuits, with members citing violations of their first amendment rights.

I would hate to be a moderator of a website like this. What you may find offensive and delete may actually be violating one's civil rights.

(Note: These opinions are mine and mine only and do not reflect any affiliations I may have )

Forget about online. how about in the field? Ive seen a LT with a confederate flag sticker on the back of his helmet... Professionalism right out the window....

Departments retain the right to regulate what a member wears when on duty / representing their department. This applies to items a member purchases themselves, but uses while working for that department. A classic example is a member buys a leather helmet and paints it a different color then the department uses. Said department holds the right to order that member to either paint it correctly, stop wearing it or face other disciplinary actions.

Edited February 13, 2012 by xfirefighter484x

[jack10562 414]

... What you may find offensive and delete may actually be violating one's civil rights...

This statement couldn't be further from the truth.

This website (and others like it) is a private entity, and as such, your "civil rights" that you might enjoy elsewhere gets checked at the door. This site has rules, one of them being that the site staff decides what gets published and what goes in the trash. However we don't just dump any member content on a whim.

If we feel it's offensive, then it probably is.

Nobody can come along and expect everything they say and do to stand and be covered free speech, it's not.

[helicopper 1,050]

According to an attorney-friend of mine, who shared some recent cases along these lines, he basically stated that anyone can post their opinions on any forum / social media that they choose to. Just like one can write letters to the editor of a local newspaper. However, the writer must abide by the rules of the website / media source that they are composing their thoughts on.

Also, if they identify themselves as "Joe Firefighter of the XYZ Fire Department" or speak "on behalf of their department" then they could face disciplinary actions from their department or even the municipality of that department.

This kind of thing also relates to those who may go on Facebook or Twitter and rant about their job or their boss. It's a fine line you walk, but as long as you don't speak about certain aspects / occurrences / people - you generally aren't violating any laws. (IE: going on Facebook and saying "I hate working Mondays," is "acceptable," yet saying "I hate working for ABC Marketing, my boss Mr. Smith is stealing from the company!" is not acceptable.)

I know many departments either have or are drawing up policies on the use of social media due to the concerns voiced here, as well as members posting photos/videos and using their "membership" as a platform for political views. Be sure to check around the internet for fire department social media policies. Some places implemented these and found themselves tangled up in union rifts and lawsuits, with members citing violations of their first amendment rights.

I would hate to be a moderator of a website like this. What you may find offensive and delete may actually be violating one's civil rights.

(Note: These opinions are mine and mine only and do not reflect any affiliations I may have )

That's one lawyer's interpretation. Corporation Counsel for several municipalities has held that employees may be held accountable for their comments on Facebook and/or Twitter when off duty. While on-duty you're probably violating some other policy if you post on social media during your tour. The wearing of the department logo while off-duty is also subject to restriction, according to the NYPD who recently banned members from displaying the logo or even letters "NYPD" while off-duty unless the garment/apparel has been approved by the administration.

As for social media policies and infringements of constitutional rights, there are many variables and many issues that will be reviewed and litigated before a final determination is made. It's not a simple yes/no proposition.

Departments should have policies on social media, uniform standards, professionalism and conduct (including representing the agency while off-duty) to avoid big problems and liability in the future.

As for being a moderator of a site like this, it's actually fairly simple, even from a constitutional point of view. The website is privately owned and has a published set of membership guidelines. If a post violates those guidelines it is removed. Virtually every media site (LOHUD, NYT, Firehouse Magazine, etc.) that has a forum retains the right to remove posts that violate their terms of service.

[210 91]

Forget about online. how about in the field? Ive seen a LT with a confederate flag sticker on the back of his helmet... Professionalism right out the window....

How is that "professionalism right out the door?"

[antiquefirelt 994]

As a general 1st Amendment thing, this month's Firehouse rag has a short article by Curt Varone (Providence FD/attorney) on 3 cases, one of which addresses Protected Speech.

As for Seth's original question/commentary: Clearly officers, especially chief officers should set the example and live by a higher bar. As you rise up in rank you should observe a higher level of decorum. While sometimes it's hard for any of us (remember Chiefs quite often were once type A personality firefighters) to keep our mouths shut, one must evaluate the total perception of the situation from the multiple points from which it can be observed. Maybe a tightly regulate social media site can narrow who sees what posts, but in forums such as here, anyone could find your rants and make them very public.

[antiquefirelt 994]

I don't favor banning anyone if they aren't abusive to other members. If a chief officer wants to shoot him/herself in the foot publicly on a forum, let them. Banning them tends to only protect them from themselves until they do something even more detrimental to themselves or their department.

Edited February 13, 2012 by jack10562
quoted post removed

[Guest alsfirefighter]

My first thought is your thread mixes and matches different aspects of behaviors and actions.

1. What a person does on social media on a personal level is just that. Personal. As long as it is established that it is in fact their personal space. Meaning, its John Doe...registered and listed as that...not Chief Doe. Also I feel that no one should post intimate details about work related information on any site. That is unprofessional no matter what title you have. You want to post some action shots...sure..but let it be well after any issues with the incident have been resolved. But intimate details should never be posted particularly when there is a death or serious injury to anyone. I've seen postings on FB before next of kin were even notified. Great way to find out. Any issues at work are not personal information tid bits in all reality. And that includes the volunteer side. Freedom of speech only goes so far. There are things call decency and maturity as well. I would further venture to say the farther up the chain you go..the lonelier it should get for you. If I'm every fortunate to be Chief of my department I can tell you now that there wouldn't be anyone who couldn't tell the difference between Chief me and me me.

2. As far as inciting things, whats good for the goose is good for the gander. I have a rule..don't mess with intelligent people. I had a person in a position who loved to rile people and often not fact based. Then wanted to back track when called out on it in a formal setting. Doesn't work that way.

[INIT915 1,119]

How is that "professionalism right out the door?"

It's viewed by some (many) to connote racist/hostile undertones. Many may display it without those intentions, but the fact remains that a stigma does attach. I believe you should feel free to celebrate the symbolism if you so choose, but when it comes to public sector employment, even the suggestion of racism is problematic. You don't have to agree that it's fair, but the fact remains that it does.

[INIT915 1,119]

Could you cite these recent cases? There is quite an extensive and established body of law that public sector employees do NOT enjoy unfettered 1st Amendment protection.

According to an attorney-friend of mine, who shared some recent cases along these lines, he basically stated that anyone can post their opinions on any forum / social media that they choose to. Just like one can write letters to the editor of a local newspaper. However, the writer must abide by the rules of the website / media source that they are composing their thoughts on.

Edited February 13, 2012 by jack10562

[antiquefirelt 994]

Could you cite these recent cases? There is quite an extensive and established body of law that public sector employees do NOT enjoy unfettered 1st Amendment protection.

This is exactly the issue, people must understand what how the 1st Amendment Protection works. Not all speech is "protected speech", it's unlawful to say many things. If you area a user of social media or even here in these or any public forums, you should understand what can get you in trouble, lest you find yourself standing in the unemployment line with a stupid look on your face.

[Guest alsfirefighter]

How is that "professionalism right out the door?"

I really don't even understand how you would need quantification of such an item.

With that said, the connotations that the confederate flag holds in a majority of society is more then enough to understand why many would consider that not just unprofessional, but plain inappropriate. Is it part of history, yes. Do I think it could still be used in some ways to maintain the heritage and history of our country, yes, but bottom line is that is not a represenation of our country, that is the representation of a "country" that attempted to succeed from the United States of America in the attempt to continue the act of slavery. A confederate flag belongs on a helmet about as much as a marijuana leaf, a booze logo, those stupid coed naked stickers does. For that matter I don't even think those dumb "no fear" or "fear this" stickers belong on your helmet.

Also I wanted to add one more point about my last post. Everyone in the fire service should set an example and be professional. Fire Officers should walk the walk even more so to be able to enforce policy and procedures to stop the winers who say they are selective. But with that said, if you want to set the example on how to act...you need to look at their father...not a fire officer.

[JJB531 652]

Legal Issues, Constitutional Rights, Civil Rights, and all that other good stuff aside, there is one key word that affects all of us. It affects us whether we're paid or volunteer. It affects us whether we're Police or Fire or EMS. It affects us no matter where we work or who we work for. It's a rather simple word, but it's a word that probably has more control over us as Emergency Service professionals then any other word. PERCEPTION.

How we are perceived by the public plays a HUGE role in the level of respect and confidence we instill in the communities we serve. Perception can also be used to protect us in times of potential danger. Take for example, Line of Duty Deaths of Law Enforcement Officers. During interviews of convicted cop killers, they were asked why they went forward with committing the act of murdering a uniformed police officer. The majority said they PERCEIVED that they could overpower and overcome the law enforcement officer that was engaging them. This perception was borne out of the fact that the officer appeared unkept or unprofessional, or the officer lacked a command presence, causing the perpetrator to perceive the officer was not in control of the situation. A police officer who has a clean and neat appearance, speaks in an articulate and command voice, and looks like a well trained professional is more likely to gain compliance from individuals just based on the perception that they are a well-trained professional. Sometimes that is all takes to end a potentially violent incident. Perception can work for you or against you, it just depends what image you allow the individual you are dealing with to perceive.

The same applies to EMS providers. An EMS provider who appears to be professional; is well groomed, wearing a clean and pressed uniform, and expresses and articulates him/herself as a professional provider, will be perceived by patients and family members as a capable, well trained individual who is going to provide the highest level of emergency medical care. Now take an EMS provider who is unkept, dissheveled, and uses improper grammar and can not articulate themselves as a professional. These providers are perceived to be incompetent, which makes for some difficulty in earning the trust of our patients, their family members, and other medical providers, in both the prehospital and in-hospital settings.

Perception does not necessarily mean that an individuals perception of another is correct. You can be the a very well spoken, clean, and neat EMT or Paramedic, and still be a sub-par provider in terms of your clinical skills and judgment. But if you are a top notch provider, you may be fighting an uphill battle to win over your patient or family if you give off the wrong perception.

How does perception apply to Social Media Outlets? Well, we are public servants. Whether we are paid or volunteer, we are agents of the Emergency Service community who set out to serve the people of our community. No other group of individuals are criticized more then public servants, especially us in the Emergency Service field. How we conduct ourselves, both on and off duty, is going to lead the public who we serve to perceive us in a certain manner. I can understand why a lot of people would agree with the statement, "What I do in my free time with my personal accounts is my business". It seems like a rationale way of thinking, and eventhough we're public servants we still are entitled to our "alone time" away from our duties as public servants. But even during that alone time, when we're off-duty, out of uniform, and away from our Stations, the public still views us as a representative of whatever entity we belong to. To engage in childish, immature, and inappropriate behavior, either directly in view of the public, or through Social Media Outlets where there is always the possibility of such behavior becoming public, is going to have an extremely negative affect on how the public PERCEIVES not only the individual, but the organization as well. And it is even worse when it is a high ranking official or officer within the agency, because the leadership is entrusted to set a professional example for the rest of it's membership. If the leader acts like a buffoon, what does that say for the troops under his/her command? Combine that perception along with the line of work that we engage in. We are responsible for protect our communities, whether it be from criminals, fires, or life-threatening accidents or illnesses. Ask yourself, if you saw an individual coming to the aide or you or your family member, who just an hour before you saw was carrying on through Twitter or Facebook (or any other outlet) like an immature and unprofessional buffoon, how much perceived trust and confidence would you have in this individual before they even said a word to you? I'm all for having fun and goofing around; but there has to be boundaries. If we can't control ourselves as not just professionals, but simply as adults to conduct ourselves with regard for our status as public servants both on and off duty, then we should find a different field of employment or means of volunteering to give back to the community.

[xchief2x 79]

Tommy Mac I totally agree with you on a post made by an individual posting as an individual not as Chief Doe has the freedom to say what they wish however they wish. If facebook, twitter or whatever social media it is posted on doesn't have a problem why the heck does this site have a problem with it?

Edited February 13, 2012 by xchief2x

[x635 4,066]

To me, it's amazing how, in some departments or regions, respect is a popularity contest. A Firematic Officer could be buddies with a lot of people, but they don't know where the line is between friendship and being a leader. It's also amazing how gullable some people are, and will believe anything they are told.

One officer could make up a story about something that happened to him/her, whatever, and no one is even intelligent enough to question WHY and WHAT is the other half of the story is before coming to a conclusion

I wonder how many of these people have sent money to the "Royal Family" spam emails that promise you a lot of money if you'll just send them money to get it released by the bank.

[x635 4,066]

Now, as for "Censorship", banning, or whatever you want to call it, here's a good quote I found on another forum:

Every law on the books in every country is censorship. What do laws do? They censor actions. Contracts censor actions. Terms of service censor actions. And, yes, online community guidelines do the very same thing. The people who manage those communities write these policies and make sure they are followed. It’s all censorship and it’s everywhere.

[xchief2x 79]

wait Seth you mean that royal family stuff is a scam??? LOL

[JM15 386]

The Prince of Nigeria has a lot of explaining to do then.....

[Guest alsfirefighter]

Please stop disrespecting my long lost cousin from Zimbabwe...I really don't appreciate you disrespecting him and putting me down when all he is trying to do is send me 10 million dollars all for just a $1000 on my end. lol.

Seth..I'm not following the dots of your posts from your original post. Volunteer fire officer elections have and unfortunately always will be based on a high level of popularity. And following along or jumping on a side without getting all facts is more of a personality trait overall then it is just simply a fire officer or fire service issue.

[pauloghia 5]

My department was trash talked by members of a neighboring FD on Facebook recently, because we were assigned to an alarm card in their district, outside of the city limits.. The situation was like this: dispatcher thought the alarm location was in the city limits, so the city was dispatched 1st due. Only once the city was near and realized it was a county fire, they notified dispatch and began operating. My volunteer department received the alarm and was second due because we could make a faster response due to road conditions, although the other volly department was officially assigned the area. We called them for tanker support and they bashed us online for encroachment. Our chiefs advised us later to not post responses online, as the chief from the other department informed mine that since we can respond faster, to go ahead and continue that activity in that part of the county. I agree with what my chiefs were implying, that professionalism on social networks is key to maintaining the image of the department.

[jack10562 414]

Tommy Mac I totally agree with you on a post made by an individual posting as an individual not as Chief Doe has the freedom to say what they wish however they wish. If facebook, twitter or whatever social media it is posted on doesn't have a problem why the heck does this site have a problem with it?

Gerry, there is no comparison of this site to facebook or twitter, we're talking apples and oranges with that.

Those social sites are personal/public venues, where the account holder has free reign over the messages posted and other content published. This site is a private community with posting guidelines and membership rules.

We allow practically any discussion to take place here, provided it meets the guidelines spelled out in our site rules and conditions. Posts only get moderated if they fail to adhere to those guidelines. It's that simple.

Individual(s) who continually and repeatedly fail to follow the site guidelines and/or publicly taunts the staff on here or elsewhere, are not welcome.

[ex-commish 490]

"My department was trash talked by members of a neighboring FD on Facebook recently",

" We called them for tanker support and they bashed us online for encroachment".

Sounds to me these people simply need to get a life and not spend time on Facebook bashing another fire department.

[jack10562 414]

Sounds to me these people simply need to get a life and not spend time on Facebook bashing another fire department.

They are nothing more than "keyboard commandos" where they can unload anonymously behind a fictitious screen name, and then they either disappear into thin air when challenged or simply continue to display their immaturity.

It's quite common, actually.

[PFDRes47cue 653]

I am not trying to get involved in any of the he said, she said, he did what, she did what chit chat but... What someone says on their Facebook, Twitter, etc is their responsibility and assuming the comment was made by the account holder (not a hacker), then that person is aware of what they are doing. If they are breaking a law, and are caught then punishment is handed to them. If the persons department want to do something, they can try. IMHO unless the controversial comments are posted on this site, then it is not the business of this site. If something happened on Facebook lets have the discussion on Facebook. If something happened on Twitter, lets have the discussion on Twitter. If something happened on EMTBravo, then lets have the discussion on EMTBravo. Personally. if at all possible, lets not waste time having this discussion. People will say what they want to say...I do not see that changing.

This is NOT meant as disrespect to ANYONE, not to moderators, investors, members, Chiefs, Priests, Rabbi's, Teachers, the President, etc. Just my $0.02. I take no sides.

[PFDRes47cue 653]

Please stop disrespecting my long lost cousin from Zimbabwe...I really don't appreciate you disrespecting him and putting me down when all he is trying to do is send me 10 million dollars all for just a $1000 on my end. lol.

I have the same cousin(s). lol

[210 91]

It's viewed by some (many) to connote racist/hostile undertones. Many may display it without those intentions, but the fact remains that a stigma does attach. I believe you should feel free to celebrate the symbolism if you so choose, but when it comes to public sector employment, even the suggestion of racism is problematic. You don't have to agree that it's fair, but the fact remains that it does.

Fair enough.