I have recently become aware of several instances where a line-of-duty death occurred and firefighters were ordered not to give any reports or make any statements to the media concerning the incident. Of the 27 responses to this month’s question, 18 (66 percent) said that a department should have the right to censor or restrict the comments of firefighters. Six (22 percent) said departments should not be allowed to restrict or censor a firefighter’s statements. Two (7 percent) said that firefighters should be allowed to speak but only under certain circumstances. I really couldn’t tell what one respondent felt.
Going in, I thought that the responses would follow the lines of position in the department. I believed that all or most chief officers would favor some form of censorship. Conversely, I thought that most firefighters and company officers would not believe that censorship was called for. However, I was surprised that only eight of the 18 (44 percent) of those who say that speech should be restricted or censored were chief officers. As for those definitely against censorship, four of the six were chief officers. Go figure!
Question: Does a fire department or a city administration have the right to censor firefighters’ comments to the media or public after a firefighter fatality or near miss?
Thomas Dunne, deputy chief, Fire Department of New York. Given the psychological and legal aspects involved, it is important to limit specific comments until the investigation is completed. In our line of work, we sometimes have to walk a fine line between the right to free speech and the need for a precise and fair analysis of a death or close call.
Robert Metzger, chief, Golden Gate (FL) Fire District. Every fire department should have a media policy that clearly describes who is eligible to speak to the media and in what capacity. Union officials have a relatively free hand to comment to the media, as long as they identify themselves as union leaders and they speak in that capacity.
Gary Seidel, chief, Hillsboro (OR) Fire Department. The department has policies and procedures governing the release of information as it pertains to the department’s administration or operations. No member may release information without authorization from the chief or his designee.
Billy Goldfeder, deputy chief, Loveland-Symmes (OH) Fire Department. The organization has a responsibility to systematically, fairly, legally, and appropriately determine the facts, which then should include all affected or witnessing firefighters’ comments. It is when departments or leadership fails to be open and fair that members may feel the need, or even feel that they are forced, to speak out.
Jim Mason, lieutenant, Chicago (IL) Fire Department. If the changes needed are being swept under the rug, firefighters may have to choose a representative to speak to the news media. This should be done only after trying every available internal path to change.
Koll Andersen, firefighter, Seattle (WA) Fire Department. I do not think that departments should be able to “censor” what firefighters say to the media. If a comment is to be made after the investigation is concluded and conclusions are made, take your time and choose your words carefully.
Mike Bucy, assistant chief, Portage (IN) Fire Department. If firefighters are allowed to speak, they should do so in a controlled event. Hiring a third party to control the situation (not the words) might be a good thing. Admitting our mistakes is a good thing; hiding them is the worst thing you can do.
Jeff Cappe, training coordinator, State of Idaho. In all cases, a representative of the firefighters’ group must be involved in preparing the release and in reviewing any investigation before policies are changed or developed.
Andy Marsh, captain, Mt. Oliver (PA) Fire Department. Fire department administrations should be granted some right to censor and discipline what a member says. If the firefighter speaks as a citizen, representing only himself, freedom of speech applies.
Warren Jorgenson, lieutenant (ret.), Willmar, MN. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL 3233, et al, Plaintiffs, V. FRENCHTOWN CHARTER TOWNSHIP, Defendant. No. 2002-601456. Jan. 27, 2003.
The firefighters association brought action against the township, alleging that township ordinance and fire department personnel policy violated the First Amendment by restricting fire department employees’ communications with the media and public. The Association moved for summary judgment. The District Court, Battani, J., held that: (1) firefighters’ speech dealing with business or policy affairs of fire department, as well as that addressing state code violations within fire department, were matters of public concern under First Amendment free speech analysis; (2) heightened level of scrutiny set forth in National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), rather than Pickering standard, applied to evaluation of ordinance and personnel policy; and (3) as a matter of first impression, ordinance and personnel policy were unjustified prior restraints in violation of firefighters’ First Amendment rights.
John “Skip” Coleman retired as assistant chief from the Toledo (OH) Department of Fire and Rescue. He is a technical editor of Fire Engineering; a member of the FDIC Educational Advisory Board; and author of Incident Management for the Street-Smart Fire Officer (Fire Engineering, 1997), Managing Major Fires (Fire Engineering, 2000), and Incident Management for the Street-Smart Fire Officer, Second Edition (Fire Engineering, 2008).
