The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Volunteer Fire Chief Suspended over YouTube Response Videos
A fire chief in this small town was suspended in 2007 over posting his personal car responses to emergencies on YouTube. In the wake of the video postings, the entire department was actually locked out from responding and mutual aid covered the town for one week. The social media aspect of liability is a hot topic today in the fire service. Many here have debated the "freedom of speech" aspect of their videos. What do you guys think?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QffHLMvaoqg&feature=related
In my opinion, when we are acting as a member of any department, paid, call or volunteer, everything is property of the town. I have known some department's to create social media policies, that clearly spell out everything you do, everything to photograph or video is property of the town and can't be released. This includes the newer helmet camera. Which in reality does reduce the town's overall liability from potential lawsuits.
I looked further and found a longer version of the original response video, it was about 9 minutes long. The call was for a medical emergency, child injured, actually mutual aid to another town. The video is for the most part uneventful, but one poster in the YouTube comments was quick to point out these comments...
Ed20298 says: The author comments about how this video isn't interesting, but it is you just have to look. Speed of travel is interesting. There's a section of I-95 that a measure mile is completed in 39 seconds, translation 92 mph. Plus on this video there is a 5.8 mile section of this video that is completed in 4 m 55 s. Average speed: 71mph, and its visable that there's slowing down for corners. With that said 75-80 is obtained during sections of this travel. Thats criminal speed in a "personal vehicle"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qOMHvpmbQo
So from simply a liability reduction standpoint, did the town manager see a different view of liability when a future accident happens. Lawyers and their team are paid alot of money to do research to support a case. Would an accident case with recorded video evidence of pre-exisiting driving habits be liability?
Just curious... Whats FFN's take on this matter?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Russ on
-
well said and i confess to "having" done "some" of those things. but you left out the attraction from girls...a guy in my company introduced me to my wife, so i guess it was a good thing-LOL
-
Permalink Reply by Steve Allen on
-
There are obviously some folks here that don't get enough exercise. Either that or they are off their meds.
Really don't appreciate the full time folks criticizing the volunteers. Is this a union issue??
All we can hope is this country will be union free someday.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
I think someone's reading a lot more into this than has actually been said.
Why would you hope to see the country union free?
-
-
I totally agree with you. One question is, does the punishment fit the stupidness?? I don't think so. My main concern is the volatility of some folks here against one group of people or the other. Has our fire service deteriorated to the point of fourth grade name calling between full time paid and volunteers??
-
Permalink Reply by Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on
-
Jack:
I don't do Haiku.
My writing is what it is.
I didn't think that I left any doubt on my opinions of FETC's posting of video links and his discussion points.
I said very clearly that Goodall drove like an idiot, not only from viewing the video, but from the speed analysis provided in the discussion. So, I was stating an opinion on a discussion point.
I also said that Goodall's posting of videos was NOT a First Amendment issue, since he was told by his boss not to post; it became an employer/employee issue not protected by free speech.
I don't know what was confusing, other than my misspelling of "penchant" and I thought I corrected that as well.
I stand by my comments, apologize for my poor grammar/spelling and will now move on to the next fire service crisis.
-
Permalink Reply by FETC on
-
Chief Allen,
Not sure where you are getting a union issue from this thread. So I respectfully ask you don't go down that route. I have used the topic in officer development classes that include paid and volunteers. Some have been harsh on their opinion, but if you looked at some of their profiles you will see they were volunteers.
But I will note you were quick to toss into the mix - All we can hope is this country will be union free someday. That is about the quickest way to highjack a thread and take it to a new place...
Now getting back on topic, seeing your a Chief, the focus of drving and speeds may or may not be a factor in his disciplinary action. But regardless of that aspect, the disciplinary suspension was for posting video on YouTube after being told not to. This is a social media issue and the fire service's newest problem with people claiming freedom of speech.
When operating in an official capacity as a responder, regardless of rank, title or status of pay, you actually have no freedom of speech. You are at that time representing an organization, representing the your boss, and many feel that their PERSONAL rights over throw our professional responsibilites.
Policies and procedures that will clearly identify parameters for which a person working for an organization is expected to operate within is the solution.
If this was a second offense, and the town manager states in the edited video that the chief was told to stop posting videos, then in a progressive disciplinary environment, suspension would fit the bill for the second offense alone...
-
Permalink Reply by Captain Steven Long on
-
I am sure that there is more to this story than what the News media is not telling. But, there are two issues on the table. 1. It is clear in the video and can be calculated by the telephone poles (in rough estimate) that the Fire Chief was driving way to fast. and 2. You have a group of power hungry Town Manager and Selectmen that just wanted to exercise their political agenda. It is unfortunate that they felt the need to punish the whole department and the people of the Town of Etna and very fortunate that there was no one killed, due to the irresponsible actions of the Town Manager and Board of Selectmen.
When responding to a fire or medical call, we all must think of the "Risk vs. Benefit" . Is the risk of driving fast, killing or injuring someone, including the fire personnel responding, worth the benefit? Anyone say yes to this, should hand in their emergency light right now.
Think People! If not for yourself, think about the people you could be effecting when you cause the accident.
-
-
Art,
It's okay, there's nothing wrong with Haiku.
I agree about your writing.
Your opinions were very clear. However, until and unless you can unequivocally and categorically prove that you've never driven in a manner similar to Goodall, I'm gonna have to call shenanigans (or at least hypocrisy).
I disagree that Goddall drove like an idiot. At no time did I notice anything that suggested lack of control or recklessness. He may or may not (there is no other speed analysis than the one) have driven at excessive speeds but I saw no indication in the video that he drove like an idiot, that was your assessment and one that seem rather "unreasonable" coming from one with such an appellation. I'm thinking 'glass house'.
.
I never questioned the issue of why he was suspended, he disobeyed his superior's direct order.
-
-
Jack:
My last comment in this thread about your statement: I disagree that Goddall drove like an idiot.
If he was driving at over the speed limit, unless he had a hands free device, he was speeding with only ONE hand on the steering wheel. The video shows the pavement as wet. I'd have to throw the "idiot" flag on this one.
Your statement: However, until and unless you can unequivocally and categorically prove that you've never driven in a manner similar to Goodall, I'm gonna have to call shenanigans (or at least hypocrisy).
Sorry, Jack. You are making the accusation, so the burden of proof is on you. I will tell you that I haven't, so find someone who says that I have. Better yet; show me a video.
And finally; I don't live in a glass house. It is single story, ranch and brick equipped with smoke detectors, CO detectors and fire extinguishers. If we replace our plumbing, I plan on getting a sprinkler system.
Hypocrit? Why, Jack; I'd like to think that I talk the talk and walk the walk.
Et tu, Brutus?
-
-
Art,
I'd be both a hypocrite and ingeniousness to deny ever having driven over the limit and then suggest that someone would have to prove I did for me to admit it.
How many chiefs utilize their radio with hands free? Um....I'm guessing no one, I've never heard of hands free radio mics. So a chief can use his radio mic but not his phone? Hypocrite.
How fast was he going off of the highway where he 'allegedly' drove 91 mph? Oh yeah, you don't much care for 'allegedly' anymore, do you? You decide he's guilty and pass down judgment. Should change that to JudgeReason.
Talk the talk? If youthinksay so.
And me what? I'll at least admit I'm not the end all be all. Et tu?
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- …
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
