Milpitas Fire Department's Failure To Communicate

By Author: John Cole
Total Articles: 5
Comment this article

Not long ago I was asked to talk about a person who was up for being hired by the Milpitas Fire Department. I was asked several questions pertaining to this persons background and personality because I was a former ‘boss' so to speak of this person and the City of Milpitas was conducting a final background check. Anyone who knows me knows that I will give whatever it takes in time for this sort of hire because it is a noble and honorable position that requires the utmost training and supervision and with all that, a person who has a dream to save lives and property.

This person was eventually hired and it has been one year since his first year on and is at the end of the probationary period. What I have come to find out is that this person is now being recommended for termination of employment. WHAT???

How come? What happened? As a peace officer myself and an Investigator and an HR Specialist having consulted with many fortune 500 companies and including both police and fire agencies, I have uncovered what I see is a failure to communicate within the Milpitas Fire Department. What do I mean by this? ...
... Let's take a look at the situation and keep it simple.

First, Standing Operating Procedure requires that ALL new firefighters receive adequate and proper training including being assigned to at least 3 different supervisors during the year, in this instance it would be a person with the rank of Captain or above.

This person in particular had ONE person, ONE ‘Captain' (Acting Captain only) during the entire process of the year. This person happens to be a firefighter and paramedic only. This person happens to be a woman who had NOT passed her Captains exam. She didn't even pass her Engineer's exam. I'm not putting down this person because she happens to be a woman, but it appears there is some preferential treatment going on here between her and the chief. Some questions I have are: Have you as a Chief caused the previous new employees the same treatment? Is there a new precedence that took place BEFORE this new firefighter came on board that can show this is how it's done? Or, did you simply place him there for the sake of putting him there because of some other events and you just did not get around to taking care of his training properly and/or hand down to other rank and file officers in your agency to handle this?

My question to the Chief is, Why did you place this person with this ‘acting' captain and keep him with her the entire time of his probation? This is not something a Chief would forget about unless the chief wanted to ensure failure from the start. Just my professional opinion since I've seen this sort of behaviour flaw several times.

This decision to place a new employee with a person for one year let alone the inability for her to pass an exam for her rank-to-be causing a person to be under a lot of stress and causes an unsafe ‘Hostile' work environmentbasically bad blood between the two and when one of them is a woman who can't pass her exams (the ability to study and hold knowledge by personal efforts by proving your personal ability to lead) and exerts power over a more younger and dominate male employee who has no choice BUT to do as he is told gives the new employee no way out.

The Chief (Clare Frank) also knows this and knows that he can't go to the union and complain because he is not a full-time employee yet until after probation. I can't help but think that this is a inadequate chief of fire because she is an attorney and an instructor and a consultant on curriculum development for the National Fire Academy's higher education program.

When the day came for his final review with the Chief our new firefighter sat in the chiefs office and was told that all recommendations are for her to dismiss himall from the same person. However, our young firefighter came back at her with their SOP and she stated she did not know about this. ?????????? Again, a Fire Chief of the City of Milpitas who teaches and consults at the National Fire Academy's educational program did not know about this? I don't buy it! I never have and being a chief does not excuse you for this deviant behavior. It is neglectful and disrespectful to all the men and women in uniform.

However, our chief came back and said, sign this piece of paper that says, ‘I won't sue the city of Milpitas' if I get firedand if you don't, I'll fire you right now and you can go home. Well nowshe made this person who had and has no leg to stand on a ‘Band Leader'. For those of you who know ‘The God Father' where Don Corleone assures a band leader either your signature or your brains will be on this contract today, this is where it came from. Is this Standing Operating Procedure that the City of Milpitas condones? Is this what the City Attorney drew up for all agency's in their jurisdiction must do in certain cases? Could this action have broken any laws perhaps? Could it have violated this persons rights? Is there any law that I don't know of that is on the books that says, when presented to you by a superior officer a contract and you are forced to sign it, you must sign it whether you have time to read it or not or get fired. I don't think so, but this is what appears has happened. You would think that this sort of tactics no longer happens in our society, but I could be wrong.

As an HR professional, I am concerned and would almost bet my pet mouse ‘Micky' on the fact that this agreement to not sue the fire department had a ‘Severance Agreement' and a ‘Separation Agreement' attached to it whether now or later, but the fact remains, his rights were violated and he had every right to say ‘no' to this for further viewing by a competent attorney or a union representative before signing it. However, this was not the case, it was either sign it now or be fired on the spot. He signed it!

He now has another week and this time, under the supervision of others. However, this is a pipe-dream in my opinion because it just gives the chief more time to work something up against him and in her favor. All in all, Chief Franks of the Milpitas Fire Department failed this person and in turn failed the department, it's members and the citizens of its city, the Mayor and the entire elected city council and admitted she did not know anything about SOP.

Pathetic and disturbing. I wonder if the Mayor knows about this behavior and what would the mayor do in this situation if he knew about it? I don't know yet, but it's clear and evident that the buck stops at the top and one chief in my opinion should read the following:

EEOC vs. Lockheed Martin case # 8:05-cv-00287-RWT. The case was ruled on in January of this year for trying to force an employee to sign such a waiver and Lockheed Martin lost big time. The courts ruled it was unlawful and retaliatory.

I my professional opinion, the City of Milpitas should place Chief Franks on administrative leave immediately and possibly the city attorney and conduct a thorough investigation of the entire department and this incident with regard to their past and current hiring processes especially about probationary employees and find out who exactly can do their jobs, this includes both sexes being able to lift a ladder and climb and do all the things a firefighter should be able to do or else be relieved of duty. You are supposed to be fit and able to rescue and save the citizens of your city. In light of all this, the management of the agency is failing their fire-fighters because they refuse to communicate properly and with current and up-to-date employment and union facts.

What, if any, will Mayor Jose Esteves do? It remains to be seen. What will you do, Mr. Mayor?