It is no secret that the fire service has historically struggled with disciplinary issues. The very thought of punishing someone with whom we eat, sleep and socialize—someone whose life is our responsibility, and who considers our life to be their responsibility—is offensive to our culture.
The problem is not new. Consider the following quote from a New York Times editorial published in 1865 expressing concerns over the lack of discipline among firefighters in New York. Pointing out that in a one-year period the police department disciplined more than 3,000 police officers, while over a three-year period, the fire department disciplined only 211 firefighters, the editors wrote: “The smallness of the number of charges against firemen may be due either to the saintly character of the firemen or to the fact that misconduct amongst them is not inquired into, or punished ….”
One of the more contentious topics in the disciplinary realm involves whether fire departments should accept and investigate anonymous complaints against members. Given that our culture is adverse to discipline to begin with, it is no surprise that our gut reaction may be to reject complaints whenever a plausible excuse exists. Anonymous complaints offer us just such a plausible excuse. Why would we investigate a complaint if the complainant refuses to even identify him/herself?
The reality is counterintuitive: Ignoring complaints often hurts firefighters in the long run, and predisposes our organizations to much bigger headaches down the road. To fully grasp the issues, we need to acknowledge that so many of the major fire service scandals across the country did not just happen because a certain firefighter on a certain day made one bad decision.
Sick leave abuse scandals, overtime scandals, pension scandals, sex-on-duty scandals, drinking-on-duty scandals and cheating scandals all share a common thread: They took years to develop. During those years, officers turned a blind eye to what was happening, either convinced that they were looking out for their subordinates or perhaps afraid to go against the department’s culture. Recall the proverb, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Said another way, we often are our own worst enemy.
Discipline
As anyone studying for promotion knows, the purpose of discipline is to change behavior. The goal of discipline is NOT to punish. Unfortunately, when misconduct is ignored long enough, we can have a situation so dire that punishment—often in terms of termination—is the only alternative possible for those involved.
What if we were able to find out about problem behaviors early, before they become a major scandal? What if we discovered the problem at a point where we could change the behavior with a reprimand or, at worst, a brief suspension—long before we are reacting to a major scandal where firefighters stand to lose their jobs?
Part of the solution to our disciplinary woes is recognizing that complaints are opportunities to learn about problems. That leads us back to the question of anonymous complaints: Do we accept them, or don't we?
As an initial matter, we need to differentiate between anonymous complaints and complaints from people who want to remain anonymous. Anonymous complaints are complaints we receive from a person who does not share their identity with us. Distinguish this from complaints where we know the identity of the complainant, but the complainant wants us to keep their identity confidential. Each type of complainant raises different issues.
Anonymous complaints
Anonymous complaints pose an ethical dilemma to many fire officers. Some argue that if a complainant refuses to identify him/herself, why should we take their complaint seriously? Some even suggest that accepting anonymous complaints may encourage the filing of frivolous complaints by those with an axe to grind. Although I am mindful that many fire departments take the opposite tack, my recommendation is to welcome anonymous complaints. There are two primary reasons.
First, complaints are opportunities. We are better off knowing about problems sooner rather than later. As explained above, virtually every major scandal that cost firefighters their careers could have been nipped in the bud if leaders had considered complaints to be opportunities.
Second, a complainant who is upset enough to contact us about a perceived problem has a number of other options to pursue if we choose not to investigate their concerns—options like contacting local elected officials, contacting the news media, or worse, taking to social media to show photos, videos or simply vent. None of these options are good for us. Why would we risk pushing a complainant toward such options by refusing to accept their anonymous complaint?
If our concern is truly about protecting members from frivolous anonymous complaints, does ignoring a complaint actually serve that concern? If a complaint is truly frivolous, protecting members from frivolous complaints is best done by documenting that the complaint is in fact frivolous. This requires an investigation.
Ignoring an anonymous complaint because we convince ourselves beforehand that it is frivolous does no favor to the accused or the organization. In fact, when we ignore anonymous complaints, someone may be out to get one of our members, but we have no documentation of that fact, nor can we prove that the allegations are baseless.
Some departments opt to evaluate anonymous complaints on a case-by-case basis. Provided the department uses objective criteria to evaluate which anonymous complaints will be investigated, such a policy can be a happy medium between the extremes of investigating all anonymous complaints and refusing to investigate any anonymous complaints.
Complainants who want to remain anonymous
Often someone with a complaint about a firefighter will ask that their identity remain confidential. Such a request poses both ethical and legal problems. Ethically, should we allow someone to make a complaint against one of our firefighters and withhold that person’s identity from the accused? Legally, does that violate the firefighter’s due process right to confront his/her accusers?
There are two types of complainants who may ask for anonymity. For lack of better terms, I will call them testimonial complainants and informational complainants. Testimonial complainants are those whose complaint depends on the complainant to verify any possible charges. Informational complainants simply alert us to a problem that we in turn can verify ourselves independently. Let’s look at an example of each.
Firefighter A is a female firefighter who is claiming that Firefighter B, a male firefighter, sexually harassed her. The ability of the department to investigate and discipline Firefighter B will inevitably turn on Firefighter A’s testimony. In fact, without Firefighter A’s cooperation in the investigation, charges against Firefighter B are unlikely. Firefighter A is an example of a testimonial complainant.
Testimonial complainants will usually be a victim or an eyewitness to the misconduct. It would be improper for a fire department to provide such a complainant with any assurance of confidentiality. The accused firefighter has certain due process rights, and these rights will, at a minimum, require that the identity of the complainant be made known to him.
If Firefighter B is disciplined, he will have the right to confront and cross-examine Firefighter A, his accuser. That being the case, at best we can assure Firefighter A that we can provide confidentiality initially as we start the investigation, but even that is not recommended.
Compare that to a situation where a citizen whom we’ll call Citizen C calls to report that Firefighters D, E, F and G have been taking their fire truck to a bar on their evening shifts and drinking on duty. In this case, unless we plan to discipline the firefighters based solely upon Citizen C’s allegation (NOT recommended), we will likely start an investigation, verify the activity independently and, if appropriate, discipline the members based on the evidence we obtain. In this case, Citizen C is an informational complainant.
The identity of an informational complainant is considerably less important to the investigation than the testimonial complainant. It is also less important for the accused firefighter’s defense. For that reason, some departments may choose to keep the identity of informational complainants confidential.
The problem with promising Citizen C anonymity is this: What happens if Citizen C’s allegations prove to be unfounded, or worse, Citizen C continues to make unfounded allegations that subject innocent personnel to unwarranted scrutiny? If we have promised Citizen C anonymity, then we have an ethical dilemma about passing Citizen C’s identity on to the true victims, the firefighters who have been falsely accused. For that reason, it is not advisable to promise even an informational complainant anonymity.
Conclusion
Complaints are opportunities—opportunities to learn about problems in our organization, opportunities to address certain behaviors by some of our personnel, and perhaps most importantly to recognize the need for changes to our policies, procedures and training. If we can find out about problem behavior early enough, we can address it with the involved members long before we have a major incident for which the members may lose their jobs.
On the other hand, if we look the other way at problem behavior, or we miss the opportunity to nip a problem in the bud, it is almost inevitable the behavior will continue. Viewed in this way, treating anonymous complaints as opportunities may very well help save a firefighter’s career, although it may come at the expense of an investigation and minor discipline.
We also have to respect the rights of firefighters in the discipline process. That includes respecting their right to know who is leveling accusations against them, provided we know. When confronted with a difficult leadership challenge related to discipline, I resort to the Golden Rule: How would I want to be treated if I was the accused? If I was accused of misconduct, I would want to know who was accusing me. That is only fair. For that reason, my default is to recommend that we not allow complainants to remain anonymous when we know their identity.
Accepting anonymous complaints while simultaneously refusing to offer confidentially to known complainants walks the line between being receptive to complaints and respecting a firefighter’s rights.
Sidebar: Reader Feedback: Fire Law
Chief,
Just wanted to say that I appreciate you tackling a tough subject in your article, “A Very Difficult Discussion” (May issue). Although you had to do a pretty good dance through the minefield, you did a great job of bringing something to light that many of us never considered. Peer pressure is used a lot, and because of your article, I can see where it may get away from us in situations like you described.
I also agree 100 percent with your comment about the training of company officers being woefully inadequate, especially in the non-career departments. Many just don’t offer the training while other departments may offer some training, but you have to actually be an officer to get it. By then, you are already behind the 8 ball. It needs to be offered to as many non-officers as possible, so when they step into the position, they have a good solid foundation.
Thanks for tackling that subject and great job! It is going to go out to all my officers.
—Judy Thill, Fire Chief, City of Inver Grove Heights, MN
