In neighboring Arlington County, the Fire Chief suspected that one of his battalion chiefs was not doing his job.
The battalion chief is not assigned to a fire station. Instead, with a county-provided SUV, he roams about in his designated service area, inspecting fire stations. If a multiple-alarm fire happens, the battalion chief must respond and command the scene, directing the different units to different places.
The Chief believed that the battalion chief was not doing his job, in large measure due to his late arrival at several large fires over the past few months. So he asked the police for help in monitoring this battalion chief.
The police provided the Fire Chief the use of a small tracking device, which they placed discreetly in the county-owned SUV. This device’s location was recorded, by satellite, for the next four weeks. An analysis of the satellite data revealed that the battalion chief was spending almost half his shift time at home - which was, I might add, outside his service area.
The Chief, based on this data, decided to fire the battalion chief.
The battalion chief protested. His grounds? The use of the police, and a tracking device like that, is outrageous! It smacks of Big Brother! Moreover, this tactic is being used against him because he is African-American.
I contend that it was not inappropriate. The battalion chief was not being accused of a crime, so the Fourth Amendment isn’t implicated. The car belongs to the county, which has every right to track it if they wish.
In this case, the surveilance was specific to an individual who was suspected upon other grounds of shirking his responsibilities. An organization also has the right, of course, to arbitrarily track the location of its equipment and workers during their duty shifts. I personally, of course, would never again work for an organization that I learned was engaged in such practices as a rule.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
Given the circumstances, the Batallion Chief was long overdue for the just termination he got.
His resorting to “the race card” is laughable in the face of the stated motives for his monitoring, and in no way mitigates his negligence. The mere attempt to do so harms us all.
I have worked for such organizations who engage fleet tracking services through TeleTrac, Inc. and, I am in full support of such a use of technology.
I wouldn’t hesitate to work for an organization solely upon the basis of fleet tracking, and would allow the installation of such a device in my personal vehicle, if I opted to use it for company purposes–with the proviso that I am provided the full anti-theft potential of the device, 24/7, at no cost to me.
A more than reasonable condition as far as I am concerned.
It’s a pity that more organizations don’t do this as a matter of uniform policy.
–Kalél TheHungerSite.com
“If ignorance is bliss, you must be orgasmic.”
“Well, there was that thing with the Cheese-Wiz…but I’m feeling much better now!” – John Astin, Night Court
okay, i agree that the county has a right to use a tracking device on their own vehicles.
the whole race thing is annoying on the surface, but if other county workers are left to ‘slack as they please’, and this one was targeted, i see that as a problem. however, i think there are too many unknowns to debate the race issue.
i’m wondering how people view the fact that the worker wasn’t informed about the tracking device.
i monitor our customer service reps’ phone calls. (the one’s they take from our clients.) they know this ahead of time, and they have to sign a paper stating that they were informed. we also have a company policy requiring us to hang up if we monitor someone and discover that the call they are on is personal. if the personal calls become excessive, this is taken up with HR. everyone knows ahead of time how the whole thing works. (and you wouldn’t believe the stuff people still say on the phones - to customers!!)
back to my question…does the fact that the worker had no knowledge of the tracker - or the fact that the policy to institute the use of tracking devices in general was put into place without his knowledge - lend any weight to the worker’s complaint?
my first reaction is to say ‘too bad for him’, but my inner-ACLU member tells me there may be a core issue here that’s being overlooked. anyone have any ideas as to what it could be?
Since lives are at stake, criminal negligence, and possibly manslaughter might be consequences of this man not doing his job, then it might be appropriate to enlist the police in investigating those charges.
In that sense perhaps the action was justified. I’m not a lawyer though. Do you know if charges were brought against the man, or if he was simply dismissed.
I love it. This is not a case of tracking a personally owned car and finding that the guy picked up the laundry a couple of times during office hours. The chief had probable cause (frequent late arrivals) to think that he was already abusing the system. Had the chief followed the battalion chief discretely (or had he dropped a dime on the local eyewitless news attack team) the issue of “tracking” would not have come up.
The chief simply found a simpler way to get the evidence.
As I remember it, the option of actual surveillance was discussed and rejected. They decided it would be less intrusive to his privacy to simply plant the device, and track where he was, than have officers watching him to discover where he went.
And – I’m sorry the OP was vague about this, but the guy still has his job. The Fire Chief decided to fire him. The Arlington County Executive reduced the punishment to a 30-day suspension. The battalion chief appealed to the Civil Service Commission, which reduced the suspension to five days.
Was the man questioned at all before they put the tracker on the vehicle? Like “Hey, what the hell took you so long to get here?”
Just curious. They do have a right to track the vehicle, though. And discipline was definitely in order. I think they should have stuck with the 30 days. Unpaid, I hope.
This space blank, until Wally thinks up something cool to put here.
I believe the above wholeheartedly. this is a case that pushes right up against this line. I would agree that in tracking a vehicle that they own, the FD was within their rights. Police surveylence would be way over the line, however. The man was not suspected of a crime, he was suspected of goofing off.( weather this goofing off resulted in him beigng liable for fire damage is another issue.) I would just caution everyone to cast a jaundiced eye to situations like this, especialy if they appear to involve anything that could be termed “Big Brother” like. Remeber what Ben said,. Your rights are the MOST important thing you have in society. Do NOT complacently give them up, no matter what the justification.
I agree with the general consensus so far that to monitor the vehicle or even conduct surveillance is one thing (and proper in this case), to have the police involved is another. The police are supposed to investigate crimes.
Somebody mentioned the possibility of criminal negligence. Sure, no problem, but if the county was actually concerned about that happening then the county should have called the police in to actually investigate that crime.
If I ever had any questions as to why the private sector seems to do better at getting things done than the public sector, this answers them. In what other field can somebody entrusted with that level of authority in a job where people’s lives are at stake get a five day suspension for being grossly incompetent and dishonest? Heaven forbid that civil service employees be expected to do their jobs competently.
(I’m not saying they don’t, just that those who don’t seem to be remarkably adept at keeping their jobs)
Question: Did the police actually PERFORM the monitoring, or did they just loan the tracking equipment to the FD for its own use? I think that’s an important distinction, and I’d be curious to hear if anyone actually knows. I think the FD had every right to track its own vehicle, but I would agree with several above posts that actual police involvement shows disregard for basic civil liberties (regardless of the Fire Chief’s obvious disregard for his duties and the safety of others).
as a side note, a local TV station in Detroit has taken to doing regular hidden camera exposés on state/city employees using work time and company vehicles for personal business. It has been quite effective in cleaning out some bad apples because the broadcasts have generated public response. Regardless of distasteful media sensationalism, it strikes me as useful to have these kinds of things investigated by third parties rather than internally.
The police gave the tracking device to the fire deaprtment, who affixed it to the county vehicle. The satellite company provided the tracking data to the police department, who without analysis or comment turned it over to the fire department.
There was never any allegation of criminal activity on the part of the battalion chief.
Were the police really involved in the proceedings against the fire chief if they only provided the tracking device and relayed the uninterpreted data. In a sense, they actually did nothing. It seems to me that one branch of the county govt. was just accessing resources from another. The fact that the other branch happened to be the police is perhaps irrelevant.(?)
However…
The whole thing smells funny. Why was this man not warned that his behavior was under suspicion and given notice that further poor performance would result in discipline. Why was he not told that he was being tracked. And, although I agree with others that “the race card” is distasteful, it isn’t clear to me that that is what’s going on. If in fact other department employees have received more lenient treatment for similar actions it warrants at least asking why. Plus, if the facts of his service record quoted in the article are true, it seems that he deserved more generous treatment by his superiors. He may very well be a slacker and a shirker, in which case he should not hold the position he does, but he was not dealt with in a professional manner. The methods used smell of cowardice.
Just out of curiousity, what “civil liberty” is being interfered with here? What civil right is being infringed?
Last time I checked, there was no constitutional provision (or amendment) which granted U.S. citizens the right to:
– slack off at work,
– misuse a government owned vehicle,
– file false time reports,
– steal from their employers.
How is this example different from an employer that uses surveillance cameras to monitor its workers, or an employer which reads its employees e-mails or monitors their internet usage?
I submit that this example is far less oppressive than many of the other situations that occur everyday. The fire department only began monitoring this guys movements after they had a reasonable suspicion that he was not performing his job. The didn’t watch everybody. They didn’t watch his every movement. They just tracked when and how he used the tool he was given to do his job – his vehicle.