My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2007-04-11 Fire Commission Minutes
PublicDocuments
>
Fire Department
>
Fire Commission
>
Minutes
>
2002 - 2009
>
2007
>
2007-04-11 Fire Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2011 10:39:09 AM
Creation date
6/15/2011 10:39:07 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Commissioner Maedo moved to have a follow-up letter sent from the Fire <br />Commission to the complainant delineating which allegations were <br />sustained, with a copy to the Fire Chief and the defendant. Commissioner <br />Rosehill seconded the motion. The motion carried with the following <br />votes: <br />Ayes Bowles, Brazier, Browne, Maedo, Okabe, Pomroy, and Rosehill. <br />Nay - Bertsch. <br /> Consideration of complaint filed more than <br />Complaint HCFC No.07-01: <br />· <br />sixty days after the incident on which the complaint is based. Complainant <br />alleges two fire fighters purposely withheld information about a hit and run <br />incident, failed to report duties done, etc. <br /> Consideration of complaint filed more than <br />Complaint HCFC No.07-02: <br />· <br />sixty days after the incident on which the complaint is based. Complainant <br />alleges a fire fighter was driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor, <br />purposely withheld information about a hit and run incident, lied to the <br />police,etc. <br />CommissionerBertschmovedthatduetothetimelapse,theFire <br />Commission would not consider complaint 07-01 and 07-02. <br />Commissioner Maedo seconded the motion. Discussion: Commissioner <br />Bertsch explained that the documents presented were not received within <br />60 days of the incident. The Fire Commission has the authority to make <br />exceptions; however, the first document presented was a copy of the <br />complainants daughters incident in 2005. The other document dated <br />August 5, 2005, was his sons incident report. It is dated the day after the <br />alleged incident occurred and does not reflect on any of the accused <br />individuals. <br />Mr. Cordero disagreed with the Fire Commissions decision. <br />Deputy Corporation Counsel Noda explained to Mr. Cordero that he <br />already had the opportunity to present his complaint. It was now the Fire <br />Commissions turn to pronounce their decision. <br />Commissioner Bowles advised the complainant that he may return with <br />additional information if it became available. <br />The motion carried with the following votes. <br />Ayes Bertsch, Bowles, Brazier, Browne, Maedo, Okabe <br />Abstained Pomroy and Rosehill <br />Mr. Cordero continued to question the Fire Commissions decision. He <br />asked to file an appeal. <br />3 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.