In the past three weeks, arrests have
been made connected to the alleged abuse of a couple of intellectually developmentally
disabled individuals at Fire Station 8, located at the Fairgrounds, purported
to be from the simply cruelly juvenile (stranding the individual on the roof
for days) to the morally disturbing (goading the individual into illegal sexual
activity while observed). Too many unsettling questions have arisen as these
revelations emerged.
The first of which being how the presumed incidents came to the public
consciousness. Details about the arrests apparently came from leaked court
documents, and while a day later First District Attorney’s spokesman and fellow
Fax-Net columnist Pat Culverhouse tendered his resignation, there apparently was no connection between the two
events. But as the SFD had received notice of the allegations in late June and over
a month passed before any arrests were made, this has led observers to wonder
whether the SFD tried to downplay, if not quash, a criminal investigation.
Another question is how the individuals got put into the circumstances
in the first place. Apparently for over three decades the family of one allowed this now-middle-aged man with the
intellectual development of an eighth-grader to make regular, lengthy trips
alone to the station, or to be given a ride to it by firefighters. These
included overnight stays. Suffice to say even as the assumed guardians-for-a-day-or-more
were public servants in a profession of high esteem, it seems negligent that a
family would allow a member with such a disability to be entrusted to others so
often and for such relatively lengthy periods.
This also points to an appalling lack of judgment, if not disregard for
taxpayer resources, of the seemingly many firefighters over the decades who
allowed this kind of relationship to continue. It’s one thing to like a guy and
have a certain degree of kindness to have him hang around the firehouse a few
hours every once-in-awhile and maybe even watch some flicks with him. It’s
another entirely to have him almost take up residence there and sleep in fire
trucks, as his family has said he told them.
Put it another way, is it wise to allow a non-employee of the city so
much free run of the place? How did this affect the performance of the unit?
What happened with him when the unit went out on call? What taxpayer resources
did he use during his visits? Surely not just at that station but at all of
them better judgment should have indicated that often hosting and being
responsible for extended stretches of a developmentally disabled individual,
whose skills of reasoning and judgment by definition were questionable, likely
would impede optimal performance of critical public safety duties. And,
perhaps, created an environment so insular that normal restraints against
inappropriate behavior by city employees became too relaxed?
But perhaps most relevant is just who in the fire department, and city
government as a whole, knew of these things and for how long. Over the decades
dozens have worked at that station and yet no one seemed to think it was bad
judgment to have such a situation evolve. And it would seem improbable that
some officers higher up the command chain then and now also did not know of
this. And, if so, has this caused any kind of impediment to the investigation?
In other words, it was irresponsible, even if motives had been to show
kindness, to permit this. Even if the charges, as the judicial process will
determine, resulted from misperception or misunderstanding, the fact is an
environment where this could have happened or did happen never should have been
allowed to form. And orders to reduce the presence of such individuals on
public property and their use of it seem commonsensical yet never were given
and/or enforced by immediate superiors at the station or those higher up, if
they knew of it, or were ignored by those who received them if they ever did.
At the very least, this incident shows the city must enact a thorough
review of regulations regarding use of city installations by non-city
employees, employees’ knowledge of them, and of their responsibilities in enforcing
them and in bringing to light violations of them. At the most, there must be
investigation of the disquieting possibility that a number of city employees,
maybe at higher levels than those arrested, either in the past neglected to
make the appropriate administrative and personnel decisions that could have
prevented this, or who now are trying to disclaim or hide from view that they
failed to do so. To date, city officials have disclosed next to no information
about this, nor have made any commitment to pursue this course to correct and to
prevent obviously dangerous similar situations from manifesting.
No comments:
Post a Comment