A blog about News.
|
Statement by CARB board member Lies and cover ups tarnish California Air Resources Board Strange encounter ends in arrest PG&E smartmeters WILL be tested Suspcious guy at my door last night Adoption day "magical" Closing courts wrong approach Wars never end for veterans Pet adoption day in Tehachapi Nov. 21 Indian casino OK with me August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 November 08 December 08 January 09 February 09 March 09 April 09 May 09 June 09 July 09 August 09 September 09 October 09 November 09 
RSS 2.0    Share!
|
|
|
Pratt verdict an indictment of city management
In what universe is it OK for high-ranking supervisors to harass, discriminate and retaliate against an employee? The government universe, apparently. More specifically, the city Fire Department. A jury found the city at fault on all 13 questions of how the department handled the long melodrama of firefighter Robby Pratt’s firing. Jurors said “yes” to these key questions: “Did the City of Bakersfield or their supervisors or agents know or should have known of harassing conduct? “Did The City of Bakersfield or its agents fail to take immediate and appropriate corrective action?” And most damning: “Did the City of Bakersfield undertake an adverse employment action against Plaintiff without cause?” Yes, jurors said. This means the city, via its agents, Fire Chief Ron Fraze and Deputy Chief Gary Hutton, knew Pratt was being harassed by a co-worker, did nothing to stop it and, in fact, retaliated against Pratt when he took the issue to the city’s human resources department as he had every right to do. That verdict came down back in March. There’s never been even a murmur since then of any management changes in the department. Not even the suggestion that perhaps some managers might need a skosh more training on these issues. Indeed, most people at the city I spoke with felt Pratt’s stunningly low judgment of $98,000 and no order that he be given his job back indicated a win for the city. “We as a management team made no mistakes,” Fraze told me. He blamed any poor handling of the Pratt case on then Human Resources Director Carroll Hayden and the harassing co-worker, former Battalion Chief John Weber. Both have since left the city. The only mistake Fraze felt he made was not making sure Hayden was doing her job properly. “This verdict was not about HR,” Pratt’s attorney, Mark Quigley, told me. “This was about the actions of Fraze, Hutton and Weber.” HR, he said, was guilty of bumbling around and doing nothing, evident on an epic scale from depositions of Hayden and one of her HR supervisors, Anthony Gonzales. Despite Fraze’s protestations, there’s clearly something amiss in the upper reaches of the Fire Department. It cost taxpayers at least $1 million this time, including Pratt’s judgment, his attorney’s fees and what taxpayers shelled out for the city’s attorneys. And this isn’t the department’s first time at the rodeo. In 2006, the city was forced to restore Capt. Greg Moore’s rank, his back pay and pay some of his attorney’s fees after he was inappropriately demoted for an unproven charge of sexual harassment. The city had lost at the trial court level, appealed and lost again. The court called the city’s actions against Moore “arbitrary and capricious,” two words that do not coincide with “good management.” If problems in the Fire Department aren’t addressed, taxpayers can be sure we will continue paying out on court judgments into the future. I’m not defending Pratt (or Moore) as a sterling employee. I don’t know whether he was the spit-and-polish firefighter some say he was, or the whining manipulator that others paint him. But I know how someone should be disciplined or fired. As a manager, I’ve had that unfortunate experience too often. You outline policies clearly and you stick to them consistently with every employee, over every issue, every single time. The city has a clear policy against harassment that was apparently ignored in the Pratt case. Unaddressed rumors In early 2003, Pratt went to Hutton complaining that Weber, then a captain, was spreading rumors about him being gay. Pratt says Hutton told him to “stop hanging around queers” and he’d be fine. Nothing was done, the rumors continued and by April, Pratt took his complaint to Fraze who, he says, gave the same advice. In the Fraze meeting, Pratt also brought up problems regarding Capt. Bryan Perry allegedly going “Code 2” to situations that required a faster “Code 3” response, a thread that runs throughout this story and continues within the Fire Department to this day. All this is confirmed in depositions or through my own interviews with a host of Fire Department employees including retired Capt. Gary Bergman, Capt. Pat Ponec, Capt. Tim Lynch, Battalion Chief Matt Moore and firefighter Nick Catelan, now deceased. Every one of them recalled hearing the same thing from Pratt about his meetings with Hutton and Fraze at the time it happened. After his meeting with Fraze, Pratt felt he was going to get no action, so he went to HR’s Hayden. Though Hayden didn’t follow up on his complaints then, that appears to be the pivotal moment Pratt became Public Enemy No. 1. His downward spiral continued through the years with Pratt filing several lawsuits alleging harassment in 2004 and concluding with Pratt’s firing in February 2007, following a highly publicized and wacky civil service commission hearing in which Stuart Gentry, one of the commissioners, was found to have been calling Pratt during the hearing. Different interpretations Though everyone in the city would like to close the book on this, the verdict shouldn’t be the final shoe on this twisted tale. I called City Manager Alan Tandy to ask him, among other things, if the city was going to investigate Fire Department management based on the jury’s findings and possibly make some changes. Tandy must have been really busy. He never called me back. But I got a sense of the city’s thinking through Chief Fraze. Despite the jury’s verdict, Fraze insists he and his management team were vindicated. “Every discipline we had, and this went on for six years, was upheld at every level from the city manager and civil service to an administrative law judge,” he said. “Not once did anyone come back and say we messed up. The city manager has no ties to me. It’s not like we’re the best of friends; if he didn’t think I was doing my job right, he would definitely let me know that.” No doubt he’s right about Tandy. But I would point out that all those levels where Pratt’s disciplines and firing were upheld were done so by city commissions, city employees or a city-hired admin law judge. Not exactly a level playing field. Once this case got to the open air of a courtroom, it was seen very differently by average citizens. What next? Pratt has decided not to appeal and has given up hope that he might get his old job back. He had offered to give back half his settlement for a second chance. “Absolutely not,” was City Attorney Ginny Gennaro’s response. “This was a legitimate termination.” The issue of wrongful termination wasn’t allowed in by the court, which said it had already been decided in a different venue — the wacky civil service commission I mentioned earlier. The “Code 2” allegations against Perry still swirl around the department, which has never investigated him, I’m told. The policy on Code 2 and 3 responses was recently reworked, but Fraze said it was a part of a larger policy overhaul. “This was not whatsoever tied to one person’s actions,” he said. Pratt is now working to start his own company and focusing on the future. Fraze, too, told me it was time to move on. Yeah, sure, let’s move on. But not before taxpayers can be assured this won’t happen again. The Pratt verdict is a stain on the department that will not be removed without a thorough airing. Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The Bakersfield Californian. Her column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Comment at people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/noholdsbarred, call her at 395-7373 or e-mail lhenry@bakersfield.com
THE PRATT FILE What is the city going to do about it? Business as usual? Or will they try to prevent it from happening again? Taxpayers deserve an answer. Here’s a collection of behind-the-scenes documentation of how this case this case unfolded over six years. Yes, taxpayer dollars were used so the city’s attorneys could ask questions like “Have you never engaged in any homosexual acts with him?” of Pratt’s friend Raul Cepeda. And “Have you ever called him “Queen?” or “Have you ever called him “Bitch?” of Carlos Garcia, another friend of Pratt’s. Both Pratt and Perry were on duty at Station 1 when Pratt’s fiance, Shelly Scudder came to talk with Pratt. The two went into the dorm and at one point, Perry walked in and saw them for a few seconds. In his first interview, Perry says he didn’t see who Pratt was standing with. He did not see a sex act, nor any “straightening” motions as if a sex act had just been interrupted. “I saw nothing that was actual sexual,” Perry says. Then, “It’s regrettable and maybe some assumptions were made...” At the start of his second interview he’s told by Human Resources Supervisor Anthony Gonzales that a “formal complaint” had been filed by Scudder and his name, Perry’s, was mentioned. (There never was a complaint.) After that, Perry says he did know the woman with Pratt that day as Scudder because he recognized her voice. In this version she was sitting on a dorm bed with Pratt in front of her. After he walked in, he says, Pratt pushed her over so she was lying on her side. He also said Pratt appeared to be fastening his pants. By his third interview, Perry said he saw Scudder sitting on the edge of the bed, Pratt standing in front of her with her legs straddling his. When Perry walked in, Pratt then tossed her back onto the bed so she had to fling out her arms to catch herself. Not only did he say Pratt was fastening his pants, but he said Pratt’s fly was open, his belt unbuckled and his shirt untucked. In a deposition, Engineer Roger Tilford said Perry told him at the time of the investigation that he didn’t see anything between Pratt and Scudder and only said he did after he felt threatened when HR brought up the phony complaint. Retired Engineer Bruce Haas confirmed that, telling me that Perry flat out told him he saw nothing. “I was at Station 13 when Perry walked in and the place went dead silent,” Haas said. “He said, ‘I saw what I saw.’ I went outside to work on the rig and he came out and said he actually didn’t see anything.” Pratt was ultimately disciplined for the “appearance of sexual impropriety.” His first evaluation of Pratt was good, with a notation of “excellent” in regard to medical aid calls. It was kicked back from management, which wanted it downgraded, including removing an award. They also wanted Webb to include information about Pratt’s previous DUI. Webb refused. “This back-and-forth went on for three months and finally I told ’em I’d filled it out to the best of my knowledge and I’m not changing it; if you have something you want to add, type it in yourself.” The next year, again Webb wrote a good evaluation on Pratt which was again kicked back. This time, Webb noticed one of his scores had been changed without his involvement. “That was just unbelievable to me,” Webb said. Both he and Pratt refused to sign the evaluation. All along, Webb said, he had command staff send instructions for the evaluations to his email, which he saved and gave to Pratt’s attorneys. “They weren’t very smart about it.” City Attorney Ginny Gennaro told me she had no idea if Wang sat through that case. He was not assigned to do so and if he did, it was his prerogative and on his time. I tried to find Wang, who has since left the city, but couldn’t locate him Pratt’s attorney Richard Middlebrook remembered Wang at every court proceeding. “I was probably 20 to 30 hours total,” Middlebrook said. “At one point, he was speaking with (Chris) Nelson (the prosecuting attorney) and told him in open court that the city needed this conviction in order to get rid of Pratt. He was very open and honest about it.” Pratt’s blood alcohol level was below the legal limit so a DUI conviction was looking shaky. Since he was on probation for a previous wet/reckless conviction, however, he wasn’t supposed to consume any alcohol at all and he’d run over some shrubbery and left the scene (that’s the hit and run). Judge Michael Bush saw there wasn’t much of a case for the people and asked Nelson, then Deputy District Attorney John Brownlee and Middlebrook to hammer out a compromise in chambers. As they walked back, Middlebrook recalled, Wang followed. “Bush asked, ‘Who are you?’ and he said, ‘I’m with the city and we have an interest in this case.’ And Bush tells him, ‘No, it doesn’t, and you’re not welcome into chambers.’” In an email, Perry said he had no comment and didn’t wish to be contacted about the Pratt case again. Back in 2006, he told The Californian the allegations weren’t true and that he’d never been questioned about it. Numerous firefighters gave depositions and testimony in the Pratt case about the Code 2 issues. Battalion Chief Matt Moore, who was Perry’s supervisor, said he had discussed the issue with Perry and brought it to his supervisors’ attention, but was told not to investigate. In a 2005 email to Deputy Chief Dean Clason, Moore made another request to investigate, saying “a vast majority of the department is fully aware of this practice and I’m constantly questioned as to what actions the department has taken to correct the problem.” The allegations are frightening. “Perry was working OT with me and wanted us to drive Code 2 to a medical aid call. Just because he’s a captain, it’s not right to make stupid decisions. We shined him on and went Code 3 anyway.” “I was driving one time and didn’t hear the call. Perry tells me it’s a Code 2, I ask, ‘What’s it for?’ He says, ‘I don’t know.’ The ambulance passed us getting there.” “One of the first incidents I remember Perry telling us to go Code 2 on was a full arrest back in February 2003 over on Lockfern. In the trial, the city’s attorney asked me ‘Well, how do you know the guy’s not dead already?’ Now how stupid is that? ‘That’s why we go Code 3,’ I said.” Most firefighters I talked to believe management wouldn’t touch Perry because he was the department’s main witness against Pratt in the alleged sex act incident. He tried to appeal to City Manager Alan Tandy, which is allowed under the Bakersfield Municipal Code, but was told by Tandy in a memo that “There is really no procedure for such an appeal of a written reprimand.” So he tried to grieve it, as allowed when no appeals process exists. He was then told by Gennaro there actually was an appeal process but he’d missed the time window.
TIMELINE 1992 - Pratt is hired by Bakersfield Fire Department as reserve firefighter May 2003 - Pratt accused of engaging in sex act in Station 1. June 2003 - Pratt receives termination notice and fights it. Sept. 2003 - Pratt is disciplined for the appearance of sexual impropriety and allowed back to work. His pay is cut 5 percent and he’s not allowed any overtime for a year. Late Sept. 2003 - Pratt is accused of flipping off a captain. Discipline process is started but the gesture cannot be substantiated. November 2003 - Pratt again complains to Hayden about the continued gay rumors. November 2003 - Pratt arrested for DUI, pleads down to a “wet reckless” in May 2004. December 2003/January 2004 - Hayden conducts one interview with Hutton and concludes her investigation. Pratt hires an attorney and sues for harassment and discrimination. September 2004 - Pratt gets a good evaluation from Capt. Doug Webb, who is then pressured by management to downgrade it. August 2005 - Pratt written up for again reporting allegations about Perry. September 2005 - Another good evaluation by Webb is downgraded by management. Webb and Pratt refuse to sign it. August 2006 - Pratt arrested for DUI and hit-and-run. The DUI is dismissed. February 2007 - Pratt is fired. March 2009 - Jury reaches verdict in Pratt’s case: The city loses on all questions of harassment, discrimination and retaliation. Pratt wins $98,000 plus attorney’s fees. DOCUMENT LINKS Interviews from the 2003 “sex act” incident 44 comments from 22 users
1
posted by
drilnliftcrude
on Aug 29, 2009 at 05:08 PM
Sorry, but a big black man told me not to read your columns anymore. posted by
ezekiel51
on Aug 29, 2009 at 07:22 PM
Fire Chief Ron Fraze FAILposted by
cityres
on Aug 29, 2009 at 08:08 PM
Fire Chief Ron Fraze and City Manager Alan Tandy must GO!! I have followed this story for years. Thank You Lois for bringing out even more damaging evidence against our Cities leaders and Chief Fraze. If their even needed to be more. Wake up City Council!! I for one am Damn tired of supporting these Boneheads with my taxpayer dollars. For the City to claim victory is absoulutly ridiculous. You LOST on all counts. You wasted taxpayer dollars which are despartly needed today. And you hide behind your positions of power. The verdict speaks for itself. I love the way Fraze puts the blame on everyone else. It's your department, you knew what was going on. Fraze is quoted as saying, “We as a management team made no mistakes,” Are you KIDDING me. I for one am calling on the City Council to fire Fraze and Tandy. I also believe that Pratt should get his job back. We need Firefighters like him who aren't afraid to report individuals for not doing their job. Hell, what if it was your relative dying of a heart attack. These Firemen are supposed to protect us. This Captain Perry also needs to be thrown out with the rest of the trash in our City goverment. posted by
vanityfair
on Aug 29, 2009 at 08:09 PM
LOL, dril, I heard the same thing. posted by
dawgfast
on Aug 29, 2009 at 10:50 PM
Just when you thought this "dirty little secret" with the city fire department was over, it's back, AGAIN! Fire Chief Ron Fraze and his wonderful cohort Deputy Chief Gary Hutton along with retired Battalion Chief John Weber have really made a mess down at Headquarters. Lois Henry truly outdid herself this time around! She is definitely not afraid to tackle the most pressing issues at hand, no matter who it is, or how invincible they think they are.
I’ve just spent the past three hours reading the entire article and the document links. This whole thing STINKS and it smells like Fraze, Hutton, and Weber. Hello members of the Bakersfield City Council; please wake up! Anybody with a brain, including 12 jurors, can see that Fraze and Hutton are guilty and need to be held accountable for their actions. They just cost me, a city taxpayer, over a million bucks, all because they didn’t like Robert Pratt. Apparently, Captain Doug Webb thought Pratt was an outstanding employee and wasn’t afraid to press the issue with the “brass.”
It truly amazes me how, after being “taken to the woodshed” in court this past March, that Fraze has the arrogance to state, “We as a management team made no mistakes.” Sorry Ron, look no further than the Jury verdict form. Fraze then goes on to blame other members of his so-called “team”; former HR Director Carroll Hayden and Battalion Chief John Weber. By the way, this raises a critical question of judgment of both Fraze and Hutton. Knowing full well the actions of Captain Weber harassing Pratt, why would they promote John Weber to Battalion Chief? Maybe Bud Light can do a “Real Men of Genius” commercial dealing with this entire debacle.
It’s also interesting how Fraze insists that he and his management team have been vindicated because the discipline against Pratt was upheld at every level within the city. As Lois mentioned, don’t forget the Civil Service Commission Hearing where Mr. Gentry was calling Pratt. Sorry Mr. “Real Men of Genius” that doesn’t fly with us taxpayers.
Tandy, Fraze and Hutton can say what they want but what really matters most in this whole mess is how the jury voted. 13 to zip is the way I read it. And hey, if the city is so confident that they actually won, then why don’t they spend more of our tax dollars appealing the decision.
posted by
Lingtaowoo
on Aug 30, 2009 at 06:34 AM
Why doesn't this surprise me one bit---for years, this has been the statis-quo with these folks...Thanks Lois for blowing the lid on this story....until some REAL changes are made in our LOCO government---the people of the City of Bakersfield better get use to being sued AND losing big bucks..... posted by
VirgilAnderson
on Aug 30, 2009 at 07:05 AM
A bunch of venal turds ... A good piece, Lois ! --virgil posted by
Lingtaowoo
on Aug 30, 2009 at 07:27 AM
Carroll Hayden AND John Weber Both left the city---Rats jumping from a sinking ship... posted by
adampayne
on Aug 30, 2009 at 07:29 AM
Great report, Lois! Very sad discrimination of this sort, and non-stop harassment for years of an individual is allowed to happen. Worse still the denial by those found guilty to fully accept responsibility for their cowardly actions. posted by
riverrider
on Aug 30, 2009 at 09:15 AM
Ordinarily, I would cringe at so much personal information about an internal investigation being published in a public forum. But in this case, Lois Henry is simply lifting the veil of deceit that has been practiced within the Fire Department. Mr. Pratt deserves to be vindicated in public. As always, she has done a thorough investigation of her own and has assembled the information in such a manner that we can understand what has been happening. Thank you Lois, I don't know where you get the time but I sure appreciate it. posted by
superface13
on Aug 30, 2009 at 09:22 AM
Typical good ole boy network. Nothing new in city or county admin. Sad to say :( posted by
Oildale93308
on Aug 30, 2009 at 09:56 AM
It is obvious you have invested a tremendous amount to time and engery in your investigative reporting of the local Fire Departments. You have, however, merely scratched the surface and only the tip of the iceberg has been revealed. Thank you for your hard work. posted by
mannyb1
on Aug 30, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Great reporting Lois Henry. I doubt the people will be spared any more suit losses by this fire department soon, but the fight must go on. The U.S. fire departments are the last bastians of 'hate and intolerance' around the country. Other cities that I have lived in, like San Jose, CA have similar stories but nothing changes. There Chief Brooks was the victim of the second tier of chain of command. Brooks was Black. Others who spoke up against the police and fire department got the same fate as Pratt. I don't know the answer against the powerful, but we must keep exposing them.
posted by
Mickdog
on Aug 30, 2009 at 11:15 AM
Oildale93308, you are right on the money. I have spoken to several Firefighters that told me that they are threatened by the chiefs for devulging this information and that their is alot more corruption with chief fraze. For example, he was arrested for spousal abuse a few years back. His turnouts turned up on e-bay (Turnouts are the safety equipment that firefighters wear into fires. The city pays thousands of taxpayer dollars for them) Being intoxicated on duty while working at the firefighters farbooth. Threatening to beat up a subordinate firefighter at the Rock and Rodeo Bar. posted by
Charlie107
on Aug 30, 2009 at 11:37 AM
Whenever a conservative Kern County jury rules against management you have to know something was terribly wrong. But nothing will come of it ... Tandy is so entrenched and in control, he is virtually bullet proof. The occasionally jabs by Lois are entertaining and illuminating, but City Hall is not about to change their ways. City and County government are dominated these days by arrogant, power hungry people. Public service? yeah right. posted by
elginphelps
on Aug 30, 2009 at 01:14 PM
Great job, as always. Next, you should look closely at the Kern County Superintendent of Schools office. That place is a real mess. posted by
reformer
on Aug 31, 2009 at 12:20 PM
Isn't this the type of issue the grand jury is supposed to be investigating? posted by
DudleyDoright
on Sep 1, 2009 at 07:21 AM
I’m a taxpayer, and I want to see some accountability. I want to know where my elected officials are and what their roles were in this 1 million dollar waste. Are we or are we not in a financial crisis unparalleled since the great depression? And while we make hard cuts to our public safety we continue to waste money on loser law suits. Where was Councilwoman Sullivan and her virtuous “In God we Trust” when all of this was taking place. She’s supposed to be the voice of spirituality and doing the right deed in this community. Where was Councilwoman Benham? The champion for the employee and their rights when injustice is abound? Where was Councilwoman Carson, the retired public safety employee that endured hardship through her career? Where was Councilman Couch who has one of the only recent fire stations built in the last two decades. Where was Councilman Scrivner, the voice of the conservative right when it comes to tax payer spending? Where were Councilman Weir, and Hanson more “conservatives”? Are they ever going to do what they were elected to do? If I remember correctly, aren’t they ultimately in charge of this community and the managers that run it. Sunday’s paper was pretty clear that they have some cancerous managerial philosophies in their city. I don’t want my taxpayer money spent this way. But now that I see it has I have to question the integrity of some of these managers in charge. Is John Weber and Carol Hayden nothing more than patsies, or are my elected officials going to clean this garbage up. From what I have read in Lois Henry’s article, there’s more to do. There needs to be a change in the guard, so to speak. If that means electing a new body of government, well here comes 2010 elections, and I’m going to remember this waste of taxpayer money.
posted by
Lingtaowoo
on Sep 1, 2009 at 07:29 AM
The Lords of Bakersfield--Chapter Two.... posted by
hotrod1
on Sep 1, 2009 at 11:32 AM
Lois Henry's pathetic attempt at sensational journalism has struck a new low. This old case of the continuing drama of Robby Pratt is nothing more than her never-ending war against Alan Tandy. If Ms. Henry bothered to investigate Mr. Pratt's record, she would see why the City of Bakersfield was money ahead by eliminating this liability. Instead, she sided with someone who repetedly accused someone else for his personal problems. Maybe Mr. Pratt would be better suited in the field of politics. posted by
learnem
on Sep 1, 2009 at 11:40 AM
sounds like hotrod works for the BFD...maybe you just flat shouldnt have hired him in the first place? posted by
hotrod1
on Sep 1, 2009 at 01:23 PM
No. Hotrod1 doesn't work for BFD. I worked for another fire dept., and can understand the problem. How would you like to live with someone that continually screws up and blames others? It's no picnic. When your life, and the lives of others, relies on someone that won't grow up, there could be bigger problems down the road. The city is money ahead. posted by
Mickdog
on Sep 1, 2009 at 03:52 PM
So Hotrod, you're a a former firefighter and you think it is ok not to respond to emergency situations where the publics safety is at stake (ex. Heart Attacks). Apparently you did not read the e-mails and depositions from other firefighters and paramedics posted on the californian website that warned the fire department about captain perry's cowardly acts. This documentation was not from mr. Pratt. I don't know which department you came from, but you should be ashamed to call yourself a public servant. Apparently the jury saw it a different way then you and the city did. Remember, they lost on all counts. Thank God you never worked the the BFD. We can all sleep better. posted by
JDubois
on Sep 1, 2009 at 05:56 PM
Hotrod has a point. Even Lois admits she doesn't know if Pratt was the terrible employee the City claimed he was. Since he hasn't got his job back in spite of the way his case was handled and he isn't appealing, clearly somebody thinks he deserved to be fired. But that's not consistent with Lois' "I hate Alan Tandy" theme, so let's ignore it. Perry's poor judgment is irrelevant to whether or not Pratt should be fired for hit & run, etc. It's quite possible that neither one of them deserved to keep their jobs. No heroes here.
posted by
noholdsbarred
on Sep 1, 2009 at 07:59 PM
JDubois and HotRod As I said, I have not idea if Pratt was a good or bad employee. Perhaps he would have hanged himself after all. HOWEVER, the jury's verdict cannot be ignored, or at least it shouldn't be. It said Fraze and Hutton harassed, discriminated and retaliated against Pratt. There's a right way and a wrong way to fire someone. They chose the wrong way and got caught short. And we, the taxpayers, paid for it. The Perry, Code 2, stuff is a separate issue that most firefighters I spoke with are frustrated by because they feel it illustrates the inequities in the department, that management will go all out to fire someone they don't like (Pratt) on possibly trumped up issues while someone who's in their good graces (Perry) can do no wrong despite possibly committing one of the worst sins in the businesss, not responding to emergencies properly. posted by
Mickdog
on Sep 1, 2009 at 08:14 PM
JDubois, You have made one point clear. Lois did not attack Tandy in this story. But, the one thing she did do was expose alot of coropution in the city fire department. Whether Pratt is an angel or not, the fact is that Lois exoosed Perry not protecting the public like he should have. Read the memo from battalion chief matt moore and hall ambulance supervisor david nelson. Once again, this is not Pratt reporting this, it is several individuals doing so. I for one don't give a damn about Pratt's off duty problems. What I do care about is a fire captain consistently not responding to the publics call for HELP!! Read the entire story, it is not just Pratt, it is several firefighters backing up the claims. As far as Pratt being a good employee, his captain, Doug Webb sure thought he was. The captain spends every working shift with the firefighter, as hotrod should know. Once again, I don't give a damn about off duty activities, but I do care about the fire department responding to my relative havng a Heart Attack. posted by
JDubois
on Sep 1, 2009 at 08:55 PM
Lois, you can't have it both ways. If the jury's verdict can't be ignored, neither can the fact that Pratt did not get his job back and isn't appealing being fired. Clearly there were lots of problems with this employee and, as Hotrod1 said, the City is better off without him. There's no shortage of people lined up to apply for Pratt's job. That said, I don't dispute Lois' point: The termination was handled poorly and cost us all way too much. I did feel you were ignoring Pratt's legitimate firing, thus making city management look like they were doing the wrong thing instead of doing the right thing the wrong way. Mickdog, Lois went after "city management." Alan Tandy is the City Manager. Need a diagram? Again, if Perry did wrong things that doesn't make Pratt a good employee. "Off duty" driving after drinking and committing a hit and run is certainly the kind of thing that matters when the city is paying him to drive heavy equipment at high speeds in city traffic.
posted by
JDubois
on Sep 1, 2009 at 08:57 PM
Say! Maybe Perry was afraid to go Code 3 because Pratt was driving and he thought he'd run over the landscaping!! posted by
DudleyDoright
on Sep 1, 2009 at 08:58 PM
I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out where the out cry from the community is? $1,000,000.00 for this and how much did the tax payer spend on the other case? I don't see any savings as Hotrod seems to think, who obviously has a personal axe to grind. I see a ton of tax payer money spent on loser cases. Is it just cart blanc spending over there? Where's the accountability? I know....lets raise a special tax for Bakersfield so they can cover loser court cases. It's pretty clear they're just doing anything they want to whom ever they want. The law found this guy innocent. Period. The city was wrong. Period. The city is crying poor mouth, and blaming everything on anything but themselves. Wake up! posted by
JDubois
on Sep 1, 2009 at 09:02 PM
Cost savings aren't that hard to find...let's have a fireman who is (take your pick, any one will do) drunk/ reckless/ unlicensed because of his hit and run/ drive his fire truck into a family of four. Easy five million dollars for negligent retention. That's why the city cares about his driving habits. posted by
JDubois
on Sep 1, 2009 at 09:04 PM
And you're repeating misinformation Dudley...if he's innocent, why doesn't he get his job back or get a huge settlement for the loss of his job? Answer: because they were right to fire him, they just did it in a lousy way. posted by
noholdsbarred
on Sep 1, 2009 at 09:26 PM
JDuois As I mentioned in the article, Pratt tried to have the termination decided by the courts, but Judge Wallace ruled that it could not be heard by the jury due to the rule of colatoral estopple...not making that up. It means that once an issue has been decided in a proper venue (the civil service commission) it can't be heard again, separately in a different court. The California Supreme Court changed the law on that mid trial, but Wallace wouldn't allow it in as the trial began under the old law. The jury did NOT make a decision on whether he was or wasn't properly fired, that is still up for interpretation. And Pratt has elected not to appeal. You say I can't have it both ways, which doesn't make sense. I'm pointing out that the jury's verdice, even without the termination issue, said the fire dept. management messed up big time. That needs to be addressed.
posted by
Mickdog
on Sep 1, 2009 at 09:29 PM
One more time JDubois, do you feel that there is nothing wrong with a fire captain responding code 2 to a desperate family member who's relative is dying of a Heart Attack, and there only hope for that family member is a fire engine sitting at a red light, while precious seconds tic away from his or her life. Who gives a damn about Pratt, the real point of Lois' story is that the fire chiefs knew about this and did nothing to stop it. They were informed about this in 2004 and 2005. But go ahead and stand in Fraze's corner, just be sure not to have your wife to close to him. If you need any clarification on that last statement, just ask any city firefighter! posted by
JDubois
on Sep 1, 2009 at 09:51 PM
Lois, "both ways" refers to you trumpeting the jury's verdict that supports your argument while ignoring other facts: he was fired, it was upheld, he isn't appealing. He deserved to get fired and stay fired, according to the trier of fact under the law. I never implied the jury upheld his firing- that wasn't on trial. Why is it "up for interpretation" if it's already been ruled on and he isn't appealing? Shouldn't that make everything the jury ruled on up for interpretation as well? Mickdog, try, try, try to understand: separate issues! Pratt and Perry...two different people. Both of them could have been doing something wrong. Pratt pointing out that Perry was out of line doesn't excuse Pratt's misconduct. And Fraze's domestic problems have even less to do with it.
posted by
Mickdog
on Sep 1, 2009 at 11:03 PM
There is a huge difference between a jury trial made up of 12 individuals in superior court and a civil service hearing made up of three commisoners who are appointed by the city of Bakersfield deciding the fate of an individual who is already suing the city of bakersfield. Let's not forget about that hearing where one of those commisioners was removed from the commision for improper conduct with Pratt while he was going through that hearing. Once again, forget about Pratt, why do you feel it is not necassary to address the problems of Perry and people dying under his watch. Lois not only exposed the problems with the Pratt firing, she also exposed the fire department management turning a blind eye towards a captain playing God with peoples lifes. I for one was not nearly as shocked about the Pratt issues as much as I was in utter disbelief at the fact that the management of the department has let this practice continue for years. If you do anything JDubois, please read all the files that she downloaded. I read this story with open eyes, but was shocked at what I read. We've beaten to death the Pratt issue. I challenge you to find the innocence of the Perry involvment. Remember, Pratt reported Perry, which was backed up by multiple firefighters, before Pratt was ever disciplined. posted by
DudleyDoright
on Sep 1, 2009 at 11:09 PM
JDubois..... you should have finished your last line with, "and it was worth the million the city spent". I don't think that's a misrepresentation of anything.Minimalizing spending a million dollars by calling it a "lousy way", isn't going to change the fact that the city isn't handling employee issues correctly. There's a pattern here of this happening on more than one occassion, and I'm questioning the system and how my tax dollars are spent. I've never even mentioned anything particular about Pratts case other than the known fact that the city lost, and what it cost. I think you and I obviously agree the city handled it wrong, and that's my complaint. I want the system fixed. posted by
JDubois
on Sep 2, 2009 at 06:24 AM
Dudley- absolutely right. It is indeed a problem that several people allegedly in charge of managing hundreds of employees coudn't get this done right. But by indulging in cherry-picking and spin, we help them get away with it. Just because they blew it on the termination doesn't make Pratt a good guy. Mickdog, you're just not getting it. I've said repeatedly that Perry could have been doing something wrong. Should that be addressed? Sure. But should we try to make a hero out of a bad employee because his managers acted badly? Uhhhh. no. As for the civil service commission issue...that's who, by law, is appointed to handle these things. The judge ruled Pratt couldn't have the jury re-hear the termination- that doesn't mean Pratt had no avenues of appeal (else why would Lois mention that he isn't appealing?) He's fired, he's gonna stay fired, the jury's award leaves him with less than a year's earnings after lawyer's fees. Good riddance. If new or better management comes out of it, good. posted by
PaladinGirl
on Sep 2, 2009 at 10:21 AM
GREAT ARTICLE! I am so pleased that the Bakersfield Californian has the courage to print these very impressive, investigative articles that expose what is truly going on behind the doors and within the secret meetings and clandestine brotherhood of the "leaders" of our city. I want to say that there are several reasons that Fraze refused to accept responsibility of his failed leadership, but the most important reason is MONEY. If Fraze, or any other city leader for that matter, were to publicly admit they failed their staff or ignored violations of law, policy or human decency, they would be CIVILLY LIABLE! Until an employee sues the City of Bakersfield and the individual(s) for their mismanagement this cycle of mismanagement will continue. They (the chiefs, upper management etc) know that the city has deep pockets and will cover the cost of any financial liability....until they have to personally pay-NOTHING will change. NOTHING. Robbie Pratt's situation is not uncommon. It may seem especially egregious considering the extent of the personal harassment he endured and the type of harassment, but it is by NO means an isolated incident. The City of Bakersfield has been having financial problems and budgets are suffering but the people that run our city have been morally bankrupt for many years and the employees' suffer in silence. It is unfortunate that it takes someone like Robbie Pratt, who ultimately had nothing to lose and everything to gain, to finally take the City to task. It should have been fixed long before he was fired, long before he was harassed to the extent he was, long before he was humiliated....had the matter been addressed properly, immediately and sufficiently as is required by LAW and city policy, we wouldn't even be talking about this issue.... Lois, keep digging....there is so much more to be discovered in this septic tank.... posted by
hotrod1
on Sep 2, 2009 at 12:06 PM
Okay, I think we agree that the city spent a lot of money to eliminate a potential risk. The Civil Service is a hard system to beat. ANYONE can sue for money. Fire stations can be a tough world. Much like the service. A person has to have a pretty thick skin to survive. If a person can't take harrassment, the fire service may not be your line of work. But the good thing is, potential problems are sorted out. I hope Mr. Pratt finds happiness in something more to his abilities. After three DUI's I hope he has a driver. Enough said. Something that I haven't addressed is Capt. Perry leaving people to die in the streets. Some departments have policies about red lights and sirens in proximity of hospitals and schools in session. Was this the case? I can't speak for BFD, because I never worked for them. It's easy to armchair quarterback another's decisions without knowing the whole truth. BUT, the simple fact is that the FIRE department's role in medical aid calls is to assist the ambulance co. For the most part, most firefighters were EMT's with a few exceptions. The ambulance company employees are mostly paramedics. I worked a busy station. The same ambulance company would wait for us to go by and follow us in. By their own admission, they found it easier to follow us than look at the map. I should have blamed the ambulance company everytime someone died, but I didn't. All cardiac arrest victims can't be saved, even in a hospital under better conditions. Was the ambulance on scene before the fire crew arrived? Couldn't they do anything without the fire crew's assistance??? The rumor I heard several years ago when this incident took place, was that the victim had cussed out the care givers and ordered them off of his property on a call earlier that day. I don't know. I wasn't there. I'm sure the BFD investigated the incident and heard all of the facts. I can't imagine them trading a judgement error for testimony. It just doesn't work that way. In any event, the BFD found it in their favor to eliminate Mr. Pratt and keep Capt. Perry. There must be more to the story than we, out here in T.V. land have heard. Firefighters live to help others. posted by
dawgfast
on Sep 2, 2009 at 01:10 PM
Hotrod1 It smells to me that you are very close to the BFD. You are trying to play dumb but you have just exposed yourself to me as a taxpayer. Go ahead and keep covering for Fraze and Perry. May you should think about running for city council. posted by
Mickdog
on Sep 2, 2009 at 01:56 PM
Hotrod, You should probably get your facts straight before making such comments. First Pratt has never been convicted of a DUI let alone the number three that you pulled out of thin air. His record is public and can be accessed by anyone. Second, you probably should read the full story including the documentation that Lois Henry dug up and has downloaded on this very site. Thirdly, you say that a person has to have thick skin to survive harassment in the fire stations. Wow, last I looked Harassment, Discrimination, Retaliation, Oppression, Fraud, and Malice are illegal in any type of employment. The City was found guilty on all these counts. (Read the verdict form which is provided on this page) Fourthly, you say that fire departments have policy's about driving code 3 by hospitals and schools. Are you kidding me!! Once again you did not read the information that Lois provided. Example: Battalion Chief Matt Moores memo to the chiefs, Hall Ambulance Supervisor David Nelson (Who stated that the ambulance passed the fire engine while it was sitting at a red light. Not in front of a school or hospital) Retired Engineer John Leon, Engineer Garrett Pacheco, Firefighter Dennis Roe. These and many more firefighters backed up Perry's lack of response to emergency situations. Many of these firefighters stated that these allegations against Perry were never investigated. If they were investigated then it was done poorly as these guys were the ones that were there with Perry and were never interviewed. Read the full story and the documentation before you put your foot in your mouth again. posted by
hotrod1
on Sep 3, 2009 at 07:45 AM
You are either Pratt or part of his tight little circle of 'friends'. It's clear that you can't handle the job, and have to blame others for your problems. I did my 30 with no problems. Too bad you couldn't, but then everyone isn't cut out for the job, are they? I do have some advise for you. Grow up and get over it. And STAY OFF MY LAWN! posted by
Mickdog
on Sep 3, 2009 at 08:34 AM
Not Pratt nor in the circle, but you just gave yourself away. How did the Kool Aid taste? Tell Fraze hello. posted by
cityres
on Sep 3, 2009 at 11:13 AM
Hotrod, You should probably quit while your behind. Listen to mickdog and read the facts. It is obvious who you are. Mickdog, I suggest you also stop. Everyone I've talked to agrees with you. They know the truth, Your letting this jerk get to you. Hotrod is a disgrace to the fire service.
1
 Loading Stories
Advertisement |