Fire panel documents withheld
Member advised city on public response
Member advised city on public response
The city of Charleston has refused to release documents that could shed light on how large a role city officials played in the writing of a report by experts hired to review the fire department's operations following the deadly Sofa Super Store fire.
Firefighter Coverage
In our special section with photos, videos, interactives, donation information and every story written about the tragedy.
The city says it withheld e-mails and drafts of the panel's report on improving the fire department because they constitute attorney work products and are protected by attorney-client privilege. But one city council member and the state press association's attorney say the city's position is a stretch.
The city did, however, provide The Post and Courier with dozens of e-mails and correspondence that suggest a close relationship between the city and at least one member of the panel that's been billed as independent and whose work was promoted as transparent.
The documents include e-mails in which a panel member advised the city on how to respond to state workplace safety violations and encouraged the city to hand-pick firefighters to speak publicly about their experiences at the sofa store in an effort to counter criticism of the department's handling of the blaze.
Read the e-mails
To read two of the e-mails provided by the city of Charleston, click here for e-mail No. 1, and click here for e-mail No. 2.
On the Web
To read the text of the state Freedom of Information Act and download an FOIA handbook, go to scpress.org.
On Sept. 21, one day after the state cited and fined the city for the fire department's handling of the sofa store fire, panel member Pete Piringer e-mailed city public information officer Barbara Vaughn, suggesting that the city might be better off fighting the fines rather than the alleged violations.
"I believe we will probably find out that the other investigative reports will probably be much of the same ... as far as the findings," he said.
Piringer also wrote that fighting the violations could have unintended consequences: "It may seem to some that if you fight the charges — the nine died in vain. The CFD organization may not view the 'fight' as healthy either — it seems like most are eager for change ... and obviously something went wrong on June 18."
In a Sept. 5 e-mail to Vaughn, Piringer suggested that the city allow a "select few" city firefighters to talk about their actions on the night of the fire. "To date, most of the printed or published stories have been somewhat one-sided, often with experts weighing in. ... By telling their story in their own words they can even the playing field and may even change the way people perceive the events that occurred. Let's get some info out. The way we want to."
Pending reviews
Investigations and reviews pending on the Sofa Super Store fire:
--Charleston police are working with the State Law Enforcement Division; federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; and Charleston County Sheriff's Office to determine the fire's cause and whether criminal charges are warranted.
--The six-member team of consultants hired by the city is reviewing the Fire Department's handling of the fire.
--The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health is examining what factors led to the firefighters' deaths.
--The National Institute of Standards and Technology, based in Gaithersburg, Md., is using a computer model to reconstruct the blaze to determine why the fire spread so rapidly, why the building quickly collapsed and whether sprinklers could have saved lives.
--The U.S. Fire Administration plans to compile a report on the blaze that will be woven into the curriculum at the National Fire Academy in Maryland, where some 8,000 students undergo firefighter training each year.
About a week later, the city invited reporters to hear firsthand accounts from two firefighters who were at the sofa store on June 18.
Piringer, who works full-time as public information director for Montgomery County Fire and Rescue Service in Maryland, said he offered the city advice based on his extensive experience dealing with the media. The Charleston Fire Department lacked a public information officer at the time, and he was trying to help fill that role for the city, he said.
None of that compromises his role or work on the independent panel, Piringer said. "I like to think I am a professional."
Piringer said he is in somewhat of a unique position on the panel because he is not being paid by the city as a consultant. His agency in Maryland is paying his salary while Piringer donates his services to the Charleston effort. The city of Charleston reimburses some of his travel expenses.
City Attorney Susan Herdina said the city did not ask for Piringer's advice on those issues and that his suggestions did not fall within the panel's responsibilities. "That was unsolicited advice," she said. "This was not one of their tasks, so to speak."
City Councilman Henry Fishburne said he was "really turned off" to learn such communications were taking place while the panel was supposed to be working autonomously.
Fishburne, a lawyer, also doesn't believe that the city has legal grounds to withhold correspondence unless the documents touch on a pending criminal inquiry. "How they can claim attorney-client privilege? I just don't see it," he said. "I don't see that staff attorneys or the mayor's office should have even been looking at that report before it came out. It's wrong. It taints the report."
Mayor Joe Riley and other city officials were shown drafts of the panel's report and were allowed to suggest changes before its public release on Oct. 17. Some have said the city's involvement in crafting the report ran counter to the city's earlier pledges that the consultants would operate autonomously.
Riley and other city officials characterized the city's input as an attempt to ensure that the report was factually and legally accurate.
Gordon Routley, who heads the six-member panel, has said city officials were involved in "fine-tuning" the final report but that review team members were completely comfortable with the changes.
In an effort to detail the extent of the city's involvement with the report, the newspaper filed a request under the state Freedom of Information Act seeking copies of all e-mails and other correspondence between city officials and the consultants. The documents and the city's response were provided to the newspaper late Tuesday. Herdina said the city provided the newspaper with the vast majority of documents but that some correspondence was withheld because it touches on issues related to ongoing litigation stemming from the sofa store fire.
She cited the city's appeal of state workplace safety violations and a lawsuit brought by the family of one of the nine firefighters who died in the blaze. The city has not been named in that lawsuit but Riley and Fire Chief Rusty Thomas have been subpoenaed.
Herdina said legal issues tied to those cases overlap with some of the panel's work, and the city was concerned about releasing correspondence as those cases move forward. "We are looking out for the city's interest."
South Carolina Press Association attorney Jay Bender said the city's correspondence with a consultant hired to perform a service is not confidential. "I don't see how they could make that claim," he said. "It doesn't sound to me like that's attorney-client correspondence."
Bender said it sounds as though the city is uncomfortable with what some of the correspondence may show and looked for a way to protect it. "The city is saying we don't like how this looks in terms of our litigation position and so they are pushing it under the attorney-client privilege after the fact."
E-mail this story 
Printer-friendly version
Notice about comments:
The Post and Courier is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. The Post and Courier does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our Web site.
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
Comments
This article has 37 comment(s)
Posted by Boosterhose on November 15, 2007 at 4:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Lies and deceit. That's how things are handled in political office and Little Joe is a master of his craft.
I still don't question the integrity of the investigative panel but the cities desire to change is a big ZERO.
Posted by mac0cm4 on November 15, 2007 at 4:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeah, that's a surprise. The city conducting damage control.
Posted by bootlicked on November 15, 2007 at 7:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Joe feels that the brave firemen of the CFD don't deserve overtime. He also feels he can keep Rusty no matter what even if he has to cover up or hide everything. By now the firefighters of the city ought to know that the city doesn't and will never care about you as long as Joe and Rusty are your bosses. Stand up and get some backbones. If you don't do it now you deserve what you will get and have gotten. MAKE THEM CARE!!!!!!!!! MAKE THEM GIVE YOU WHAT IS LAWFULLY YOURS!!!!!!!!!! You have plenty of sick leave use it.
Posted by exorcist_pencocky on November 15, 2007 at 8:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Please refresh my memory, how many hundreds of thousands of dollars of city taxpayers money were spent on hiring this panel.
The apperant reason for this "independent" panel was to provide cover for the city of charleston, mayor joseph p, riley, jr. and his trusted sidekick rusty thomas.
What other thought, could a sane person have after seeing the Pete Piringer, e-mails. You will now have to realize the city leadership did right by hiding the other correspondence, right by them.
Most likly a bombs worth of information ready to explode in their face.
After all, you the citizens of the city of charleston really just want it to quietly go away, don't you. So that everthing will return to your quiet, normal perception of every day life.
Sorry, nine brave firemen died protecting you and yours, and I, as I promised them will not quietly let it rest, just to protect riley and thomas..
Posted by jpowell on November 15, 2007 at 8:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
That is typical City of Charleston politics. Hide it under the rug and it will go away. Why did they not discuss the upcoming budget and these reports prior to the elections? Little Joe didn't want them discussed, thats why. I feel for the city residents who have to live under his strong mayor rule. That is totally wrong as he controls everything that goes on. Why have a City Council? They have no say and are kept out of the political arena in the city.
Posted by Reader on November 15, 2007 at 8:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yet another example of the newspaper's quoting its lawyer as saying that something violated the FOIA and then not actually doing anything about it. This is the third such story in just two days! Come on P&C! File a FOIA suit against the City and force it to release the documents which the City claims are protected.
Posted by charlestonian on November 15, 2007 at 9 a.m. (Suggest removal)
For the P&C to file a FOIA suit would be going directly against Joe which no local Media outlet would ever do. We all know what that is.. Just like we never saw public Mayoral debates in the media, it wouldn't look good for Joe if that happened.
Posted by vesta on November 15, 2007 at 10:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
First, let us begin calling it what it is: THE RILEY PANEL. It is not the city panel, because the city council members appear to know little or nothing about its internal workings. It is not the city panel because the taxpayers know nothing about its internal workings other than what is released by the mayor. It is certainly not “independent” since (1) the mayor and his staff made adjustments to this report prior to its release and (2) one of its “professional” members crossed the line to represent the city as a PR by advising them of how to handle damage control resulting from The Riley Panel’s findings. I would find the remaining members of this, The Riley Panel, just as unprofessional if they knew that Piringer was advising the city on damage control (to have the CFD’s hand picked firefighters who were at the fire, for example, talk to the media). Even Susan Herdina states in the article, “That was unsolicited advice. This was not one of their tasks, so to speak.”
Second, since Piringer crossed the line between being independent and being a part-time PR fill-in for the CFD, I, for one, would question exactly what kind of “training” the public has been led to believe that the chief and his staff received in Piringer’s home camp in Montgomery County. When we look at this new “training” the chief and his staff now have as their “credits” toward a progressive, up-to-date department, let us not forget what Piriginer’s primary job is: a PR spokesperson.
Posted by Fire_Inspector on November 15, 2007 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The reason the Lawyers reports are being withheld is that there IS a pretty reasonable chance that Criminal Charges could be filed.
The OSHA willful citation can easily lead to a "negligent homicide" charge against Rusty etc...
Posted by MHA on November 15, 2007 at 11:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The goal was/is to find out what went wrong during the fatal fire and then put measures in place to prevent the same issues from occurring again.
Like so many other issues we deal with today (locally and nationally), politics, saving careers and saving face have pre-empted that goal. To date, all we've seen is wasted time and money thrown at a review board that may or may not have the same goals (I.E. saving lives) in mind. Regardless of the review boards goals, government has stepped in, with its own agenda, and redirected the process. The end result is that all of the improvements needed to save lives in the future will not be implemented.
Rusty must be really good at what he does. Saving his job is obviously more important than the nine lives that were lost and the countless lives to be lost in the future.
Posted by burton on November 15, 2007 at 12:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Funny how this is coming out after the elections. Wouldn't have made a difference anyway. Voters of Charleston, suck it up! You voted to put King Riley back in office so deal with everything that he does to you!!! Sad!
Posted by Local on November 15, 2007 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Every comment on this story so far is spot-on. I cannot say it better than you all have.
Posted by nickiegarbeil on November 15, 2007 at 2:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Fire_Inspector,
You are correct to a point, but it is my understanding of the attorney-client privilege that those documents are NOT protected as work product UNTIL a lawsuit is filed directly naming the City as its Defendant...none has been filed against the City, the Mayor and RT were merely subpoenaed not named in the lawsuit, so they have no argument...
Reader, please correct me if I misstated it...I think you have a better working knowledge of it than I.
Posted by Swift_N_Easy on November 15, 2007 at 3:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Nickie- The documents are work product. The attorney/client priviledge is effective regardless of a Complaint being filed. Whenever the attorney is doing any sort of work for a client, that client holds a priviledge and will be upheld.
Posted by Reader on November 15, 2007 at 4:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with Swift_N_Easy. The lawyer-client privilege applies regardless of whether there is any litigation. If I speak with my lawyer about drafting a will for me, that conversation is protected even if there is no likelihood of litigation at all. The lawyer-client privilege exists to promote candid discussions with one's lawyer. It has nothing to do with litigation.
The attorney work-product doctrine is a different matter. That privilege protects documents prepared by a lawyer, but not every document. Instead, it requires that the document be prepared "in anticipation of litigation" (as it is most frequently expressed). Whether litigation is reasonably anticipated is hard to boil down to a single line.
Although I think the City is violating the FOIA in this case, I have to point out that the "People" are not the client of the lawyer, even though the City is interested (I hope) in protecting the citizens of Charleston. Imagine a case in which I am fined for a noise violation. During the trial of City of Charleston v. Reader, I could not just walk over to the City lawyer and ask her questions about her trial strategy even though he is representing the "People" of the City.
That's my little lecture about the law for today, folks.
Posted by nickiegarbeil on November 15, 2007 at 6:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you both...I appreciate you setting that out for me. But I am confused by something...while I agree that the contact between client and attorney is privileged, does that make the contact between the City Public Information Officer and the panel member privileged as work product? That is what I am referring to and am of the understanding that this is what the P&C requested...
A conversation between the City employee and the panel is not attny-client, correct?
Posted by chrissybaggett on November 15, 2007 at 6:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Reader, I am confused on what you are saying here. I have read your post twice and can not seem to figure out if the documents were deemed "attorney work product" then how can the FOIA be in violation in this case? Please do not misunderstand me... I am simply asking for clarity.
Thanks, Chrissy
Posted by charleytowngirl on November 15, 2007 at 6:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Another cover-up by Mayor Rumpletstiltzkin? Why am I not surprised?
Folks, I have a feeling we will never get the truth on anything regarding this tragic fire. And unfortunately, the citizens of the city of Charleston kept the Mayor in office.
Seems to me like Pete Piringer placed himself in a position of losing credibility as far as his position on the panel by advising Barbara Vaughn how to spin the stories coming out. What?!? Barbara Vaughn could not do the job herself without Piringer advising her how to handle the the bad press? Then why does the city need her?
Wonder how the folks in Montgomery County feel about Piringer's role in this coverup?
Transparency hell!
Posted by nickiegarbeil on November 15, 2007 at 6:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Amen Charleytowngirl
Posted by JF on November 15, 2007 at 7:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Joe Riley Sept 18, 2007
My goal and that of Chief Rusty Thomas, is to be a national leader to make Charleston the place where other fire departments will come to find the best practices and operations to be trained by our leaders to not only find out how a fire department responds in the wake of tragedy, but to watch a fire department in operation whose standards are equal to or exceed national and international best practices.
SOC 2007
Chief Rusty Thomas continues his splendid leadership of our Fire Department, one of the very best in America.
SOC 2006
Our Fire Department continues to excel. Rusty Thomas, now in his 14th year leading our Fire Department, is a model public servant. Whether it’s leading his firefighters as they courageously fight fires or being a lunch buddy or reading to school children, Chief Thomas makes us proud.
S0C 2005
Under the leadership of Chief Rusty Thomas our Fire Department continues to enjoy its national reputation as one of only 44 in the United States of America that enjoys the Class No. One rating. No chief or department in America exceeds them in courage and skill. They are the best.
SOC 2004
...Chief Rusty Thomas and the men and women of our Fire Department. They are the best in America...
We continue to provide them with the best, most up-to-date equipment...It has already saved lives.
INNAUGURAL 2004
Our Fire Department led by Chief Thomas is the best at what they do in America as well.
SOC 2003
Chief Rusty Thomas and the men and women of Charleston's top rated Fire Department make our neighborhoods safe as well.
SOC 2002
Our Fire Department, with the highest ranking of any fire department in America, with great courage and ability enabled our City to have no fire deaths in the last two years. Chief Rusty Thomas, is not only the best Fire Chief in America, but a community leader as well.
SOC 2001
Our Fire Department is the best in America as well. And those aren't just the words of a proud Mayor. Charleston has now achieved the Class 1 Fire Rating, held by only 32 fire departments out of 88,000 in the United States of America. The courage and skill of Chief Thomas and the men and women of our Fire Department continue to amaze us.
SOC 2000
It is no wonder that our Fire Department is only 1 of 26 out of 88,000 fire departments in America with the top Class 1 Fire Rating. In my opinion, of the 88,000 we are the best.
SOC 1999
In every instance, Chief Thomas and our firefighters seemed to achieve the impossible ....I could not be prouder of them, nor more amazed at their extraordinary ability, skill and courage. They are truly America's Best.
Posted by easy on November 15, 2007 at 7:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
you ALL have no one to blame about this but yourselves, go look in the mirror and ask yourself WHY you did not get out and vote. you all saw this comming, it is so easy to bitch and sit there doing nothing. you allowed these two (2) A$$holes to remain, well now you have to live with what you got. the time to $hit or get off the pot has passed and you had your chance to make changes and the voters and non-voters have spoken. they like things just the way they are.
THE TRUTH SUCKS, AND I AM SURE MANY OF YOU WILL BE PI$$ED AT ME FOR TELLING IT LIKE IT IS, BUT THESES ARE THE FACTS. Mayor Dickh&^d and his Little BUDDY are not going anywhere, and you have no hope of doing anything to change that fact... YOU BLEW YOUR CHANCE....
Posted by exorcist_pencocky on November 15, 2007 at 7:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
easy - I know the low voter turn out really disappointed me.
Posted by charleytowngirl on November 15, 2007 at 8:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Perhaps Mr. Piringer should remove himself from the panel. You can't have it both ways. Either you are a member of the panel (that is now in the process of investigating the fire) or you are the PIO for the City of Charleston Fire Dept.
Mr. Piringer's role in trying to quash the criticism of the citizens, the media and members of the fire service by coming out with the "human interest" stories sickens me. It was a tragedy and 9 men got killed. It is what it is....you can't gloss over it and paint a pretty picture. It will never, ever be a pretty picture. It is a tragedy that has shaken Charleston up pretty good. Nine families will never be the same.
I am concerned that this member of the panel, who is supposed to be operating independently and transparently, has injected himself into helping the city spin the story.
How can he be a unbiased member of such an important panel while at the same time offering up advice on how to make the city look good?
Step down, Mr. Piringer! And take Chief with you.
Posted by misfit on November 15, 2007 at 8:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We should be used to our government officials withholding documents, memos, emails etc... Every time I look at the news Bush is withholding documents about something. I believe the two latest ones are about involvement in the firing of several federal prosecutors, and documents about the activities of convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
It seems difficult to get the truth at any level of government, whether it is federal or local. Maybe it has always been this way, but I sure hear about it a lot these days.
Posted by Reader on November 15, 2007 at 9:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Easy wrote, "[Y]ou ALL have no one to blame about this but yourselves." Whoa there! I'll predict that most of the posters here who live in the City DID vote against Riley. I did. Don't blame me.
Chrissy wrote, "Reader, I am confused on what you are saying here. I have read your post twice and can not seem to figure out if the documents were deemed "attorney work product" then how can the FOIA be in violation in this case? Please do not misunderstand me... I am simply asking for clarity." No problem. I wasn't trying to say that I agree that the documents actually DO qualify as work product. I was just explaining that in response to some earlier postings. I happen to think that the materials being sought in this case were not generated in anticipation of litigation. I think that the documents about the involvement of the City in the writing of the report RELATED to a topic which will probably generate litigation, but I don't think that anyone at the City generated memos about changes to the report with an eye towards preparing for upcoming litigation.
Posted by nickiegarbeil on November 15, 2007 at 9:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Reader, then what specifically qualifies as work product? An email exchange between the Charleston PIO(not an attorney representing the City) and Peringer? Or the things that are between the City attorney and the panel if it is not associated with a pending litigation? Or just anything between the City attny and the panel members?
Thank you again for responding...
Posted by fyrmnjim on November 15, 2007 at 9:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Being a part of the panel and then consulting the city on how to spin it does seem like a conflict of interest.
Anything that was allowed to be changed or omitted from the final draft of the report to the public release definately taints the entire process.
Fear not though! Riley will not be able to spin his evil magic on the NIOSH or USFA reports. The truth shall be told.
Posted by Reader on November 15, 2007 at 10:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Let's say that the City hired its lawyers to conduct its own investigation of the fire, and the lawyers wrote a report of their findings. Their mission was to document impressions of people right away so that they could be used down the road during litigation. That report would not be covered by the attorney-client privilege since it was not a communication between a lawyer and client and was not, in fact, communicating any legal advice to anyone. However, it would be the protected work product of the lawyer since it was a document generated in anticipation of litigation.
A document from the City lawyers to an independent investigator saying, "Change this statement to that statement" would not, if done for political purposes, qualify for work product treatment just because the subject happened to later be the subject of litigation.
Posted by nickiegarbeil on November 15, 2007 at 10:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ok...thank you...I thought that is what you meant..I was actually referring to the email exchange also not being "work product" and not being privileged as "attorney client"...that is what I thought this article was referring to...the remaining emails from Peringer to the PIO...I think we are saying the same thing, but you do it better than I...LOL
Thank you again for explaining that to me...
Posted by chrissybaggett on November 15, 2007 at 10:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Reader, Thank you for the clarification! It sure would be nice to have a professor at school that puts the law in that easy of context! Thanks again... Chrissy
Posted by vesta on November 16, 2007 at 6:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Piringer: "I would have suggested if you want to fight something--challenge the fines..." "...request a delay of effective dates (of the fines) or ask for an extension (in order to develop a strategic plan...") "...but I do believe we have a nice opportunity to share with the fire/rescue community some human interest stories." "By telling their story (a few select firefighters) in their words, you can even the playing field and even change the way people perceive the events that occurred. Humanize it."
My God, nine men died....a senseless death. If they had proper equipment, if they had proper training, if they had proper leadership. How the hell can you "even the playing field" in that respect??? How the hell can you "humanize it"???
With these quotes, it is quite obvious that this panel member is a PIO for the CFD NOT an independent panel member objectively looking at this immense tragedy. In my opinion, Piringer isn't writing to the PIO for the CFD/city---he is taking the role of the PIO for the CFD/city and, therefore is not an independent panel member. Did Gordon Routley know that Piringer was giving the city this advice??? Did the other panel members, who are supposed to be "professional experts" know that Piringer was giving this advice???
Posted by dadsemt on November 17, 2007 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It seems that this is still South Carolina. The good old boy system is still strong and alive. When the firefighters voted for the Union they signed their death penelty. The Mayor and Fire Chief has not and will not support and defend their fire fighters.
Why does the Mayor keep the Chief? It's a cover-up for their years if inadequencies, failures and lies to their citizens. The people of Charleston deserve better, those who voted against Mayor Riley.
The City of Charleston will recover from this and soon the citizens will forget the tragity. The Fire Department personnel will start their healing after the Chief retires and someone from outside thedepartment assumes command. The Chief will not suffer from this because he does not care about the department, just his low budget and his defiance of the Fire Fighters union. Safety is not his concern, public opinion and dollars saved at house fires is all he cares about.
I do not work for the City of Charleston. I value my life. I do not live in the City of Charleston, I valued ny family. Please support your Fire Fighters and not the Charleston Good Old Boy System. It will keep this from happening again.
Thanks
Posted by rjahopp on November 17, 2007 at 8:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Reader wrote: "I happen to think that the materials being sought in this case were not generated in anticipation of litigation. ... I don't think that anyone at the City generated memos about changes to the report with an eye towards preparing for upcoming litigation."
It may be enlightening to revisit The Evening Post Publishing Co.'s October 18th article "Riley had pledged that panel would operate independently" and then do some rethinking on what the City's intent may have been in making certain recommended changes to the consultant's report on the Charleston Fire Department.
The referenced article stated that "City attorneys said they made suggestions on some of the report's wording only to ensure that the report was accurate and legally sound." If certain memos contained material derived from discussions between the City and their attorneys regarding the report and potential legal issues with the report, that could fall under attorney-client privilege.
I happen to think certain changes discussed in the referenced article indicate the City's due diligence in light of both known and potential litigation.
Herdina is being more than forthright in saying "We are looking out for the city's interest." She identified two known, pending litigation issues.
Posted by nickiegarbeil on November 17, 2007 at 8:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I find it difficult to wrap my mind around the idea that an independent panel member discussing "spin tactics" with a City official...I had much higher faith than that in the integrity of the reputations of these men...I do not believe the entire panel is tainted...and I would be terribly surprised to find out that the rest of the panel knew of the exchange...
Either way...their recommendations seem to be spot on, so the "spin" is the issue at hand...I feel the respot is probably still accurate...
I think the thing for the panel, namely Gordon Routley, would be to request that Mr. Piringer step down from the panel...the panel can work with 5, and the citizens could feel the integrity is restored...
Posted by cptjoe on November 18, 2007 at 1:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You people have no one to blame but yourselves. You voted the mayor back in, and he'll be keeping your incompetent fire chief till the dept goes completely down in flames.
Can only hope that he doesn't get anyone else killed. And yes, I am a professional firefighter with 22yrs of service,
so I do know what I'm talking about.
Posted by nickiegarbeil on November 18, 2007 at 7:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I didn't vote for Joe, nor did most of the people in this forum, but we understand your frustration.
Stay safe..
Posted by exorcist_pencocky on November 19, 2007 at 6:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There were alot of people who ignored this election, for whatever the reason. If they had shown up to vote, circumstances may well have been improved today, for the CFD/CPD.
If you have ever wondered what created the plantation system that runs the city of charleston, its called apathy.
We all make mistakes in our life, God knows I've made my share, maybe more,in recent time. I've always tried to be honest, admit the mistake, and turn it to a good from then on, so as not to hurt people. On this, Gods Earth, people around you are the only thing that matters.
The biggest problem with apathy, is that most people suffering from it can't see it, people have suffered and will continue to suffer in CFD because of voter apathy.
When you have an emergency and are awaiting them to arrive, remember how you voted. Or if you were to busy to show up what "piss poor" excuse you told yourself.
Its really sad to see the downward spiral charleston is on, it could be such a good place to be.