Canton on Emergency Management: August 2013

« July 2013 | Main | September 2013 »

August 2013

08/30/2013

SF Fire still ambivalent about helmet cameras

Last week I wrote about the San Francisco Fire Department's ban on helmet cameras. Citing concern over privacy issues, Chief Joanne Hayes-White determined that a 2009 ban on cameras in SFFD "facilities" also applied to department field operations. However, the timing of the ban, coming as it did so quickly after the Asiana Airlines crash in which helmet camera footage is playing a key role in determining the cause of death of a victim crushed by fire apparatus, suggested to many observers that the Chief's real concern was avoiding potential future liability. The public outcry was so great that a day after my posting, Chief Hayes-White announced that the Department would revisit the issue and reconsider the use of helmet cameras.

The Chief's concerns over privacy do have some merit. Unauthorized release of footage could compromise the privacy of both victims and firefighters. However, the department used to have a videographer at fire scenes, a position that was eliminated by budget cuts. To fill the gap, many firefighters have opted to purchase and use their own helmet cameras. This was the case in the Asiana crash: the battalion chief serving as the incident commander filmed the event on his one helmet camera and later made the footage available to investigators. Stills from this video were used in media stories and can be readily found on YouTube.

The real issue here is that the SFFD lacked and continues to lack a policy on the use of video. Department issued equipment does not exist and there are no guidelines regarding the use of video shot with private equipment. For the Chief to claim that she was not aware of the use of private helmet cameras by firefighters and invoking a policy that was clearly intended for another purpose just highlights this lack of policy direction and suggests a command structure out of touch with field operations.

Since the announcement that the Chief would be reconsidering the ban, there has been no further word from the SFFD on this issue, suggesting that the department may be allowing the story to die while the ban stays in place. Actually, there is one bit of news. The battalion chief responsible for the Asiana Airlines video is being investigated for possible violation of the 2009 ban and may face disciplinary action.

Posted by Lucien Canton on 08/30/2013 | Permalink | Comments (0)

08/22/2013

Planning Methodologies: Which is the best?

Download Planning Methodologies August 2013

Posted by Lucien Canton on 08/22/2013 | Permalink | Comments (0)

08/19/2013

San Francisco Fire bans helmet cameras

SFFD Chief Joanne Hayes-White

Last week I moderated a webinar on emerging technologies for public safety agencies. Among the things I noted in my introductory comments was the incredible use being made of video as a diagnostic, investigative, and training tool.

It came as a bit of surprise to note that my own city of San Francisco has just banned the use of helmet cameras. Chief Joanne Hayes-White issued the order over concerns about patient and victim privacy, noting that the city has no control over how firefighters use the footage. Together with a 2009 ban on cameras in any "facilities" the order in effect precludes the the San Francisco Fire Department from using any video tools.

The timing of the order is awkward for the Department, which has a reputation for being a bit "traditional". Helmet-camera footage from a battalion chief has been a major piece of evidence in the investigation of the death of aa victim of the Asiana Airlines crash who was accidentally run over by a fire truck. There is speculation that the department may have some liability attached because of the incident. This makes it hard to accept the ban on helmet cameras as being solely related to privacy.

Helmet camera footage has been used by the department as a training tool, much like a sports team will view game footage to learn from their mistakes. The department has also made use of video from ambulances to coordinate treatment with receiving hospitals and physicians. And, of course, footage from the crash has been shared with the agencies investigating the incident. To say that these legitimate uses of video are trumped by unspecified issues of privacy that the department is just realizing may exist is a bit specious.

There are two lessons here. The first is the importance of having well-thought out policies for the use of video. The Chief's claims that she can't control how the video is used suggests the absence of a such policy that would, among other things, prohibit unauthorized disclosure.

The second lesson is how timing can make a bad situation worse. A few weeks ago, banning helmet cameras would probably not have made the news. Coming on the heels of a major airline crash that has liability issues associated with it invites speculation that the sole purpose of the ban is to protect the department from future liability claims.

Posted by Lucien Canton on 08/19/2013 | Permalink | Comments (0)

08/06/2013

Turf Battles: A Tail from the Dog Park

Princess Leia, Ruler of the Universe

One of Kona's pals is a chihuahua/poodle mix named Princess Leia. Leia weighs about eight or nine pounds soaking wet but that doesn't keep her from running with the big dogs. She usually does this by hiding behind someone's legs and dashing out when she sees an opportunity for play. However, on those occasions when she arrives first to an empty dog park, Leia shows why she is called "Princess". She assumes the park is hers and aggressively confronts all who seek entry. She barks, she charges, she's completely fearless.

In this Princess Leia is not unlike a lot of people I have met during my career. We sometimes have a tendency to carve out an area of influence and aggressively defend it against all comers. There are times, of course,when this is necessary. I once had a department head seek to absorb my office into her department and I had to play a bit of hardball because it was not in the best interests of the public to do so.

But I've also seen vicious infighting among government agencies to preserve duplicate or contradictory programs. I've seen good programs cancelled because of these turf wars. Worse, I have seen desperately needed help turned down because of the fear that accepting it would somehow diminish someone's perceived influence over their "turf."

The onlookers at the dog park are always amused by Leia's antics. We know that she wouldn't survive a serious encounter with most the dogs she chases and none of them take her seriously. So the next time you're thinking about engaging in a turf battle, think about what an outside observer would see. Is this really the way you want to look to your peers?

Posted by Lucien Canton on 08/06/2013 | Permalink | Comments (0)

08/01/2013

Producers fired over embarrassing Asiana crash broadcast

A couple of weeks ago I commented on how a local television station suffered considerable embarrassment by airing what was thought to be the names of the four pilots involved in the recent Asiana Airlines crash in San Francisco. The station had done its due diligence: the names came from a normally reliable source and were confirmed by the National Transportation Safety Board (the "verification" was provided by a summer intern). The names turned out to not only be wrong but offensive to the Asian community. Asiana threatened to sue the station and the NTSB.

The station corrected the problem almost as soon as it was aired (following the next break), offered profuse apologies, and promised to investigate and discipline those responsible.

One would think that the dust would settle rather quickly after a few weeks, particularly as Asiana decided not to proceed with its threatened lawsuit. Not so - the incident has become toxic to anyone associated with it. At least four producers at the station have been fired.

There is no question that the incident was embarrassing to a station that prides itself on the accuracy of its reporting. Certainly there should have been consequences for those involved. They should have known better. They should have been a bit more culturally sensitive, particularly in the San Francisco Bay Area. But termination of employment? It seems a pretty steep price to pay for a moment of stupidity.

I'm always leery of expressing opinions without knowing the facts. There may have been egregious conduct on the part of the producers that warranted such a drastic measure. But my experience with the reporters and producers in the Bay Area has almost always been that they are hard-working professionals dedicated to getting the facts right. This sort of lapse seems out of character and it's hard for me not to believe that they were sacrificed to political correctness.

If this is indeed the case, the station may well have an additional reputational problem. A story that might have gone away quietly continues to play in the news. At least one of the producers is suing for wrongful termination, which guarantees that the story will continue. It's a good example of how to make a reputational crisis worse.