It was a victory for transparency when a Superior Court judge last week ordered San Jose officials to release investigative records of firefighters’ involvement in the Pink Poodle strip club fiasco.
Too many local government leaders across the Bay Area and California have forgotten whom they work for. Public workers have reasonable rights to privacy. But that doesn’t extend to malfeasance on the job.
That doesn’t extend to social workers in Alameda County who fail to protect vulnerable youth. Nor to Contra Costa County law enforcement who send racist texts or abuse their power. And, as Judge Thomas Kuhnle ruled in a case brought by this news organization, it doesn’t extend to San Jose firefighters who take a bikini-clad woman for a ride in a firetruck and then drop her off at a strip club.
California law is clear: The public has a right to see details of investigations in which the complaints are well-founded and substantial. The Pink Poodle incident met both tests. As then-Mayor Sam Liccardo said immediately after the Oct. 5 incident, part of which was caught on video, “We cannot have a life-critical emergency rescue apparatus relegated to a frat party bus.”
Mayor Matt Mahan understands this. He lauded the ruling, which gives the city 30 days to release the records. “The public will now be able to see key details of the investigation. … San Jose won’t tolerate deviation from the high standards the vast majority of our workforce upholds every day.”
But what about the rest of the City Council? And what about the city attorney, who takes direction from the council majority? Their actions raise questions about whether disclosure decisions are driven by political fealty to the city’s powerful labor unions rather than the substance of the law.
In cringeworthy arguments before the court, Deputy City Attorney Elisa Tolentino claimed that misbehavior here was not substantial enough to merit disclosure. “The entire incident … spanned a total of only 20 minutes,” the city argued.
Only 20 minutes? In what universe is it OK to take a taxpayer-financed firetruck, which should be always available for emergency response, for a joyride?
The argument suggests a mindset that fire department personnel and apparatus are part of a private fiefdom. It ignores that the public pays firefighters’ salaries, owns the equipment and is entitled to full disclosure when the public trust has been violated.
As Liccardo said last fall, “If the investigation concludes that this video is as bad as it looks, then heads must roll.” The investigation is now complete. But so far, the public has only been provided selective snippets about what happened.
In a public memo, Fire Chief Robert Sapien said that fire crews were dropping off an unauthorized male passenger who worked at the Pink Poodle when the bikini-clad woman asked the crew for a ride-along.
The firetruck drove around the club for approximately four minutes and then returned the woman to the Pink Poodle. The firetruck then drove to AJ’s, a bikini bar about two miles away and stayed there for several minutes before returning to the fire station.
The account raises as many questions as it answers: Who was the unauthorized male passenger? Why was he given a ride in a firetruck? Who authorized the trip? Why was the firetruck then driven to AJ’s?
Only after the city was sued for its secrecy did it disclose that an unnamed fire captain had been demoted for violating policy on the use of city and personal vehicles, the city’s code of ethics and fire department rules and regulations.
But what about the others? As Judge Kuhnle noted in his ruling, “nowhere is there an explanation of why members of the crew were not disciplined in the same way as the fire captain.”
It’s yet another question that deserves an answer — another reason why documents from the case must be released.
The City Council can appeal the court ruling, in which case it needs to be held accountable for a culture of secrecy and reckless expenditure of taxpayer dollars on legal expenses. Or it can respect state law and the California Constitution’s clear directive for transparency.
—The Editorial Board, Bay Area News Group
