The city of Tucson (Ariz.) has upheld the firing of a 911 dispatcher for disclosing confidential information about the communications center, even while there are on-going warnings from dispatchers that a new telephone system has been dropping 911 and other calls, putting the public in danger. Mike LaFond went public with his criticism of the new telephone system installed May 25th, and then was fired in June. His allegations included examples of dropped calls, missing ANI/ALI information and delayed responses. In one case, he allegedly obtained information from computer-aided dispatch (CAD) records about a fatal EMS incident as an example of the problems. According to city officials, a 10 year-old girl suffered an asthma attack, a series of technical and human errors sent EMS units to the wrong address, and there was a delay in reaching the girl. They say LaFond was not authorized to access historical information from CAD, only current information. On Monday several other dispatchers went public with their criticism of the 911 telephone system at a press conference hosted by city council member Steve Kozachik. The dispatchers aid they had been told by supervisors not to talk to outsiders about the 911 system. Kozachik said that was in conflict with the dispatchers’ employee right. The dispatchers said they noticed problems during their training period, but supervisors never asked for their input or feedback, The old system was disconnected two weeks after the switch-over, so the the 911 operation had to push forward with the new, glitchy system. On Tuesday the city’s General Services Administration (GSA) upheld LaFond’s firing. On the same day, city officials announced that administration of the 911 center was being transferred from the GSA to the fire department, and claimed it was a long-planned change. Read a series of stories about the situation: dispatchers speak out, fire department takes over 911 center, city council reviews 911 problems, city council OKs more dispatchers.
4 comments… add one
I am the Emergency 911 Operator who was fired.
There are many minor factual errors in this article, so I do not want to leave the wrong impression.
I was fired because management feared that I would make the information public, although I did not do so. The information would have been used and later was used as supporting documentation to compile a report to supervision on a dangerous condition in our procedures.
There was no Healthcare-related Patient Information in the records that I accessed, although there could have been. The Communications Operations Section was part of the General Services Department, which was not a Hippa covered entity; although the Tucson Fire Department whom we serve is a covered entity.
My termination was upheld solely on the idea that I exceeded my job description by researching the problem and that I had not been given specific permission to access the records I was using as documentation of the problem. There was no specific rule and no order at the time that I accessed the records preventing me from doing so. The only rules cited in the decision to uphold the discharge was a general training on Hippa and the Information Security Policy of the City of Tucson (Administrative Directive 1.08-3) which says that employees should not access information not needed for their “job assignment.”
Again, there was no release of HPI nor even the information contained in the records except to management. My intention, until I was investigated for termination was to keep the information within the Communications Division and the memo was addressed to the Administrator. These were issues already addressed with immediate supervision before and after the implementation of the new system. So I was taking the next step in my chain of command.
I did relay other information to City of Tucson Council members who were being misinformed by management, and I did discuss the problems I was addressing with management to council members, who are the elected officials overseeing all City of Tucson government functions. My reports and the lack of action on these problems revealed mismanagement that rose to the level of wrongful conduct under the Administrative Directive 2.02-4, Reporting Wrongful Conduct.
The Civil Service Commission did not agree.
Thanks for the clarifications. Since my Web site readers are generally from the profession, I believe they now have excellent sense of your situation.
Sorry you got fired…where’s your union? Seems pretty thin cause.
I appreciate reading the clarification published, Michael. I can affirm what Gary says, and tell you I now have a much better understanding of the situation. It cannot have been easy! I don’t believe you all have union representation, do you? Wishing you well.
You must log in to post a comment. Log in now.