This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
The views expressed by the Battalion News writers do NOT necessarily reflect those of the Firemen’s Relief Association


companies From Battalion one hanDleD a Fire that Broke out march 23, 2012, at 800 n. Bunker hill ave. in the chinatown area.


photo By Juan Guerra, epn – JuanGuerra.smuGmuG.com


it was either very colD in the Battalion one oFFice or chieF GiBson Just DiDn’t want to leave FinGer prints when he was ForceD to choke out his e.i.t. – aGain!


Greetings once again from the sinners and the saints of the Second Battalion.


The first order of business is to con-


gratulate A/O Matt Laurin and the lovely Dusty on their new tax deduction . . . Chloe. Here’s hoping that she looks like her mother and sleeps like her father. Still on the subject of new additions


to our beloved battalion, Battalion Chief Rudy Hill will now lead the brave on the ‘B’ shift. And yes, we will start off liking you, you’ll have to do something to change that. Not much has happened this past


month in our beloved battalion, which had me worried for a minute or two. But as luck would have it, the local news media became awash with stories about our upper, upper, UPPER management. For those of you enjoying retire- ment in an exotic locale, I’m speaking of the


“misstated response times” initially reported in the March 10th edition of the L.A. Times. It turns out that there was a bit of inaccuracy in the data used to justify the reduction in both personnel and equipment in the last round of budget cuts. Well . . . all of the budget cuts ac- tually. Several stories and interviews with the Fire Chief have followed in which the cause of the discrepancies have been explained. We can choose between a) misstatement of the facts, b) a flawed formula, c) problems with the com- puter model or d) all of the above. The story is getting so much coverage that even the Mayor is pretending to be interested in public safety. Fortunately the honesty and integrity of our leadership is not in question. This embarrassment is brought to


us by the same people who hand delivered the official/unofficial “Officer’s Code of Conduct While on Duty” to the Medal of Valor recipient


who regularly defends the rights of those be- ing brought before the Professional Standards Division. As a brief review the first line of the dubiously un-authored document states: “As an officer of the LAFD, you are responsible for the enforcement of discipline and it is your duty to set especially good examples to mea- sure up to the high standards of Department re- quirements.” Apparently the higher up the food chain you go a lie becomes a misstatement of the facts, which allows those of high rank to “measure up to high standards of Department requirements.” Now, according to the Uniform Disciplinary Guidelines I can receive five days off without pay for putting a cartoon, any car- toon, on the refrigerator. So what’s the penalty for presenting false and/or misleading informa- tion to elected officials making decisions that affect the health and well being of this Depart- ment and the citizens we serve? And how much


May 2012 • 11


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64