News


Deputy fire chief sues city of Palo Alto

Catherine Capriles was suspended for three days for allegedly sending fire engine to Mountain View

Catherine Capriles, Palo Alto's deputy fire chief, is suing the city for an unspecified amount of money and seeks a writ of mandate after being suspended for three days in September 2016 by the department for alleged misconduct, according to documents filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court.

The dispute stems from a 2015 incident during which Capriles is alleged to have used a fire engine and crew for personal purposes to check out safety concerns in her Mountain View neighborhood. She allegedly bypassed the battalion chief and went directly to a captain to order the engine and crew to The Crossings, where she lives, according to document filed with the court.

Fire Chief Eric Nickel issued a Notice of Intent of Disciplinary Action against Capriles on Sept. 19, 2016, after a neighbor filed a complaint with the department in March of that year.

The neighbor, Paul Simoes de Carvalho, alleged that Capriles had committed misconduct as president of the homeowners association by encouraging the Mountain View Fire Department to review the neighborhood's red curbs and parking signage. He also alleged that she abused her position as Palo Alto deputy chief by having the Palo Alto fire truck drive through The Crossings, even though the development is in Mountain View.

Nickel's disciplinary notice alleged that Capriles committed three violations of the City of Palo Alto Merit Rules and should be suspended for three days.

Though Capriles said the crew was to assess fire-equipment access, Nickel concluded it was for her personal benefit in a neighborhood dispute. His notice concluded she also failed to tell the fire chief that she planned on contacting officials of a neighboring community.

Capriles filed an appeal, which was heard before Administrative Law Judge Michael A. Scarlett on March 1. Scarlett reversed the suspension on April 12 in a written ruling and directed the department to issue a written letter of reprimand to Capriles instead. He ordered the city to reimburse Capriles $2,582 in lost wages.

But City Manager James Keene on May 2 issued a "fact-finding result" upholding the original suspension. Capriles maintains in her lawsuit that Keene's decision was not supported by evidence and is "a prejudicial abuse of discretion," according to the lawsuit.

According to documents related to the administrative hearing, Nickel alleged Capriles' conduct breached city and fire department ethics and operational policies and placed herself, the city and others at risk, which constituted misconduct and a misuse of her leadership position.

She allegedly put the captain in a difficult position given that she is the second highest-ranking officer in the department. The battalion chiefs were unaware that the engine was out of town, and she claimed that the crew and engine were conducting pre-planning activities for fire safety, of which, Nickel concluded, there was not evidence.

(Pre-planning safety inspections can include evaluating red curb markings and parking restrictions.)

An independent investigator, Kristianne Seargeant, was hired to look into de Carvalho's complaint.

Capriles told Seargeant that she did not personally know de Carvalho but that he was a past president of the homeowners association. While president, he had some curbs in the neighborhood painted red, which resulted in a significant loss in parking. When Capriles became the association president, she asked the Mountain View Fire Department to review the curb designations to provide safe fire lanes and address inadequate parking.

Seargeant concluded in a July 26, 2016, report that Capriles had not abused her authority, had not misused department equipment and had not committed an abuse of work time, even though the action went outside of her immediately assigned responsibilities and bypassed the chain of command.

Seargeant also concluded that Capriles did not make any effort to leverage her position as deputy chief to effect any action with Mountain View fire and did not abuse her authority.

The controversy centered around emails Capriles had sent to the Mountain View fire marshal: In an Oct. 15, 2015, email she introduced herself as the Palo Alto fire deputy chief and requested assistance with the homeowners association concerns regarding appropriate access for fire engines in The Crossings. In an email on Oct. 27, 2015, however, she indicated that she had a Palo Alto fire engine drive through to determine emergency access, street widths and parking spaces.

The investigator concluded that Capriles had referenced her position as deputy chief in the first email solely within the context of an introduction, which was not repeated in the email while requesting assistance. Mountain View Fire Marshal Jaymae Wentker also told the investigator that Capriles had not requested any special treatment from him or anyone else at the department.

The Fire Department ultimately rejected Capriles' request to modify the fire lanes, which Seargeant concluded further indicated that she did not receive special treatment.

Nickel had also told the investigator that because of the mutual-aid agreement between the two departments -- which requires the closest engine to respond to a fire call -- the engine Capriles sent to The Crossings, Engine 65, would likely respond to any emergency there. Seargeant also found that it was "commonplace for fire engine crews to drive through their response areas to familiarize themselves with the various buildings they may encounter in an emergency."

But she noted that while it is reasonable for the engine to pre-plan a safety review, the Palo Alto fire department has no authority to take any action regarding the fire code or fire lane modifications in Mountain View.

Seargeant found that two battalion chiefs both believed sending the Palo Alto engine for pre-planning purposes is an appropriate use of department equipment. The investigator concluded, therefore, that Capriles had not misused the equipment, according to documents from the administrative hearing.

She also did not find evidence that Capriles violated department policy regarding using work time for personal business. Using her computer to send the emails fell within the department's allowance for "incidental and occasional personal use."

Seargeant did find that Capriles had bypassed the chain of command by skipping the battalion chief, who directly supervises the captain.

Administrative Law Judge Scarlett agreed with the investigator's conclusions but concluded that although Capriles had gone outside the chain of command, she did not commit an inexcusable neglect of her duties, as Nickel had alleged. As deputy chief, Capriles clearly supervises staff, including prioritizing and assigning work, Scarlett noted.

"More importantly, because the department did not have a formal pre-planning program ... it could not be established that the appellant failed to abide by her deputy chief's job duties," the judge concluded.

Scarlett noted that Capriles had "an otherwise stellar 22-year employment record with the department," and he determined the three-day suspension was excessive. A letter of reprimand was a more suitable level of discipline, he ordered.

Capriles is asking the court to set aside the suspension decision and to issue a new fact-finding hearing result consistent with the administrative law decision, to issue her a written reprimand instead of suspension, to reimburse her lost pay and for the city to pay any additional court costs and attorney's fees.

---

Follow the Palo Alto Weekly/Palo Alto Online on Twitter @PaloAltoWeekly and Facebook for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

What is community worth to you?
Support local journalism.

Comments

8 people like this
Posted by Pawned
a resident of another community
on Oct 13, 2017 at 2:40 pm

The much bigger mistake here was not seeing Paul de Carvalho's complaint for what it certainly looks like, and treating it as such. Palo Alto really should be a little more carful to avoid getting sucked into, and in my opinion, getting used to intimidate folks in silly HOA disputes. What a complete waste. [Portion removed.] A little due diligence goes a long long way.


1 person likes this
Posted by Public Records
a resident of Crescent Park
on Oct 13, 2017 at 3:24 pm

[Post removed.]


50 people like this
Posted by Crossings Resident
a resident of Mountain View
on Oct 13, 2017 at 4:38 pm

If the complaint bore no merit, I'm guessing action would not have been taken by the City Manager and Fire Chief. At this point it appears to be just hair splitting. The reprimand will stick regardless, but an awful lot of taxpayer money has already been blown on an independent investigator with piles more to be spent as the lawsuit goes forward.

What appears to have happened here is that a senior fire official pulled a fully-staffed engine and crew off station to settle a personal beef and without the chain of command's knowledge. How were response times jeopardized in the event of an emergency? How many lives would have been put in danger? It's easy to hush these concerns after the fact.

Ironically, the Crossings under Capriles' tenure has already being summoned to two Administrative Hearings (June 21 and August 16, 2017) by the City of Mountain View and fined for ignoring compliance orders issued by the Mountain View Fire Marshall and for "failure to comply with City Codes, particularly regarding the health and safety of those who live at and visit the development and the health and safety of firefighters who must respond at that location." Records of both hearings can be obtained using the California Public Record Act. One wonders how a Deputy Fire Chief allows such a state of affairs to develop even with the inappropriate use of a Palo Alto engine a year earlier to supposedly set things right. However, given the supportive statements quoted above by the two Palo Alto Battalion Chiefs and the Mountain View Fire Marshall, it would appear that maybe what is more at work here is a closing of ranks to support one of their own regardless of what really went on.

Lastly, Capriles' belief that the red curbs and parking was reduced by a previous board without coordination and requests for assistance from the City of Mountain View is simply not true. But I guess the accusations of poor judgement under review in this case has to be deflected somewhere, so why not toward the one group that isn't even quoted in the article above?


35 people like this
Posted by Joe
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 13, 2017 at 4:39 pm

From reading this article, it's hard to understand how anyone could find the way Seargeant did. A little Googling brings her background into focus:

Web Link

She is an attorney, but also a former firefighter/and Fire Capt.and Battalion Chief.

The article leaves out some crucial information, such as what did the PAFD do after he was given this "order"? Did he carry it out without objection? How did the PAFD fire chief find out about this incident? Did the trip appear in any dispatch logs? How did the people on the rig that drove through the Crossings communicate to the Dept. Chief their findings? In writing, or verbally?

In the military, if someone issues a subordinate an order the subordinate believes is illegal, then the subordinate has an obligation to carry out the order, but to generate a "Memo of Record" and file it up the chain-of-command? So, what is the process here in Palo Alto when this sort of thing occurs?

We don't want to forget the scandal in the Utilities a decade or so ago when Utility's people were moonlighting on private projects during the day. Knowing where all of the Fire Department's rigs are should a fire start in the zone that that rig should be expected to service seems like a management problem that should not be overlooked as quickly as Ms. Seargeant has done.

Will the city manager's office cave in, or will this case go to court and have a more public airing of the issues than we have seen so far?


53 people like this
Posted by Phillip
a resident of Mountain View
on Oct 13, 2017 at 4:54 pm

This story does not add up. You filed a lawsuit because you loss JUST 3 days of pay because you didn't follow the proper procedures. But... you didn't lose your job or rank in the fire department. Something much bigger is happening here.


9 people like this
Posted by Midtown Mama
a resident of El Carmelo School
on Oct 13, 2017 at 5:11 pm

"already been blown on an independent investigator with piles more to be spent as the lawsuit goes forward."

And yet if the original [portion removed] neighbor simply spoke to Capriles re: concerns and didn't escalate the issue, none of the taxpayers would have had to shoulder ANY costs. Makes sense, right?


9 people like this
Posted by Public Records
a resident of Crescent Park
on Oct 13, 2017 at 5:36 pm

@Joe:

Did you miss this in the article?
“Seargeant found that two battalion chiefs both believed sending the Palo Alto engine for pre-planning purposes such as inspecting the red curbs and signage is an appropriate use of department equipment.“

I’m sure the residents of the Crossings also appreciate some pre-planning by the engine company that will likely respond to their neighborhood.


28 people like this
Posted by Tired of this
a resident of Barron Park
on Oct 13, 2017 at 5:50 pm

I agree with Phillip. Capriles didn’t lose her job ? Kudos to the personal who actually did something [portion removed.]


3 people like this
Posted by There's more to this story
a resident of another community
on Oct 13, 2017 at 5:56 pm

Before making quick judgements....

There is definitely a lot more than meets the eye in this case. For more on the damaging behavior of the person who initiated this costly and unnecessary chain of events, please read this article from the Mountain View Voice: Web Link

Note that this "complaint" was filed not long after a large group of residents reclaimed their formerly peaceful community.


34 people like this
Posted by Concerned
a resident of Mountain View
on Oct 13, 2017 at 6:46 pm

Makes sense now that the City of Mountain View was out recently in the Crossings measuring the curbs that were red, but painted grey by Capriles' HOA Board. Appears that parking trumps emergency vehicle access. Ironic for a fire official.


7 people like this
Posted by steve
a resident of Barron Park
on Oct 13, 2017 at 6:56 pm

With the border drop system, Palo Alto is responsible and responds first to the entire north end of Mountain View. Palo Alto should have a say for the area they are in charge of.


42 people like this
Posted by PA tax payer
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Oct 13, 2017 at 7:28 pm

I wonder how much pre-planning Capriles conducted in Palo Alto where she is supposed to serve? Is there any data about that available to the public? And how much per-planning has she done in other nearby Mountain View neighborhoods ? If that pre-planning was one of many such exercises conducted periodically in many Palo Alto and nearby Mountain View neighborhoods, then the pre-planning excuse could hold water. I may be wrong, but it does not appear to be the case based on the information in the article. Using the preplanning excuse after the fact is just dishonest. Operating those fire engines is very expensive and doesn't seem justified in the case referred to in this article. It is frustrating as a taxpayer to see a city official use City resources for their personal benefit. The fact that she bypassed the chain of command is a proof in itself that her request to use the fire engine was not justified.


36 people like this
Posted by Let's be honest here
a resident of Barron Park
on Oct 13, 2017 at 7:39 pm

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


37 people like this
Posted by Annoyed
a resident of Crescent Park
on Oct 13, 2017 at 7:42 pm

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


45 people like this
Posted by Don't shoot the messenger
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Oct 13, 2017 at 7:51 pm

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


39 people like this
Posted by Sylvia
a resident of Mountain View
on Oct 13, 2017 at 8:53 pm

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


44 people like this
Posted by Crossings Resident
a resident of Mountain View
on Oct 13, 2017 at 11:07 pm

What many of the comments above in support of Capriles fail to realize is that they may be unintentionally validating City Manager Keene's and Chief Nickel's position regarding some potentially serious lapses in leadership and ethical issues within the Palo Alto Fire Department and thereby damaging further her position.

@Midtown Mama

Are you implying that taxpayers, or anybody for that matter, should not report instances of fraud, waste and abuse or unethical activity by public employees? Are you really suggesting they should first reach out to the public employee and reason with them first? It's quite a concept you are proposing.

@Public Records

In my many years living in the Crossings, Mountain View Fire Department vehicles respond to incidents, as do the Mountain View Police. Mutual aid means that Palo Alto fire vehicles would only respond when needed or requested due to a lack of availability of Mountain View fire services and not that a Palo Alto engine can be pulled off station on a whim to settle a score.

By chance could the two battalion chiefs that sided with Capriles perhaps also be under her direct supervision? Maybe they had no choice given how things appear to run in Palo Alto. It does seem odd, however, that they appeared to have had no problem with their being kept in the dark regarding the status of the particular engine that was pulled off station. Isn't it their main job to know where their personnel and equipment are at all times and to hold themselves accountable for their readiness? One is led to ask if they even know where they are right now I suppose.

@There's more to this story.

There may be more to the story, but not what is implied with your link to the Mountain View Voice article on the now defunct Crossings ice cream shop. It seems like a deliberate diversion designed to confuse and muddle things. Many statements made in the article are pure fiction and were spoon fed to the journalist who wrote it by a small group who orchestrated and brought the Crossings to the current mess Deputy Chief Capriles finds herself in. In fact some members of that small group are Capriles' fellow Board members!

What the poorly researched article termed "zealous enforcement" was actually related to insurance requirements and spiraling costs due to miss-management and a failure keep the fire lanes clear, trees cut back, and pool protected from unnecessary liabilities. Most level-headed homeowners know exactly what I'm taking about. Regardless, the City of Mountain now has assumed full authority for straightening out the mess created by Capriles' Board's decision to personally and zealously paint over red curbs to create more illusory parking spaces and against the direct and explicit advice of the Mountain View Fire Department. I hope it was worth it.

Regarding the ice cream shop, it pushed every limit on hours and activities because they could not generate a profit. The shop still went out of business at both the Crossings location and the one in San Jose. It appears to have been a bad business model and nothing more. Their alleged woes were bought hook, line and sinker by Capriles' Board. Again, I hope it was worth it.

In an ironic twist Capriles' fellow Crossings Board member and main antagonist in the linked article now finds his rowhouse board faced with difficulty finding insurance after being dropped last year by the HOA's previous insurer. They are now faced with much higher premiums and a $10,000 deductible on each claim. Years of not following any sort of rules or procedures or putting up with enforcement or resisting it outright has hit them squarely in the pocket books. Again, I hope it was worth it.

Lastly, and not mentioned in your linked article, is that the previous Crossings Board won in Small Claims Court and that a statute of limitations clause and Board attorney-client privilege gave the previous Board full powers to initiate a lawsuit in Superior Court. In spite of this Capriles' Board dismissed the lawsuit that was underway to reclaim over $1 million in projected lose despite the HOA having prevailed in all demurs and motions to dismiss. Ironically, Capriles' Board now finds themselves right back in court trying to recover the very same funds the lawsuit they abruptly dismissed sought to recover.

Your link to the article nonetheless shows how perhaps Deputy Fire Chief Capriles might have been set up and played by her fellow Board Members to make some very poor decisions and judgments based on the poorly written and researched article you have provided the link to.


6 people like this
Posted by Midtown Mama
a resident of El Carmelo School
on Oct 14, 2017 at 8:35 am

[Post removed.]


39 people like this
Posted by Crossings Resident
a resident of Mountain View
on Oct 14, 2017 at 9:42 am

@Midtown Mama

Deputy Chief Capriles is a public official. This is about holding government accountable, a concept that has been trending all over the news. Palo Alto Online is practicing good journalism and a service to the community for bringing these issues to light. While I respect your opinion perhaps you should direct your innuendos and claims of pot-stirring toward the author of this news story or the editor.

@Phillip

You are correct. There appears to be much more to this story than meets the eye.

The article states "Mountain View Fire Marshal Jaymae Wentker also told the investigator that Capriles had not requested any special treatment from him or anyone else at the department."

If so, then why did MVPD's Engine 53 never log its visit to the Crossings to meet with Deputy Chief Capriles? If there was advanced official coordination, why was the request not logged as such? As with the Palo Alto Engine 65, was this yet another joy ride and personal favor? And why did the Mountain View Fire Marshall allow Capriles, as Board President, to go six months beyond the compliance date of a compliance order regarding violations that were determined to threaten public and firefighter safety? It makes no sense based on both their positions as senior public safety officials. Are such allowances given to all property owners, or just those with professional ties to the respective fire departments?

The article also states, regarding the Mountain View Fire Department, that "The fire department ultimately rejected Capriles's request to modify the fire lanes." What it doesn't state is that Capriles's request was rejected only after a group of concerned Crossings residents protested the preferential treatment that Capriles was receiving from the Mountain View Fire Marshall who had previously shrugged off requests for assistance and a site visit by the previous Crossings Board with no ties to the firefighting community. The previous board previously requested a site visit by a Mountain View engine to assess the fire lanes and the request was not granted. An argument for preferential treatment could certainly be made.

And how poor a job and how many requests for resolution have the Mountain View Police and the Mountain View City Manager ignored to solve illegal parking issues in the Crossings of Mountain View that affect public safety and access? Are they also protecting their neighboring agencies?

Only now, with the release of this story are many "senior officials" scrambling for explanations and justifications. Fortunately only this past month has the City of Mountain View finally stepped in and hired an engineering firm to survey and solve traffic and public safety problems in the Crossings. In the end, I certainly hope this wasn't a case of senior public officials protecting one another at the expense of public safety and objectively doing the jobs they are paid very high salaries to do.

Well done Palo Alto Online!


35 people like this
Posted by Crossings Resident
a resident of Mountain View
on Oct 14, 2017 at 10:06 am

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


21 people like this
Posted by Joe
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 14, 2017 at 12:18 pm

@Public-Records:

Yes, I saw what Seargeant wrote--which caused me to write what I wrote.

From reading the comments of others, there is no reason for me to say anymore. It's clear that the Dep. Chief's suspension is in order, and perhaps even a review of her performance in her current job. I would hate to see her wearing the Chief's hat in the future.


32 people like this
Posted by Another Lawsuit
a resident of Mountain View
on Oct 14, 2017 at 2:04 pm

[Post removed.]


4 people like this
Posted by Pawned
a resident of another community
on Oct 14, 2017 at 5:15 pm

An excellent suggestion "Crossings Resident". I hope the Palo Alto Online does do a story about all the many complaints that have been filed by the ousted members of the de Carvalho board with the various local city organizations, as well as local employers and non-profits. I'd start by contacting the current Crossings board and asking for all the email correspondence they've received. It should all be made public.


5 people like this
Posted by Public Records
a resident of Crescent Park
on Oct 14, 2017 at 6:19 pm

@Another Lawsuit and @Joe

I’d imagine there are a lot of negative feelings towards a woman commanding officer in such a male-dominated field of fire fighters. Trivial things like this vindictive complaint from de Carvalho would be latched onto immediately just to make sure she never makes Chief. Guys got to reinforce that glass ceiling at every chance.

I recall talking to a guy once who interviewed for PAFD, and he totally hated on some black woman who used to be on the command staff. It was really disgusting. It is quite a bad culture you’ve got there.


5 people like this
Posted by Smart
a resident of Mountain View
on Oct 15, 2017 at 5:22 am

[Post removed.]


1 person likes this
Posted by Concerned
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Oct 15, 2017 at 9:25 am

It is no secret that the current Palo Alto City Manager wants to dismantle our fire department. His comments and actions are indicative of his intentions. His grandiose vision of selling off all city services and assets while maintaining a power management force to regulate the contractors brought in to perform city services is all but obvious. All one needs to look at is how all city departments are currently employing an extraordinary amount of independent contractors and/or "advisors".Many of these contractors are receiving salaries far exceeding salaries of the same jobs held by employees hired on as regular city employees holding the same department positions.


33 people like this
Posted by A Pedestrian
a resident of Green Acres
on Oct 15, 2017 at 9:29 am

The Deputy Fire Chief misused taxpayer property and staff. She put Palo Alto residents at risk by tying up a fire engine with a stunt designed to bully and intimidate her community. This is inexcusable. In private industry, she would be fired. As a taxpayer, I am outraged.


9 people like this
Posted by Pat Burt
a resident of Community Center
on Oct 15, 2017 at 10:58 am

Pat Burt is a registered user.

Over the past eight years the city has moved to outsource several city services. In light of pension and other retiree liabilities that is a necessary and prudent direction, although it must be administered with well designed performance standards and accountability which has not always been the case.
However, there is no intention at all to dismantle our fire department. We do have an important long term question of whether providing fire services to Stanford is in our interest given retiree liabilities combined with Stanford's position that they are actually overpaying for those services.


22 people like this
Posted by Got caught
a resident of Crescent Park
on Oct 15, 2017 at 11:08 am

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


5 people like this
Posted by Retired Chief
a resident of another community
on Oct 15, 2017 at 4:39 pm

@Pat Burt
I believe you wanted to post your comments in the employee pension story and not here. That said, if there is any doubt that Stanford is not paying their fair share of salaries, medical and pension costs for staffing a fire station on the university, then the contract should be terminated. Palo Alto would be top heavy with firefighters for awhile, but as some retired in the next few years, staffing would be back to normal. Also, no extra costs for hiring and training new firefighters in the next few years too.


5 people like this
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of College Terrace
on Oct 15, 2017 at 5:38 pm

If you’re mad about a fire engine being out of position for a few minutes, look closer at next years service model. 3 fire engines will also be staffing ambulances and be completely unavailable many times per day. Check out the pulse point app on iOS. Look for how many times there are 2-3 simultaneous calls for medical emergencies.


5 people like this
Posted by I'm ok with it
a resident of another community
on Oct 15, 2017 at 7:36 pm

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


7 people like this
Posted by Problem Solved
a resident of Mountain View
on Oct 16, 2017 at 8:11 am

Wow! I only my home in the Crossings was part of Palo Alto! Just imagine how much more it would be worth! And my kids could go to Palo Alto schools. Please Palo Alto, adopt us all the way. At the very least, the fire chief could then drive her fire trucks through her/our neighborhood whenever she liked! It's a win-win solution.


Like this comment
Posted by Concerned
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Oct 16, 2017 at 1:47 pm

@Pat Burt
Your comments are spoken like a true politician. Labeling city employees as "liabilities" instead of "valued team" employees is truly degrading. Obviously both yourself and the current city manager must have studied under similiar outdated management methods and techniques. Independent contract employees are costing our city far too much too justify savings of any kind. As far as the current city manager attempts to reduce and/or dismantle our fire department, well, his current and past comments would suggest otherwise.


6 people like this
Posted by Pat Burt
a resident of Community Center
on Oct 16, 2017 at 2:15 pm

Pat Burt is a registered user.

@Concerned
My reference was to the financial liabilities the city has incurred for current and future retired employees. I did not refer to those employees as liabilities. Our staff is overwhelmingly made up of people committed to serving the community, but the retiree pension and medical obligations of Palo Alto and other cities represent unsustainable obligations.
Retired Chief is correct that this discussion is more appropriate on another thread, but I felt obligated to correct your false claim that there is any plan or intent to dismantle our fire department. That is patently untrue.


2 people like this
Posted by Retired and Gald
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 16, 2017 at 7:46 pm

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

All your news. All in one place. Every day.

Su Hong Palo Alto's last day of business will be Sept. 29
By Elena Kadvany | 19 comments | 6,106 views

Firing Judge Persky as a tennis coach was a big mistake
By Diana Diamond | 23 comments | 1,971 views

Premarital, Women Over 50 Do Get Married
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,925 views

Electric Buses: A case study
By Sherry Listgarten | 2 comments | 1,766 views

Natural Wines?
By Laura Stec | 2 comments | 1,709 views

 

Register now!

On Friday, October 11, join us at the Palo Alto Baylands for a 5K walk, 5K run, 10K run or half marathon! All proceeds benefit local nonprofits serving children and families.

More Info