 |
|
They knew the truth, but they didn’t ask.
By Fire Chief Paul Gilmore
The case against the now retired fire chief of the Donaldsonville Fire Department, Kirk P. Landry has
been a travesty from its inception. The chief’s accusers, DFD captain James McDonald and former
president of the West Ascension Volunteers Mike Sullivan have a questionable background and
obvious personal motives which were publicly displayed.
McDonald has a long employment history of being a chronic malcontent. This is evidenced by multiple
complaints to the city council and civil service board. He openly professed his dislike for chief Landry
and that he should be fire chief. His open hatred for chief Landry exploded and forced the chief to finally
take disciplinary action and suspend McDonald. Mike Sullivan was motivated to destroy chief Landry
reputation when the chief pushed for accountability for public funds (est.- $34000) which Sullivan’s
disbanded organization was given. Sullivan’s continuous slander of the chief was converted to
vengeance when the chief had him removed for cause from the fire station by Ascension Sheriff’s
Office. It got so bad chief Landry had to file for a restraining order against Sullivan.
McDonald, who had complete unrestricted access to fire department records compiled selective
records and he along with Sullivan, presented this as evidence to La. State Police that chief Landry
somehow manipulated the fire departments insurance rating.
La State Police working to verify the accuser’s slanted evidence confiscated all the fire departments
records and arrested chief Landry. It is doubtful that La. State Police insurance fraud division has the
capability to properly evaluate fire department records. This division of La. State Police does not
understand or has never been trained nor have they ever seen accusations against a fire chief for
insurance fraud. All evidence and records were given to the D.A. 25th judicial district. Neither the D.A.
nor La. State Police ever asked the Property Insurance of Louisiana PIAL field representative if the
information presented to him was verified. The most knowledgeable person in this case was ignored!
The D.A.’s prosecutor also unable to understand how fire departments are assessed for fire insurance
rate determination, presented selective and incomplete evidence to a Grand Jury along with unrelated
and undocumented accusations of breech of “public safety” by the chief . It is understandable that a
Grand Jury with no knowledge of the laws or understanding would vote to indict!
The indictment for perjury, insurance fraud, and malfeasance while in office was brought on chief Landry
for allegedly providing false information to Property Insurance Association of Louisiana, PIAL, that
caused a lower fire insurance rate to be applied.
In fact the only false information given was information omitted and skewed by the accusers, then
presented to La. State Police
It is important to understand that all information provided to PIAL by fire chiefs is subject to verification
by PIAL field representatives. All information submitted by chief Landry was verified by the PIAL field
representative. Using their internal criteria he inspected all documents and equipment necessary to
confirm the information provided by chief Landry as valid. Evidentiary documentation exists to
corroborate this fact. PIAL after a thorough three day audit determined the fire department’s capabilities
and assigns a fire rate classification. It is very important to understand that PIAL’s audit criteria and their
800 + page field audit guide are not made available to fire chiefs or La State Police or D.A.’s or Grand
Juries. PIAL does not explain its information request forms. Fire chiefs are expected to complete the
information request to the best of their interpretation and without any criteria. PIAL uses information
supplied by fire chiefs, not as a determining factor for issuing ratings, but as an audit starting point, the
chief does not determine the rating! PIAL determines the rating.
To reiterate; PIAL verifies information supplied by fire chiefs. It is their protocol to do so it is their
practice to do so. PIAL typically finds discrepancies in information supplied by fire chiefs. Never in the
past has PIAL determined when discrepancies are found that insurance fraud was perpetrated by a fire
chief.
In chief Landry’s case the auditor Dug Hendry, knew that not all engines or personal dispatched made it
to the fire scene. Apparatus and personnel were canceled in most of the calls reviewed. Doug was
aware of some reports that showed apparatus on scene fewer than apparatus dispatched. Chief Landry
did not make any effort to conceal that fact. All concerned need to understand that the difference
between apparatus and personnel dispatched and in route is usually different from apparatus and
personnel on scene. This is irrelevant to the PIAL field representative as evidenced by his hand written
notes on the reports. These reports differ for the simple reason that all but 3 three of the 27 reports are
for calls that were terminated before additional apparatus or personnel arrived on scene.
When studied in its entirety chief Landry was completely truthful! Supporting documents exist that show
unequivocally that the fire chief supplied correct information.
Another major point; Fire records and fire department response records are not designed for PIAL uses.
They are in fact used in by state Fire Marshal and National Incident Fire Reporting System NIFERS. These
records must be amended to suit PIAL. It is a chiefs responsibility to present or insure that these reports
are in a format that PIAL can understand. A change made by a fire chief to NIFERS reports to reflect
information needed by PIAL is common practice. The assumption that fraud was perpetrated simply
because reports are updated to serve a different purpose is ludicrous!
The perjury charge hinges on technical definition of the term. But you can be assured that neither chief
Landry nor the Notary know that a deposition was taking place when he notarized the chief’s signature.
The insurance fraud hinges on the assumption that someone was defrauded of something. For damn
sure chief Landry gained nothing! As far as insurance companies loosing because of misapplied rates,
these facts apply:
DFD response records
Property Value Affected $ 3.4 million
Property Value Loss $ 207, 000
Property Value Saved $ 3.2 million
Property fire insurance premiums collected approximately. $2.2 million
Over 90% profit is plenty for any insurance company!
These facts alone demonstrate without doubt that the DFD received the proper insurance rating!
The effects of this prosecution are far reaching and already have had its impact on the fire service. The
City of Donaldsonville lost one of the most knowledgeable fire chiefs in the state. The city fire
department is in turmoil. It’s doubtful that the new chief will pursue a good rating. It’s too risky. The city
lost a grant $500,000 for a new station. Chief Landry was the champion for the grant.
Fire chiefs are still unclear about the criteria and requirements for PIAL audits. They have become more
reluctant to put efforts toward good ratings.
Property owner’s surely loose due to increase in fire insurance rates.
Prosecutors will be seen as villains.
After all Chief Landry did exactly what all fire chiefs do when its time for a PIAL audit; they use the limited
criteria given by PIAL to supply their best information in a format they think is correct to display their fire
departments capabilities in the best possible light. This is now a crime?
If chief Landry committed a crime then the state should order more hand cuffs, because, every fire chief
in the state should be investigated.
Two vengeful conspirators in an effort to reveal that the fire chief harbored a snake displayed an
elephant’s trunk to La. State Police. They being blind due to lack of knowledge felt the elephant’s trunk
and agreed it was a snake. State Police with the zeal of having found a new type of snake convinced the
D.A. not only was a snake present but it was big and nasty. The DA being satisfied that his reputation as a
snake killer would grow took the word of La. State Police and without further investigation prosecuted
the fire chief for having such a poisonous animal, which he insisted was harmful to the public.
The chief knew that the elephant carried the load of public safety and it was his duty to display this
animal in its best light. The DA didn’t ask him what kind of animal he kept.
The assistant chief knew the truth. The DA didn’t ask him.
The inspector knew what the chief had and verified it. The DA didn’t ask him.
The consultant knew. The DA didn’t ask him.
The firemen knew but, again, the DA didn’t get to them or ask.
The city council was told many times by the chief what he kept and why they needed it. They fell deaf and
dumb when the accusations were made by the DA.
You can contact Paul Gilmore at: pegilmore@charter.net
Back to CB Relations Home Page...