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.
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. If he’s been trolling every organization he can think of to see what will stick, imagine how that makes Palo Alto look here? Has he? Did you check? A little due diligence goes a long long way.
Dear City of Palo Alto Senior Officials,
I would like to request that City of Palo Alto senior officials investigate the possible misuse of authority and taxpayer-funded emergency equipment and personnel and conflict of interest by Deputy Fire Chief (DFC) Catherine Capriles of the Palo Alto Fire Department (PAFD).
I have attached email communication between DFC Capriles and the Mountain View Fire Department (MVFD) that substantiates my concerns as well as an email I sent to the MVFD Fire Chief on 9 February 2016 that provides background to my complaint.
I am a resident of the Crossings of Mountain View Homeowners Association (COMVHOA) in Mountain View. The attached documents suggest DFC Capriles is engaging in non-duty related activities during duty hours and utilizing her position title and authority, and the tax-payer funded resources she is in charge of as a senior public employee. DFC Capriles appears to be promoting her self –interests and political and personal agenda as the President of the Board of Directors of COMVHOA in her communications and proposal (attached) to the MVFD to radically alter the long-standing red curbs and fire lanes within the COMVHOA’s private streets.
1. In her attached email thread to MVFD Fire Marshall (FM) Jamie Wentker, DFC Capriles states and asserts her position of authority as DFC of PAFD and reminds him of the several times they have met professionally.
2. Nearly all of DFC Capriles’ attached emails appear to be written during duty hours per the date and time stamp on each email.
3. DFC Capriles’ 27 October 2015 attached email makes reference to a drive through of the private streets of the COMVHOA community by a PAFD engine crew. She indicates she will have them “drive through again” in relation to her proposal (attached), as President of the Board of Directors of COMVHOA, to alter and/or eliminate the community’s red curbs and fire lanes to create more parking. Her statements possibly indicate misuse of PAFD resources to support a non-duty related personal agenda. City of Palo Alto officials should check the operational logs of the PAFD to assess the official nature of the visit of PAFD personnel and emergency equipment to the COMVHOA community under the direction of DFC Capriles.
4. As stated in my attached 9 February 2016 email to MVFD, DFC Capriles subsequently coordinated and met with MVFD personnel and equipment (Engine 53) for a similar drive through of the COMVHOA (per the attached MVFD log) on 4 February 2015 at approximately 3PM in uniform. MVFD FM Wentker stated to me on the phone on 11 February 2016 that the request for a drive through was made by a private citizen, yet the MVFD personnel met with DFC Capriles in uniform upon arrival. To COMVHOA residents observing the operation, DFC Capriles’ involvement was as a representative of PAFD while pursing a personal agenda as President of COMV.
5. DFC Capriles’ 20 February 2016 email to MVFD FM Wentker contains defamatory and false statements against my name and character that appear to be designed to both diminish my credibility and influence the decision of MVFD. They also appear to attempt to curtail my right to free speech.
6. DFC Capriles makes generous use of the COMVHOA’s private streets to park her PAFD command vehicle. As illustrated by the attached images, her assigned vehicle has been parked on the COMVHOA community’s private streets up to 72 hours, Friday through Sunday, and from approximately 5PM to 8AM, Mondays through Thursdays, for several years now. The vehicle is nearly always parked immediately in front of her home, rather than in her driveway (which sits empty empty as shown in the attached images) or garage as the COMVHOA’s rules require of residents. At other times it is parked in front of other residents’ homes and, again, for up to 72 hours at a time. Given that the streets of COMVHOA are privately maintained and paid for by residents such as myself, and that the City of Palo Alto pays no monthly assessments to COMVHOA to pay for the upkeep of our private streets or for parking one of its official vehicles on them, it seems only just and ethical that DFC Capriles be directed to park PAFD vehicles in either her driveway or garage, in accordance with COMVHOA rules, rather than on the community’s private streets. DFC Capriles could also easily park a PAFD vehicle on any of the City of Mountain View public streets that surround the COMVHOA and that are accessible within a 150 meters walk in any direction.
While I welcome DFC Capriles’ involvement in the governing of the COMVHOA community I am deeply troubled by her approach as a senior fire department official. The most immediate and troubling issue I have noticed, in reviewing the emails and documents between DFC Capriles and the MVFD, is the total absence of discussion of the serious and documented problem the COMVHOA has been experiencing over the last few years with illegal parking, to include parking in and the blocking of fire lanes, in front of fire hydrants, and the blocking of handicap sidewalk access ramps and sidewalks. At the same time there is a problem of residents not parking in their driveways or in their garages as the COMVHOA’s rules state, but this last issue is purely a COMVHOA governance problem. Of course, all of these problems could be solved if the Board of Directors of the COMVHOA, which DFC Capriles sits on as President, would take simple and basic action to enforce federal, state, and municipal laws and the COMVHOA’s rules. However, DFC Capriles’ latest solution to the illegal parking problem has been instead to look to adjust the fire lanes and red curbs throughout the community, and by deploying PAFD emergency personnel and equipment to justify and make her case.
City officials of both Palo Alto and Mountain View should note that one of the very first actions DFC Capriles took when elected as President of the Board of Directors of COMVHOA was to cancel the towing contract with the towing company that had hitherto been patrolling the community’s streets and towing illegally parked vehicles in violation of federal, state and municipal laws. Towing proved to be an effective deterrent to illegal parking and was highly successful in bringing the COMVHOA streets into compliance with the law and thus making the streets safe again. It was also at no cost to COMVHOA. Since towing has stopped, however, illegal parking has returned day and night on the association’s streets. This has put a greater burden on COMVHOA residents and City of Mountain View police services. Currently COMVHOA residents must call the Mountain View Police Department (MVPD) when they observe illegal parking in fire lanes or in front of fire hydrants. MVPD then is tasked to send a patrol car out to ticket or tow the vehicle which puts an unnecessary strain on MVPD services. To illustrate the severity of the problem a group of COMVHOA residents has taken to task to document the situation on a daily basis with images and will soon submit a report to the City of Mountain View.
As the chief executive of the COMVHOA, DFC Capriles has the responsibility and authority to enforce the COMVHOA’s rules and to have towed illegally parked vehicles, particularly in regard to keeping fire lanes and the community’s streets clear for emergency vehicles. However, having inserted herself professionally into the COMVHOA illegally parking issue, as demonstrated here, in her role as the PAFD Deputy Fire Chief, coupled with her apparent decision to deploy PAFD emergency personnel and equipment to survey the issue, one would expect her responsibilities and authority would increase even more. Additionally, DFC Capriles has gone on the record in the past stressing the importance of the “Golden Minute” in terms of fire and paramedic emergency response times per the attached news report from 16 January 2015. When reading this news report I am admittedly left wondering how PAFD emergency response time might have been diminished the day a PAFD engine was driving through the COMVHOA community’s private streets, which is located in the City of Mountain View and falls under the jurisdiction and authority of MVFD, rather than on station and on call in Palo Alto. I am also left wondering how the “Golden Minute”, which DFC Capriles stresses, is threatened in the middle of the night when a MVFD first responder is delayed traversing the streets of COMVHOA due to, say, a vehicle parked and blocking a fire lane?
I will look forward to the City of Palo Alto’s response and resolution to the issues I have raised above. I will continue to work with the City of Mountain View to help solve the issues regarding illegal parking within COMVHOA that are in violation of the California Fire Code. I will also continue to remind the COMVHOA’s Board of Directors of their requirement to enforce the rules related to parking issues that all homeowners agreed to–to include DFC Capriles–when they purchased their homes. In terms of the illegal parking that blocks sidewalks and handicap sidewalk access ramps, as a fully and permanently disabled veteran I have filed an American with Disabilities Act complaint against the COMVHOA with the United States Department of Justice through the US Department of Housing and Urban Development which has ADA compliance jurisdiction over planned communities such as COMVHOA.
Sincerely,
Paul M. Simoes de Carvalho, Major, US Army (Retired)
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?
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:
http://www.kmtg.com/sites/default/files/profile/bio_pdf/seargeant_kristianne_0.pdf
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?
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.
“already been blown on an independent investigator with piles more to be spent as the lawsuit goes forward.”
And yet if the original pot-stirring 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?
@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.
I agree with Phillip. Capriles didn’t lose her job ? Kudos to the personal who actually did something about Capriles before she got someone killed with her poor judgment.
Seems like Capriles had too much time on her hands and the recent cuts in the department arewarranted. Too bad Capriles gives Fire Fighters and other public employees a bad name.
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: https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2015/05/29/dessert-shop-is-ground-zero-in-neighborhood-feud
Note that this “complaint” was filed not long after a large group of residents reclaimed their formerly peaceful community.
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.
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.
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.
On one hand she claims that her joy ride through her own neighborhood was totally justified and was a pre-planning activity done for the City of Palo Alto, but then she contacted the City of Mountain View regarding this same activity without disclosing it to her fire chief, claiming that it was personal communication? Really? Personal communication about an official city of Palo Alto pre-planning activity? Caprices will have to clarify whether it was city business or not. If it was, then she by passed her chain of command a second time by not disclosing her communication with Mountain View to her fire chief. Capriles’ story is totally inconsistent.
It is sad how people like Capriles give such a bad name to public employees. Many work decades to serve the public. It is really hard to stand behind them when people like Capriles are allowed to keep their jobs for abusing power and public money. I agree, someone is really protecting her but I am not sure why….
Blaming the guy who filed the complaint seems like blaming the messenger. He’s not the one who used city equipment with expensive operating costs for his own benefit, nor does he have any authority in deciding disciplinary action for that apparent abuse of power, and by passing chain of command. Blaming this guy is rather lame and trying to throw blame on someone completely powerless in this situation. Capriles is wasting tax payers’ money on legal fees for the city to defend against her lawsuit. Capriles lost $2582 in income, but the city will waste tens of thousands of dollars defending itself in this lawsuit. She made over $266000 in salary and benefits last year, she should appreciate the privilege that tax payers are paying her, swallow her pride, and take responsibility for her inappropriate actions. I hope the city recovers legal fees after it wins this ridiculous case.
If Capriles wanted to pre-fire the Mountain View complex she lives in, she should of ask the Mountain View Fire Department to do it, not Palo Alto Fire. She did not follow the chain of command. Took a fire truck out of city of Palo Alto limits for her own “personal use” because of a on going “war” with some of her neighbors. She should of been terminated.
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.
@ Crossings dude, you seem to be very invested in squabbling points. Are you said pot-stirrer?
My suggestion was for you to talk to your NEIGHBOR not “city official”.
Keep up the expensive work.
@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!
@ Midtown Mama
I personally tried to talk to Ms Capriles about how her board is purposely violating our association governing documents, which the board is supposed to enforce (it’s the law). This violation puts a group of properties at risk, of course, her own property is not part of that group, so she doesn’t care. She claimed she had an informal discussion with a self-proclaimed expert who said there was no risk. There is no record of that, nor is Ms Capriles willing to get anything in writing. She is putting the whole association at risk of legal action.
It was my first interaction with her and was surprised by her total disrespect of the law, her neglectful, irrational and totally illogical justification for breaking rules and neglecting to get proper documentation. She probably cannot get a qualified expert to put anything in writing because of the associated legal liability, but she has no problem exposing our association to those liabilities.
Her demeanor was disrespectful.
So I really don’t see how a neighbor can go to her and point out her inappropriate use of Palo Alto city ressources.
@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.
I know of another lawsuit that involved Ms. Capriles. It involved some false statements from her about a firefighter who was on a promotional list and was passed over. The firefighter sued and the court ruled with the firefighter. The firefighter was promoted and received back pay. All this is public record.
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.
@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.
@Pawned
The reason why there were so many complaints to the Crossings board is because they are breaking the law and putting Crossings residents at risk. The reason why there were complaints to the City of Mountain View is because the board showed really bad faith and no intention to respect the law. It is possible to work together as good neighbors when people who accidentally break the law rectify the situation as soon as they are made aware of it. But the Crossings board, which Capriles is the president of, arrogantly dismisses any communication from homeowners and continue to break the law, hence why Crossings resident take it
to the local authorities. The Crossings board members should be ashamed of being so disrespectful of the law and the safety of their home owners. Members of the Crossings are protecting their families and the investment in their properties.
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.
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.
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.
She got caught. Capriles doesn’t want to admit guilt and wants to act like someone else did something wrong to cover up what she did. End of story.
@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.
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.
@Anonymous
Times are changing in the fire departments. More 911 medical calls than there are fires. If a fire engine is unavailable because fire personnel are staffing an ambulance for a 911 medical call, I’m ok with that. I rather see more ambulances available for medical calls too. I did check the app- pulse point for Palo Alto and the city I live in. A lot more medical calls for both cities than fires. Hopefully more cities will start staffing this way too.
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.
@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.
@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.
Talk about having a (fire) axe to grind. This is definitely it. Suing the city for a downgrade to a letter of reprimand is just as effective a way to end one’s career path as is a suspension. I think what she is missing is that its an issue of ethics and judgment as a leader more than some technical interpretation of events.
It sounds as if in the long run she is looking to challenge both the suspension and the reprimand and that this lawsuit is just to get things started. But if she doesn’t prevail, and I doubt she will, she will never be employable in any sort of leadership or firefighter position again. I would have just gone with the humble mea culpa route and tried hard to show a lesson was learned. Twenty-two years is a lot to throw away on an ego.
Cut backs should start with the battalion chiefs, since they don’t appear to be needed if they have no say in where fire engines are driven since deputy chief will be dragging this fight out for years and the city is going to need plenty of money to keep it going.