As undesirable as it may be, I can understand how there may be circumstances where municipal officials need to close a volunteer fire department.
It is easy to imagine a situation where training and capabilities are so low that the only way to protect the residents and firefighters from harm is to bring somebody else in to do the job. It would be morally wrong and expose a municipality to liability if it allowed people to do a dangerous job that they were incapable of performing.
Likewise, a department with low call-response numbers might need to be shut down and another option put in place to provide reliable fire and emergency service.
It also is reasonable that some towns may find it financially appealing to contract with an outside fire service rather than absorb the cost of buying and maintaining equipment and buildings — as well as training firefighters.
I don’t find any of those scenarios appealing, but understand how they could make sense.
What I cannot make sense of is the situation in Leonia, N.J.
If you missed the story, it goes like this. An 18-year-old man, who is called developmentally disabled, was arrested for sexually assaulting a 3-year-old boy at Leonia’s fire station — he is accused of inappropriately touching the boy. The man had applied to become a firefighter, but was not a department member. The young boy is the son of a Leonia, N.J., firefighter.
The mayor and council reacted by shutting down the entire fire department. They went so far as to confiscate the chiefs’ vehicles. They then reached out to neighboring fire departments to provide temporary coverage while this incident was under investigation.
The department has been reopened with the station closed to anyone other than firefighters, and even they can only go to the station for calls or maintenance duties.
If there is more to this story than is being told, those in the Leonia government need to do more to explain their actions. Because, frankly, this is one of the most bone-headed moves I’ve ever seen.
A lot of brilliant comments have already been made on why this move was so bad. They range from precedent-setting (then close every department where a sexual crime occurs) to the practical (mutual-aid reliance will increase response time).
We can imagine how enraged we’d be if it were our child who had been touched. Conversely, imagine the tragedy if a child is lost in a house fire or vehicle crash because response was delayed due to increased travel distance or unfamiliarity with the community.
So it stands to reason that unless there was a pattern of this type of behavior within the fire department and keeping it open posed a continued threat, shutting down a vital component of public safety was an act of sheer recklessness.
Fortunately, no incidents occurred during the shut down. But that is probably a result of good luck more so than good planning.
It is also fortunate that the town’s population became engaged in the process. They vented their displeasure at public meetings, through the media and via social media outlets. Civic engagement is an extremely patriotic thing and I applaud those in Leonia who refused to be apathetic.
A bad situation was nearly made disastrous by a short-sighted, reactionary decision. My hope is that these leaders have learned from this and that others around the country are taking note.