By Ryan Sabalow
The Record Searchlight
ANDERSON, Calif. — The former chief of the Anderson Fire Protection District is under investigation for allegedly forging a certificate that bumped his annual pay by $1,919, as well as the possibility that he gave himself a 5 percent raise to which he wasn’t entitled.
The allegations, outlined in search warrant returns filed in Shasta County Superior Court, are the first official insights into an investigation surrounding former Chief Joe Piccinini.
Piccinini resigned July 1 after being placed on administrative leave in May.
The district’s board of directors hired retired Anderson Police Chief Neil Purcell to investigate allegations of misconduct, but board members have refused to release Purcell’s report, citing employee privacy concerns.
However, last month, after the Record Searchlight sued the district under the California Public Records Act, Judge Monica Marlow ruled that the report was to be made public. The district has until Jan. 13 to release copies of Purcell’s report.
Piccinini maintains he did nothing wrong. Purcell’s investigation cost the district at least $41,000.
Piccinini didn’t return a message left Monday on his cell phone. A message left with his Gold River attorney, Dan Thompson, wasn’t returned.
Investigation revealed
The nature of the criminal investigation was revealed in a formal request for a search warrant, called a statement of probable cause, filed in November by Redding police Investigator Eric Little.
Though the case falls under the jurisdiction of the Anderson Police Department, Redding police are handling the investigation to avoid any potential appearance of a conflict of interest given that Anderson’s former police chief is involved in the case.
Little wrote that he interviewed Piccinini’s one-time second-in-command, Andy Nichols, about the possibility Piccinini was involved in some sort of fraud.
Nichols, who since has been appointed as Piccinini’s replacement, told Little that he thinks Piccinini forged a first responder certificate from his former department in Tulsa, Okla., to get hired in Anderson.
Little wrote in the probable cause statement that he checked with Tulsa’s fire department, and officials there told him they had no evidence that the certificate Piccinini had on file in the Anderson Fire Department was legitimate.
One official allegedly told Little that he had no record of teaching the first responder course that Piccinini supposedly attended, Little wrote.
“I suspect Piccinini created or altered another certificate on a computer to produce the counterfeit,” Little wrote in the search warrant returns.
‘Special master’ appointed
Little said Howard Fincher, a battalion chief in Anderson, told him that Piccinini once told him to sign Piccinini on the roster for a emergency medical technician and first responder refresher course, but he never attended the class.
Fincher told Little that Piccinini did the same for a CPR refresher course he also didn’t attend, Little wrote.
A valid first responder certificate, required to be a firefighter at the department, bumped Piccinini’s annual pay by $1,919. Piccinini was paid $83,000 per year plus benefits.
Nichols also told Little that he suspected Piccinini gave himself at least one 5 percent raise to which he wasn’t entitled.
Little said he couldn’t determine whether that allegation had merit unless he was able to see copies of Purcell’s investigation.
Little asked for, and was granted permission by Judge William Gallagher, to search the law offices of the fire district’s attorney, Michael Fitzpatrick, to obtain a copy of the report.
Gallagher ruled that Little could search the law office, but in order to avoid violating Fitzpatrick’s constitutionally protected right to confidential discussions with his client, a court- appointed “special master” was to be present during the search.
The special master also delivered the report to Gallagher so that he could issue a ruling on whether the documents should be released to police.
Gallagher also checked whether anything in the report could violate Fitzpatrick’s attorney-client privilege.
Law enforcement officials haven’t yet seen copies of the report.
At a hearing on Dec. 11, Gallagher stipulated that law enforcement officers investigating the case wouldn’t be able to see Piccinini’s statements.
But Deputy District Attorney Erin Dervin, the county’s top financial crimes prosecutor, said Monday that Gallagher has since issued a tentative ruling on the case saying that law enforcement officials can have access to the report, though any discussion Piccinini had with Purcell would need to be redacted.
Such statements would have been made under duress, she said.
Public’s right to know
Fitzpatrick has argued that disclosing details from the report would violate Piccinini’s protections as outlined in the Firefighters Procedural Bill of Rights Act.
Signed into law in 2007, the act prohibits statements that firefighters make under duress or in administrative proceedings from being used against them in criminal cases.
Dervin said that any statements in the report that Gallagher deemed to be confidential attorney-client privilege would likewise be redacted, as would any conclusion Purcell reached.
Dervin said those redactions won’t hinder the investigation because the information most important to the case — such as the names of Purcell’s interview subjects — would be available to investigators.
Those names won’t be available in the copy of the report the district must provide to the Record Searchlight, but the rest of the report, including Purcell’s findings and his interviews with Piccinini will be.
In her ruling in favor of the newspaper, Marlow found that the entire report, minus the names of those Purcell interviewed, should be public, because the civil case the newspaper filed under the Public Records Act and the criminal case were different matters.
In fighting the paper’s request for Purcell’s report, Fitzpatrick had likewise argued that Piccinini’s statements were exempt from disclosure because of attorney-client confidentiality as well protected under the Firefighters Procedural Bill of Rights Act.
But Marlow ruled the report was public, saying that the “conflict of statutes” between the Firefighters Procedural Bill of Rights Act and the public’s right to know was trumped by the public’s rights.
Marlow said she found no evidence of attorney-client confidentiality.
Copyright 2010 Record Searchlight
All Rights Reserved