FALL RIVER -- A seven-year veteran of
the police force has recently been fired for smoking tobacco
products in violation of a little-known state law banning
smoking among public safety officials.
Officer Wayne Jeffrey was officially
terminated from his position on May 29 after an internal
investigation proved he had been smoking tobacco products
during his tenure with the department.
The matter was
first brought to Fall River Police Chief John M. Souza’s
attention this spring by an anonymous letter.
"It’s our
policy to investigate any accusation thoroughly regardless of
the source," Souza said. "The statute as written provides us
no room for discretion."
Police or fire officials hired
after January 1, 1988 are subject to immediate termination if
they are found to be using tobacco products either on duty or
during their time off, the 15-year-old law
states.
Souza said the legislative reasoning for
passing the law was twofold. He said the state was paying out
too much money in early disability due to smoking-related
health issues and said it is also important for officers to be
in top physical condition to perform their
duties.
"This is a very high-stress job and the
Legislature believed that smoking contributed to officers
developing heart disease and hypertension, causing them to go
on early disability," Souza said. "The law was passed to
protect people from getting into a situation where they have
to retire early and go on disability, which makes the state
have to pay out extra money."
Jeffrey could not be
reached for comment Tuesday afternoon.
Fall River
Police Association President Sgt. Jeffrey Gregory said the
union will represent the former patrolman, but added, "the law
is pretty specific. It doesn’t look good for
him."
Although Souza said he has been told an appeal
was upcoming, Gregory said Jeffrey had a meeting with union
officials last week and they have not come to a decision on a
potential appeal.
Previous appeals in similar cases
have been rebuffed by the Supreme Judicial Court.
In
the 1990s a Plymouth police officer had her appeal denied by
the SJC even though she was apparently entering into a smoking
cessation program, Gregory said.
In the case, Plymouth
vs. Civil Service Commission, the SJC upheld the statute’s
validity, ruling the statute mandates
termination.
"Before we took any action against Mr.
Jeffrey, we certainly reviewed the statute and the Plymouth
case," Souza said. "He was given a fair hearing, but there was
no choice in the matter."
Both Souza and Gregory agreed
all new hires at the Police Department are informed of the
statute and sign a contract pledging not to smoke tobacco
products.
"You don’t hear about it publicly very often,
but our officers are well aware of this law when they are
hired," Souza said. Jeffrey "received the information and
signed off on it."
Souza noted that Jeffrey had
maintained a good record as an officer.
Gregory said
he does not believe Jeffrey is being singled out in this case.
He said he has no knowledge of any newer recruits at the
department smoking tobacco.
"Personal opinions don’t
factor into this decision. It’s the law and there’s nothing we
can do about it," Gregory said. "There are some older officers
(hired before 1988) who smoke, but that’s their own personal
decision to make."
Gregory said if Jeffrey does file an
appeal it will likely go through arbitration or be heard in
Boston at a civil services hearing.
He said due to the
termination, various officers have approached union members to
get updated on the law.
"Whenever someone gets
terminated people are upset, but now we’re all more aware that
we shouldn’t smoke because it jeopardizes our employment,"
Gregory said. "It’s definitely going to be an uphill battle
for (Jeffrey)."
Gregg M. Miliote may be reached at
gmiliote@heraldnews.com
Lets
talk about your alcoholics and drug addicts? You
pay for rehab for them. Would I rather have Mr
Jeffrey protect and come to my assistance or one
of your alcoholics or drug addicts?? Now thats a
no brainer! You go and grandfather in the cops
that smoked prior to 1988 when the law went on the
books. Who was the brains behind that decision??
Please! You are hipocrates. an addition is an
adiction no matter how you slice it...so help pay
for the "kick the habit" for smokers also instead
of taking care of your alcoholics and drug addicts
who could not possibly make a decision in a time
of crises. I think Mr Jeffrey could still make a
good decision with a cigarette hanging out of his
mouth! Get with the times and put the inportant
issues on the table. You are supposed protect and
serve, so your solution is you keep the alcoholics
and druggies and pay their expenses, and get rid
of the smokers. Sounds a little pre-justice to
most of us!
Name: Kim
M
Date: Jun,
19 2003
All i
can say is you have got to be kidding me they are
not allowed to have a smoke once in a while but it
is ok to be put on early disability because they
were shot got the crap beat out of them or got
hurt trying to help a citizen and as far as the
letter goes give me a break that person must have
a pretty sad life if he or she has nothing better
to do with there time then write a letter about
someone who smokes you need to get a grip on your
life maybe you should have a smoke once in a while
and maybe then you can do something with your time
other then make someone elses life
miserable
.gif){kind=spacer}
.gif)
.gif)
.gif)
