Alderman raises concerns about Crowley fire response; city attorney advises against executive session

Alderman Martin publicly questioned the Crowley Fire Department’s response to a recent structure fire at 909 North Avenue A, saying residents witnessed problems with hose hookups and apparent equipment issues during the incident.

Martin asked for discussion at the Sept. 9 public safety committee meeting and said he had multiple eyewitnesses to aspects of the response. ‘‘There was a delay,’’ Martin said in committee comments, citing the apparatus narratives in the department’s written report and raising concern about a service engine that had been assigned on a prior call.

Fire leadership provided a written incident narrative and multiple apparatus‑level statements to the committee. In those narratives Captain Brian Quibidon, Driver Murphy and firefighter Austin McCarty described arriving to heavy smoke and fire, deploying a charged 1 3/4‑inch hand line and a 2 1/2‑inch supply line tied to a hydrant, conducting an interior attack, rotating air cylinders when low‑air alarms sounded, and performing overhaul and ventilation while the Louisiana State Fire Marshal’s office investigated origin and cause. The department’s written summary reported that the first arriving engine reached the scene within 1 minute, 18 seconds of dispatch and that crews extinguished the porch and interior fire.

Martin said he believed the department’s recorded timestamps and on‑scene video would show slower performance; firefighters and the chief said dispatch and station timestamps show a rapid response and that water was flowing through appropriate lines. The written incident narratives explicitly state that Engine 20 was placed in pump, the hand line was charged and crews made an interior attack. The Fire Department reported contacting the Louisiana State Fire Marshal’s office, which later determined the origin and cited overloaded electrical splitters used for air conditioners and other appliances as the cause.

Martin told the committee he had considered an executive‑session review of the incident but the city attorney, Michael Landry, advised that the typical exceptions allowing executive session (personnel competency, ongoing litigation or investigative strategy) were unlikely to apply in a way that would justify an executive meeting excluding the complainant. Landry explained that if the council were to evaluate the professional competence or conduct of a named employee in private it would carry notice and participation requirements and that litigation‑strategy exceptions normally require either a written claim or circumstances where confidentiality helps the city’s legal position. He also noted that even if an executive session were authorized, the council would need a two‑thirds vote to proceed.

The committee asked the department to supply the written incident report and the department said it would make the investigation materials available. No disciplinary actions or personnel decisions were announced at the meeting.

Ending: The committee heard the concerns, reviewed department narratives and received legal guidance on the limits of executive session; the department’s written materials and any available video or dispatch logs will inform any further council follow‑up but no formal action was taken at this meeting.