The City of Topeka has finally responded to questions regarding firefighter Kent’s June 11, 2024, alcohol-related crash and his continued role as a driver of fire apparatus in the months that followed. Instead of providing clarity, the City’s answers raise serious concerns about transparency, consistency, and public safety.
Deflecting Responsibility
Asked about alcohol testing and charges stemming from the crash, the City stated that those questions must be directed to the Shawnee County Sheriff’s Office. Accountability for the delay in action, they said, should be asked of the District Attorney’s Office.
But those answers miss the mark. The issue is not just what charges were filed or when — it is why the City of Topeka allowed an employee involved in an alcohol-related crash to continue driving emergency vehicles for over a year.
The “Conviction” Loophole
The City confirmed that its policy bars employees from driving City vehicles if they are convicted of “high-risk traffic violations,” including DUI. However, until conviction, they argued, no disqualification applies.
That explanation highlights a dangerous loophole: a firefighter could be charged with DUI and remain behind the wheel of emergency vehicles until the court system — which often moves slowly — hands down a conviction. In Kent’s case, that meant driving fire trucks for more than a year after his alcohol-related crash.
Yet, despite clinging to the “conviction required” standard, the City has now suspended Kent while he remains only charged, not convicted. That contradiction suggests the City always had the discretion to act but chose not to — until media attention forced its hand.
Inconsistent Standards
The City’s reliance on “conviction” as the trigger for discipline doesn’t align with federal and state law. Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) holders — including school bus drivers and other public safety operators — are often suspended immediately upon DUI arrest or failed chemical test, regardless of conviction.
In law school, I defended a school bus driver who was suspended immediately after a DUI arrest. That is the standard applied to those entrusted with public safety. Why was a different standard applied to a firefighter tasked with operating 40,000-pound emergency vehicles?
Hiding Behind “Personnel Matters”
Repeatedly, the City refused to answer questions about who approved Kent’s continued driving, what review took place, or whether any supervisor has been disciplined, citing these as “personnel matters.” But when public safety is at stake, “personnel matters” are community matters. Taxpayers and residents deserve to know why policies weren’t enforced and who bears responsibility.
A Question of Accountability
The City’s response, provided by Dan Garrett, City Communications Director, does not settle the issue — it deepens it. The shifting explanations, selective enforcement, and refusal to address accountability directly suggest a system more concerned with protecting itself than with ensuring public safety.
As of publication, neither the Shawnee County Sheriff’s Office nor the Topeka Fire Department has responded to requests for comment.
If Topeka truly seeks to grow beyond “good ol’ boy” politics and into a city that operates with professionalism and transparency, this case is a test. The community should demand answers — not excuses.
