Pantagraph.com Weather forecast, local radar and more
NewsThursday, June 28, 2007 5:25 PM CDT
State fire marshal still has his job after DUI arrest
Advertisement

SPRINGFIELD — The state fire marshal has lost the use of his state vehicle and will soon lose his ability to get behind the wheel as part of the fallout from a May drunken-driving arrest.

But it is not clear whether David B. Foreman’s job is in danger after his May 15 run-in with Springfield police.

A spokeswoman for Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who appointed Foreman to the $102,000-per-year post in February 2006, said the governor is awaiting the outcome of Foreman’s court case before taking any disciplinary action.

“Before we take any administrative action, we’ll wait until the legal process has played itself out,” said spokeswoman Rebecca Rausch.

That’s a different approach than the state used in 2005, when a supervisor in the state fire marshal’s office fought to keep his job after allegations surfaced that he was drinking on the job.

In that case, Michael P. O’Donnell was in a state vehicle in Chicago’s suburbs when he crashed. A police officer said he smelled alcohol after the wreck.

But, despite not being charged with drunken driving, O’Donnell was removed from his nearly $70,000-per-year state job. The state’s decision was unanimously supported by the Illinois Civil Service Commission in an August 2005 ruling.

Foreman’s drunken-driving trial is set to begin July 23 in Sangamon County Circuit Court.

Police reports indicate he refused to take a breath test after being pulled over on Springfield’s west side about 4 a.m.

He was taken to jail and was bailed out within an hour by a colleague.

Patti Thompson, spokeswoman for the fire marshal’s office, said Foreman has been using his own vehicle for state business since the arrest. Once he loses his ability to drive this Sunday as part of a state-mandated six-month license suspension, Foreman will take taxis and hitch rides with co-workers in order to conduct his business while in Springfield, she said.

“He lives up in the Joliet area so he’ll be taking a train coming down here,” Thompson said Wednesday. “He can use cabs if he needs to get around. He’ll do like anybody else would when they don’t have a way of getting around.”

Unlike other top state agency officials, Thompson said Foreman will not have a driver assigned to him during this time.

“I wouldn’t think so. Actually, definitely, there’s no plan to do that,” said Thompson.

Video
Most commented stories
Browse online archives
Recent issues:
Reader comments on this story - 16 total

Note: All views and opinions expressed in reader comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of the Pantagraph or its staff.

WHY does he still have. wrote on Jun 28, 2007 11:04 PM:

" his job? Doesn't seem quite on the up and up to me. Put him into the Drug Court Program, but make him pay triple for it. He's no better than any other alkie who drives drunk. "

Charles Fenworth wrote on Jun 28, 2007 7:22 PM:

" To "To Charles:" I phrased my response in a clausal construction meaning that if it is a requirement for him to drive, then he would not meet that requirement and the logical conclusion would be that he should lose his license. I have no way of knowing why he has a public vehicle or if it was a requirement. I don't think he should lose his job although he's obviously not the model youth should follow. "

Charles Fenworth wrote on Jun 28, 2007 7:19 PM:

" Dear Anti-MADD? In no other criminal case is the defendant presumed guilty until proven innocent. DUI cases are exactly the opposite and the defendant, although he or she isn't told so explicitly, is treated as such, guilty. The breath tests results are presumed infallible in court, and yet on the side, everyone (prosecutors, police, judges, scientists), know that the tests are not reliable. New models of the Intoxilyzer come out every year. Why? I thought they were perfect to begin with. Why an update to perfection? MADD is a lobby group targeting a specific segment of the population. If it's such an horrific crime, why is this necessary? Let the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments extend to everyone in this country, and get lobbying out of criminal trials. Get the facts before deciding who you support and why. "

Inside fact wrote on Jun 28, 2007 5:51 PM:

" He did not lose his job because he can get a firefighter to drive. I mean this is not chicago .they (fire fighters) are not that busy "

"Blue-State-Blues" opts: wrote on Jun 28, 2007 2:24 PM:

" Why doesn't Blago designate the Deputy Director of the Illinois State Fire Marshall's Office as the "Acting Director"? Oh, I forgot, his wife is suing the Governor in the Civil Service Commission to get her job back. (Blago: "Dawn, go away I'm no good for you...."). A whole gaggle of disfunctional Democrats here. There is more to this story than Ms. Thompson can reveal. It's really tough to be a Republican in this State and be losing to this "Key Stone Cops" cadre. "The flies have conquered the fly paper." J. Steinbeck, "The Moon is Down". "

drive anyways wrote on Jun 28, 2007 1:21 PM:

" If he uses his own car, and is low key about it, I suspect this guy will do what any other suspended driver does - drive anyways. Just be extra careful not to get pulled over. It also helps to have the car registered in another person's name, because if a police officer runs a quick license plate check the computer records flag a car that is owned by a driver with a suspended license. Put everything in your momma's name . . . "

anti-MADD? wrote on Jun 28, 2007 10:35 AM:

" Mr. Fenton, I don't understand your hostility toward MADD (and presumably other organizations fighting drunk drivers). Personally I favor "demonizing" drunk driving. What does it matter if it's your 1st offense, or 50th? If you're driving drunk you are a menace and deserving of the harshest possible penalty. "

This case has it ALL... wrote on Jun 28, 2007 10:31 AM:

" Evidence of pervasive alcohol problems in the State Fire Marshal's office, favoritism (the boss keeps his job, while underlings lose theirs for the same offense), out-of-whack salaries, another high State employee commuting long distance to Springfield. Did you notice the SUPERVISOR makes $70,000 a year?!! What does he do? How many "supervisors" work in that office? How many of us make less than that for useful jobs? "

Concerned Fire-fighter/EMT-P wrote on Jun 28, 2007 9:34 AM:

" Fine example shown by our state's firefighters leader...Foreman should be fired immediately upon conviction. He should have beed suspended upon his arrest for operating a state owned vehicle under the suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol. Gov Blago treats his friends much differently than rank and file workers who are subject to CMS and or other agencies personnel codes. "

only difference wrote on Jun 28, 2007 7:25 AM:

" With the comment that "he'll do like anybody else would when they don't have a way to get around" those people more than likely don't have a job that requires them to drive around. Most places where you are required to drive company vehicles requires you to have a valid Drivers license at all times or you're canned. Driving a state owned vehicle drunk and refusing to take a test should be grounds for dismissal period when you get a cushy appointed job that pays well. "

Mac Daddy wrote on Jun 28, 2007 6:43 AM:

" Maybe he can catch a ride with Rod on the governor's plane. "

Gypsy wrote on Jun 28, 2007 6:36 AM:

" He may not have a driver assigned but my crystal ball says someone will be driving him around and it will not be taxi cab drivers! Who does Patti Thompson think she's kidding. Maybe in her spare time she can give Mr. Foreman a lift, since he is her boss! "

me wrote on Jun 28, 2007 6:04 AM:

" Maybe the Governor could swing by Joliet and pick him up. Blogo air makes frequent fllights to Springfield as we all know. "

wondering wrote on Jun 28, 2007 5:25 AM:

" How much money did this guy give Blago. for his campaign? It seems anyone who was appointed by Blago. gave him something. Maybe he can hitch a ride on Blago's airplane to get back to Springfield. "

To Charles wrote on Jun 28, 2007 2:03 AM:

" If it is not a requirement for him to drive why did he have a state vehicle? "

Charles Fenworth wrote on Jun 27, 2007 11:34 PM:

" He should only lose his job if it's a requirement for him to drive. He's certainly receiving favoritism though. If MADD hadn't demonized what is a serious traffic violation, there would be no call to even consider this action. If he killed or injured someone severely, then that would be a different case entirely. People shouldn't lose their jobs over a first offense such as this and MADD's contention that people don't lose their jobs over license suspensions is purely false. DUI remains at record levels, maybe try solving the problem rather than punishment after the fact. "

Add your own comments

Please read the rules before posting comments.

You must be logged in to leave comments.
If you don't have a member ID, please register.

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login?
(requires cookies)
  Forgot Your Password?