A fire chief concluded that John Polk violated the public’s trust, failed his duties as a captain and had no valid reason for disregarding an emergency call. The department fired him. The following year, the Pearl River Police Department found that Polk violated its Conduct Unbecoming and Workplace Harassment policies and ordered an unpaid suspension and sexual harassment retraining.
Those are documented employment decisions in the professional history of a candidate seeking to become Pearl River’s next police chief. The records go beyond complaints: they contain disciplinary findings, repeated warnings and a termination decision that questioned Polk’s ability to perform the responsibilities he already held.
The fire chief’s findings went beyond one missed call
St. Tammany Parish Fire Protection District 7 terminated Polk as a fire captain effective May 13, 2022, following an investigation into his failure to respond to an April 14 emergency call. In his written decision, Chief Gary C. Whitehead concluded that Polk violated the district’s mission statement, values statement, public trust and duties contained in his job description.
Whitehead wrote that Polk was “not fit for duty under his own job description.” The chief said simply demoting or transferring him would not resolve the problem and concluded that termination was warranted. This was an assessment of Polk’s performance in his fire department position.
The termination paperwork spells out what the district said he failed to do.
Public trust and professional conduct: The district cited failure to recognize the community as the reason for his presence while on duty, undermining the community’s faith and trust, ignoring the public safety mandate and failing to inspire confidence through his attitude and conduct. It also cited failure to strive for excellence and efficiency, unprofessional conduct, discourteous behavior and insensitivity to community needs.
Command and supervision: The paperwork cited failures involving supervision, oversight of the fire station and its equipment, responding to an emergency, assuming command and directing an emergency scene. It also listed providing for the needs of firefighters and other emergency personnel and coordinating the activities of firefighting and law enforcement personnel.
Emergency care and response: The district listed failures involving emergency medical assistance, care for sick or injured people, driving an emergency vehicle to and from a scene and coordination with other agencies. Communication and reporting were also cited: notifying a dispatcher when additional help was needed, notifying district personnel about the incident during his shift and issuing an incident report. These were duties the district tied to the April 14 incident, not a list of separate emergency calls.
Whitehead also cited four disciplinary grounds under Louisiana R.S. 33:2560(A): unwillingness or failure to perform duties satisfactorily; deliberately omitting an act that was his duty to perform; conduct or omissions prejudicial to departmental service or contrary to public interest or policy; and insubordination. These were the chief’s administrative disciplinary findings, not criminal convictions.
The chief emphasized that Polk already knew his responsibilities. Whitehead wrote that Polk acknowledged those duties when confirmed as captain in 2016 and was personally aware of his obligations.
What Polk said, and why Whitehead rejected it
According to Whitehead’s account of the May 3, 2022 hearing, Polk said he knew the interstate area and believed there was no accident at the reported location. He also claimed the department had not responded to similar calls “hundreds of times” and said he did not want to leave the station or area unattended.
Whitehead disputed those explanations. The chief wrote that the interstate call records he provided to Polk reflected only one failure to show up. On staffing, Whitehead noted that a new shift of three or four people was scheduled to arrive at 7 a.m., shortly after the approximately 6:30 a.m. call. He also wrote that Polk did not submit supporting evidence by the extended May 10 deadline.
“He had no valid, viable reason to disregard and ignore the call of April 14, 2022,” Whitehead wrote. He characterized Polk’s explanation as disingenuous and described what he viewed as Polk’s lack of remorse as troublesome.
Whitehead’s concern extended to other responders. He wrote that firefighters should not have to question whether a coworker would show up or whether they could trust that coworker during a fire or medical emergency. He also warned about the implications for the district’s aid agreements with neighboring departments and its insurance rating.
Two earlier reprimands for failing to respond
The April incident followed two other documented failures to respond to emergency calls within the preceding year.
A reprimand dated June 7, 2021 concerned a call on June 5 at approximately 1:32 a.m. The remarks state that Polk failed to respond while on duty.
Another written reprimand, dated March 10, 2022, concerned a call at approximately 2:30 a.m. that morning. The department stated that Polk admitted failing to verify that the station radio was on the correct channel and neglecting to have his backup handheld radio turned on. Thirty five days later, the April 14 incident occurred.
Years of earlier warnings
The records also document problems with equipment operation, station responsibilities, attendance and emergency reports.
In June 2008, Polk received a verbal reprimand after an improper starting procedure involving a Mack spare pumper caused structural damage to a Station 3 storeroom. The corrective instructions required checking that the truck was in neutral and using the clutch to prevent sudden movement. A separate July 2008 written reprimand concerned station work that failed to correct problems identified during inspections.
In May 2009, Polk received a verbal reprimand after being found sleeping at approximately 4:30 a.m. The document specifically states that he was working an eight hour shift and instructs him to adjust his sleeping habits to remain awake on duty. Written reprimands in August and September 2009 addressed unsatisfactory equipment and station conditions and directed him to ensure trucks and the station were properly cleaned.
A September 19, 2009 document records a suspension for failing to report for work or call in. It lists suspension dates from September 27 through October 10 and identifies termination as the anticipated consequence if the problem was not corrected.
Two 2014 written reprimands document late arrivals without calling. The June record says Polk arrived two hours after his shift began. The July record identifies a second offense and says he arrived more than 30 minutes late. Whitehead emphasized that staffing coverage could not be allowed to lapse.
In October 2019, Polk was reprimanded for emergency response reports left outstanding for months. The record says Whitehead directed captains on September 3 to finish outstanding reports by October 3. When Polk’s October 7 reprimand was issued, the department stated that he had not begun work to complete those reports.
Police investigators later found policy violations
The disciplinary history did not end with the fire department.
A Pearl River Police Department disciplinary letter documents an internal investigation into an April 15, 2023 incident involving Polk and a female communications officer in the department’s communications area. The letter identifies two policy violations: 1.1 Conduct Unbecoming and 3.01 Workplace Harassment.
The cited Conduct Unbecoming provision prohibits infamous, notorious or disgraceful conduct that adversely affects Pearl River’s legitimate interests. Under Workplace Harassment, the letter specifically reproduces the sexual harassment provisions, including unwanted sexual advances, sexually derogatory or discriminatory remarks and creation of a sexually objectionable environment. It also lists examples of prohibited behavior, including offensive sexual conversations and unwanted touching. Those are policy examples; the letter does not establish that Polk committed every example listed.
The second page states that the investigation determined Polk violated the listed rules. It ordered three consecutive workdays of suspension without pay, beginning July 14 and ending July 16, 2023, and required him to retake the sexual harassment course on the POST website and provide proof of completion to Captain Dean. The letter also stated that it would be placed in his personnel file and could be used in future disciplinary actions.
The document bears the signatures of Chief Jack Sessions and Polk, with a receipt date of June 2, 2023. This was a departmental finding and disciplinary order, not merely an unresolved complaint.
More allegations reached the mayor in 2025
On May 20, 2025, Mayor Joe D. Lee notified Sessions that the town had received two sexual harassment complaints from school crossing guards: one against Polk and another against Sgt. William LaBiche.
Lee wrote that he understood both officers had attempted numerous times to contact at least one crossing guard. He said any contact under the circumstances would be highly inappropriate and specifically noted that Polk was a detective with no direct supervisory responsibility over the crossing guards. The mayor also reminded Sessions that Polk had already been found to violate the Conduct Unbecoming and Workplace Harassment policies.
A crossing guard’s subsequent discrimination charge alleged that Polk made physical contact with her breast on or about May 15, 2025. A separate police officer’s discrimination charge alleged sexual harassment by Polk on or about January 2025 and stated that the officer reported it to a superior without obtaining relief. These are allegations in employee filings, not findings by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or a court.
The distinction does not erase the established record: Fire District 7 terminated Polk after findings involving duty failures and public trust. The Pearl River Police Department subsequently found violations of its conduct and workplace harassment policies and ordered an unpaid suspension and retraining. Those decisions were made by his employers, years before this election.
What weight should that record carry when choosing the person who will set the standards for everyone else in the department? When asking the citizens of Pearl River to elect him as Chief?
———————————————————————————
If you feel as though any of the documents attached below is fake, altered, or a lie please feel free todo a public records request at St. Tammany Parish Fire Protection District #7 station #1. Or at Pearl River Police Department or at Town of Pearl River
Stay tuned as there is more.
Photos & Records
Use the arrows to review supporting images for this story.
