New York Legislation Would Watch Over Long Island

[GFD70 4]

New York Legislation Would Watch Over Long Island Departments

BY ELIZABETH MOORE. STAFF WRITER

Newsday (New York)

No more taxpayer-funded liquor at lavish fire installation dinners. Firefighter seminars in the Bahamas will have to be justified to the state. And most of New York's fire districts will be audited once a year, if lawmakers approve a detailed package of bills filed this week by Lindenhurst Assemb. Robert Sweeney and others.

Sweeney, chairman of the Assembly's Local Governments Committee, has been negotiating since January with fire service leaders and other state officials on the 13-bill package he hopes will help clean up the extravagant spending, mismanagement and weak oversight highlighted in Newsday's series in November on Long Island's volunteer fire system.

The package, which is expected to pass both houses this spring with volunteer support, is aimed at better accountability and more public involvement, Sweeney said.

"We know there's issues out there, and we know we all want to tackle them head on," he said, adding the Firemen's Association of the State of New York and other volunteer groups had actively cooperated. "They didn't want to cut and run."

Other Assembly sponsors included Patricia Eddington (D-Medford), Philip R. Ramos (D-Brentwood), Assembly Leader Paul Tokasz (D-Cheektowaga) and Marc Alessi (D-Manor Park).

All New York fire districts with more than $200,000 in revenue, which includes all but six on Long Island, would have to have annual independent audits, as school districts now do, filing those reports with the town and state. Fire districts could no longer create reserve funds to save up for buildings and trucks without putting their plans to a public vote. And the state comptroller could examine the books of not-for-profit fire companies, and not just the fire districts that raise money through taxes.

The measures also aim to cut down on what lawmakers termed "extremely extravagant" banquets and unnecessary travel spending. To send volunteers to Key Largo, Fla., for dive training, for instance, commissioners would have to certify that an in-state course wasn't available, and notify the state Office of Fire Prevention and Control. That agency would report annually to the governor listing all such trips.

Fire districts would be required to adopt codes of ethics and post them prominently. Fire company officials and line officers would have to disclose any financial interest in contracts, as district commissioners now do. Commissioners would be required to take financial training courses, and no-show commissioners would be subject to removal.

The measures also seek to improve public involvement. On the same day each October, all fire districts statewide would hold public budget hearings. No longer could districts schedule bond votes on religious holidays or the Friday before Labor Day: Special elections would have to be held on a Tuesday and timed to maximize turnout. And annual budget hearings and bond votes would be publicized not just in the small print of newspaper legal ads, but also on firehouse reader boards, town notice boards, and town and fire district Web sites.

Republican Sen. Kenneth LaValle, who filed three similar bills earlier this year, said he would work with Sens. Michael Balboni and Betty Little, Sweeney's Senate counterpart, to pass the package.

Volunteer officials agreed that changes are needed.

"The last few months have been difficult," said Ken Hoffarth, president of the state Association of Fire Districts. He questioned the practicality of requirements to report out-of-state travel to the state, but said he backed the package and hoped it would "restore the public's trust in our fire district officials."

The proposed fire fix

Highlights of Sweeney's "fire service accountability" bills:

Audits: Fire districts must hire independent auditors, as school districts do, and file the reports with town and the state.

Ethics: Fire districts must adopt ethics codes and more fire officials would have to disclose ties to companies doing business with the districts.

Buildings: Fire districts can't set up capital reserve funds without a public vote, after spelling out where the money would go.

Voters: An annual, statewide "fire district budget day" with public hearings. Hearings and special elections must be publicized on Web sites and reader boards.

Training: Mandatory state financial training for all fire commissioners.

Perks: Dinners and travel expenses must be "cost-effective and reasonable" and out-of-state training trips must be certified as necessary and reported to the state. No more taxpayer-funded alcohol.

[grumpyff 1,159]

"Fire districts could no longer create reserve funds to save up for buildings and trucks without putting their plans to a public vote."

That part of the legislation, I could see causing problems in some areas. I could see Joe Blow,taxpayer, wondering why his local FD sets aside say $100,000 per year towards new apparatus, instead of lowering the budget. Of course, this is the same taxpayer who votes NO, on bonds for firehouses, or apparatus, because it will cost him too much. Just look at North White Plains, how many times have they tried to get voter approval to replace, then renovate their quarters. It was well documented the shortcomings/limitations of the current building, but the taxpayers continued to vote NO. Most of the other provisions listed in the article I agree with. What does everyone else think about this proposed legislation?

Edited March 29, 2006 by grumpyff

[KCRD 6]

I think it's about time. It's insane the amount of wasteful spending there is on the island.

[ex-commish 490]

"Fire districts could no longer create reserve funds to save up for buildings and trucks without putting their plans to a public vote."

That part of the legislation, I could see causing problems in some areas.  I could see Joe Blow,taxpayer, wondering why his local FD sets aside say $100,000 per year towards new apparatus, instead of lowering the budget.  Of course, this is the same taxpayer who votes NO, on bonds for firehouses, or apparatus, because it will cost him too much.  Just look at North White Plains, how many times have they tried to get voter approval to replace, then renovate their quarters.  It was well documented the shortcomings/limitations of the current building, but the taxpayers continued to vote NO.  Most of the other provisions listed in the article I agree with.  What does everyone else think about this proposed legislation?

←

The answer is pretty simple...if you are spendind taxpayers money you should be accountable to the taxpayer.

Andy Mancusi

Chief

Hawthorne FD

[grumpyff 1,159]

Andy,

I definately agree with you on the accountability. But what happens when your taxpayers do not see the need to replace, say for example a 25 yr old first due engine? If the taxpayers vote no to save money for this purpose, then you must put out vote for a bond. What happens if the taxpayers vote No to the bond?

On the same day each October, all fire districts statewide would hold public budget hearings. No longer could districts schedule bond votes on religious holidays or the Friday before Labor Day: Special elections would have to be held on a Tuesday and timed to maximize turnout.

Sure, you could try to schedule another day to vote, but do you think the average taxpayer is going to change their mind? I'm not saying FD's should be replacing their apparatus every few years(I've heard stories about dept's that have done that, just look at some of the used fire apparatus sites out there), or schedule votes when they know there will be no turnout . I'm just trying to say that departments should have have the ability to set aside some of their budget for future needs(apparatus only). Not an extravagent amount, but say a percentage of the budget, without having to ask the taxpayer to approve it. The taxpayers want accountability, and they deserve so, one option would be to have taxpayers approve the use of apparatus reserve funds for the purchase . Sure the taxpayers could say NO, but the dept could then make the arguement,'how many people would buy a new car without a downpayment". You could then show the price of the apparatus(with interest) with and without such a downpayment.

Edited March 30, 2006 by grumpyff

[ex-commish 490]

Andy,

I definately agree with you on the accountability.  But what happens when your taxpayers do not see the need to replace, say for example a 25 yr old first due engine?  If the taxpayers vote no to save money for this purpose, then you must put out vote for a bond.  What happens if the taxpayers vote No to the bond?

←

Good question. First, you spec a rig for what it is needed for. No more fancy bells and whisltles and 10 man cabs with diamond plating and expensive light packages. No more chrome mags or facny paint jobs. Keep the rig simple and only what it is needed for.

Next you need to begin a capmaign to the voters. Tell them that the insurance companies do not like rigs over 20 years old. And now NFPA wants apparatus replaced after 15 years. Tkae your argument to the voters long before it goes to a vote. Keep the public informed. Maybe a public relations committee or person isn't such a bad idea.

Andy Mancusi

Chief

Hawthorne FD

[TRUCK6018 50]

Andy,

..... one option would be to have taxpayers approve the use of apparatus reserve funds for the purchase. 

←

This is (or should) be done now. When it time comes to make a purchase, a permissive referendum is required to be filed. It spells out what is being purchased with a dollor amount and where the money is coming from. These are posted in the legal ads of the newspaper of choice as defined at the districts annual organizational meeting. Should "the public" choose to challenge the permissive referendum, then the purchase must go to public vote.

Edited March 30, 2006 by TRUCK6018