Upstate hunter spots Long Island FD SUV miles from home

[Guest]

Upstate hunter spots Lakeland department SUV miles from home

BY RICHARD WEIR

DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Monday, February 25th 2008, 4:00 AM

It's not uncommon to see official department SUVs driven by volunteer fire chiefs parked outside office buildings, shopping plazas and other everyday places.

After all, many of these chiefs, who often use the vehicles while off duty for personal uses, need to be able to rush to the scenes of fires and other emergencies.

But when Wayne Harper, a disabled Vietnam veteran from Schenectady in upstate New York, saw a white Chevrolet Tahoe with gold "Chief" and "Lakeland Fire Department" decals on it parked outside a wildlife preserve some 30 miles from Albany, he was a bit surprised.

FULL STORY: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2008/0...partment-2.html

[x635 4,066]

This has been a hot issue on the forum before, and it's nice to see it getting some press coverage.

But it's not only volunteer Chief's vehicles....I know that in at least one NY fire district, a Career Chief is allowed to use his vehicle, a full sized Chevrolet Suburban, for personal interstate travel, with fuel and maintainence expenses also covered by the fire district. After these trips, the Chief requires his FF's to wash and detail his vehicle inside and out. When it needs service, TWO FF's supposed to be protecting the community are detailed to drive it several miles outside the district to drop it off and pick it up.This vehicle has the bare minimum of radios, lights, and siren-since the Chief doesn't respond to ANY calls! IT DOESN'T EVEN HAVE ANY TURNOUT GEAR, INCIDENT COMMAND MATERIALS, or any other equipment a fire chief would be expected to have! This is a pure waste of taxpayer money, and another expense that could be eliminated, and the money spent to increase staffing in said district.

The abuse of department owned vehicles in the Westchester area is absurd, to me at least.

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

Wasnt there a rather large article by the Daily News on Long Island Fire Departments abusing tax payer dollars by using local tax dollars to fund redundent apparatus, trips to Florida and other things similar to this exact situation?

[cas2383 22]

Hey sometimes its good to be the boss.

[JohnnyOV 2]

Hey sometimes its good to be the boss.

I dont feel like paying your gas money for you to drive to California...sorry

[x635 4,066]

Wasnt there a rather large article by the Daily News on Long Island Fire Departments abusing tax payer dollars by using local tax dollars to fund redundent apparatus, trips to Florida and other things similar to this exact situation?

New York Newsday (Long Island version of The Journal News-AKA their local paper) did an very well done and conterversial (of course) expose on the volunteer fire service on Long Island in October of 2005.

[Danger 160]

Car shouldn't leave a reasonable response proximity of the district except for training classes and emergencies.

[Guest CRASH]

here's a though what if .

.

said chief was on his way too or from department buisness in lets say upstate ny's montour falls training .

.

and just happened to make a pit stop on the way to or from...

.

.we cant just assume the worst everytime these situations occur

[Dondestro 9]

Our chiefs car is not to leave a 13 mile radius of our town!!!! only exception is going to an event fire department invloved

[Bunkers 0]

if the guy pays for his own gas, who cares? i dont..

[Future Fireman 4]

if the guy pays for his own gas, who cares? i dont..

Yes, but the gas was put in a SUV that was purchased with TAXPAYER MONEY.

Mike

[JM15 386]

Even if he pays for his own gas it is still un-needed wear and tear on the vehicle at the tax payers expense.

[Guest feraldan]

Without knowing all the specifics, I can't say this really bothers me. Not sure why it doesn't.

Maybe its because I expect something worse such as the vehicle being parked outside of a strip club or house of ill-repute.

Driving 4 hours to go hunting just doesn't seem that bad. Is it an abuse of tax payers? Maybe a little bit but there are worse things he could have done.

Since the department didn't have any policies in place saying this sort of thing was forbidden, I can't really see any fault here. Like many volunteer Chiefs, I'm sure he gives up countless hours of his time to help his community. I'm sure he's spent a lot of his own money (as many of us have) supporting his department. So he drove 4 hours to go hunting? He didn't kill anybody, spend department funds on whores or get caught doing coke in his office.

There are worse things that he could have done.

[Bnechis 3,961]

In the case of a career chief is it part of his compensation package? One reason for the car 24/7 is that it may be cheaper than paying him/her additional salary. He/she is also required to pay income tax on this benefit.

Its one thing to expect a chiefs car that is intended to be available to respond to emergencies to be in/near town, its another thing to expect a vehicle that is part of a compensation package, that allows it to be removed from the area.

Don't most Police chiefs have a take home car?

Most City, Mayors, Manager, DPW and other agency heads also have it as part of there compensation packages.

[abaduck 123]

Even if he pays for his own gas it is still un-needed wear and tear on the vehicle at the tax payers expense.

<putting on full-blown devil's advocate mode here>

Hey, I put a lot of wear and tear and gas on my own vehicle responding to calls - who picks up the tab for that? Volunteering is a great thing to do, I don't expect to get paid for it (doh!) but why should I effectively have to pay to do it? So if after many years of service I get to be a chief, why in hell shouldn't I use the dept. vehicle for a few personal trips, especially if my car is in the shop...

Devil's advocate as I say, but you *can* argue this both ways!

[x635 4,066]

In the case of a career chief is it part of his compensation package? One reason for the car 24/7 is that it may be cheaper than paying him/her additional salary. He/she is also required to pay income tax on this benefit.

That part remains a mystery, since the Board Of Fire Commisioners refuses to make the terms of that Chiefs compensation package public. All that is known is that he makes AT LEAST $190,000 in salary, but the additonal compensation is unknown.

Still, as a taxpayer of that particular district, I find it a waste of money. This Chief lives 1/2 mile from the firehouse. If the District wants to give him a car, let them get him an economical and fuel efficient Honda Civic or similar. If he needs bigger, let him use one of the department's 2 Utility Suburbans or Ford F-350 crew cab which sit dormant for at least 50% of the year.

I know many PD's, FD's, and Muncipalities issue their employees vehicles. In many cases, I view this as a complete waste of money, even if it's part of their compensation package. For example, my local Building Department drives around in large Crown Victorias Or Chevrolet Impala's (no, most aren't ex-PD). It's only a single person in the vehicle. Why can't they use a car that's more economical.

I also hear that a volunteer department in Dutchess County pays for the fuel in their Chief's PERSONAL OWNED VEHICLES! If that is true...then that is absurd!

I would be interested to see how much money is saved in fuel costs if this person didn't have a vehicle, shared a vehicle, or had a more efficient vehicle.

This whole issue needs to be looked at from top to bottom, especially considering skyrocketing fuel costs. Also, the enviromental impact needs to be taken into consideration.

[RDUNC67 1]

I also hear that a volunteer department in Dutchess County pays for the fuel in their Chief's PERSONAL OWNED VEHICLES! If that is true...then that is absurd!

If the fuel is in lieu of a district owned vehicle i do not see the problem... and as far as the topic is concerned... this has been going on for years, when the November deer hunting season starts it is common to see many Chiefs vehicles traveling up rt. 22 through Dutchess County, not to mention parked for a beverage or two at a local establishment. I'm not syaing i agree with any of it, but each FD has different rules for their vehicles.

[x129K 1,393]

I also hear that a volunteer department in Dutchess County pays for the fuel in their Chief's PERSONAL OWNED VEHICLES! If that is true...then that is absurd!

It's not absurd - it's a nice perk for people who usually put in a rediculous amount of time in the firehouse, going to meetings, calls, training, etc, more so than the average member because the job of Chief requires it. This is a practice that started long before departments provided staff cars. Alot of departments still do not have them.

.... Most Dutchess districts are quite large - take Millbrook for instance - it is 62 square miles....one station...

Is it also absurd if departments furnish Chiefs with department owned whoopie lights and sirens to put on/in their POV's?

[ja3kfd 34]

I think having had been a Chief, myself I did not get a Chiefs car till I became the Chief, I needed the "Whoopie Lights" on my personel vehicle . I was given 100.00 per month by the DEPARTMENT not the District, for Gas.

When I became Chief I signed a piece of paper that limited the use of the vehicle. Did I always follow? No I would stretch it. As I am sure all have done at one point or another. Do I feel it should be 4hrs away on a hunting trip ? NO. I have a place I go hunting 4 hrs away , we donated 2000 feet of 3" Hose to them . MY Father ( EX Chief) Myself Chief at the time and two other Members took it to them in our own trucks, we where also hunting at the time.

Listen we all know what we are getting into when we say we want to run for Chief or Asst. Chief it is time to grow up and be accoutable for what we do . Should it be parked in front or a " establishment" No it should not be. Since the vehicles are mostly owned by Districts they need to enforce the rules. The Department owned vehicles I am sure they give more leeway but we all get a bad name for it.

I think the time has come to grow up and toe the line , set a standard and live by it, Way to many people watch what we do.

[res6cue 67]

Without knowing all the specifics, I can't say this really bothers me. Not sure why it doesn't.

Maybe its because I expect something worse such as the vehicle being parked outside of a strip club or house of ill-repute.

Driving 4 hours to go hunting just doesn't seem that bad. Is it an abuse of tax payers? Maybe a little bit but there are worse things he could have done.

Since the department didn't have any policies in place saying this sort of thing was forbidden, I can't really see any fault here. Like many volunteer Chiefs, I'm sure he gives up countless hours of his time to help his community. I'm sure he's spent a lot of his own money (as many of us have) supporting his department. So he drove 4 hours to go hunting? He didn't kill anybody, spend department funds on whores or get caught doing coke in his office.

There are worse things that he could have done.

AMEN!

Honestly, why is some guy who lives upstate so upset about a fire district vehicle his taxes don't even pay for? A lot of volunteer Chiefs buy these vehicles anyway once their terms are up, which means they tend to treat them very well while they're in office. That reduces the wear and tear, which reduces the amount of money the district has to spend maintaining the vehicle. Contrast that with a vehicle a guy is issued that he doesn't otherwise care about and beats on. It works both ways, you see. As far as the point about Chiefs giving up countless hours...unfortunately there are some who couldn't care less about that fact. All you'll ever hear from them is stuff like "It was his own choice" and the like. It's not an excuse to take advantage of the situation, but it should be enough to give people who are quick to judge some pause before they go ape sh!t over next to nothing.

Again, unless it's YOUR tax dollars going directly to the agency in question, get a grip!

[x129K 1,393]

Honestly, why is some guy who lives upstate so upset about a fire district vehicle his taxes don't even pay for?

Cause everyone wants to screw someone else..........

[ex-commish 490]

As a former chief I take issue with the notion the we deserve perks such as unlimited use of a chiefs car. Just like volunteering as a firefighter I at one time chose to be a chief officer. I did not expect anything other than the privelege of serving my department and community in the best capacity that I can. Whatever benefit I was given I took humbily and knew what is here today could be gone tomorrow. This goes for service awards as well. Yes alot of time and aggravation comes with the job but we chose to do this and should not feel we deserve anything.

[robert benz 344]

Cause everyone wants to screw someone else..........

I dont think it is as much a screw you thing as a perception problem. We know the difference, and we cant agree. What do you think the taxpayers are saying at group functions, parties, etc if the subject gets brought up? Come donation time, maybe they wont put a check in the envelope if they think their $$$ are being abused.

[firemoose827 324]

I was a member of a Long Island FD for 4 years. Each one of their chiefs (1 Chief and 2 assistants) got issued chiefs vehicles and were given the option of purchasing these vehicles at the end of their terms. These vehicles were purchased with Department money, raised by Department members at Department fundraisers, so I dont see where the abuse of taxpayers money comes into play here.

I believe that the Chief officers of departments deserve this benefit due to the amount of traveling they have to do. Our chiefs get NOTHING up here except the Bar Light and siren on their personal vehicle, yet they drive to fire scenes all over the Village, Town, and even Mutual Aid territories, County Chiefs Meetings and fire classes all over the County and pay for the gas out of pocket. Why wouldnt they deserve the right to $100 in gas a month as stated earlier? Why shouldnt they be issued a gas expense account through the dept they serve to cover the ever increasing costs of fuel? They give their time away from family, friends, and even work so they can do their duty to the community...FOR NOTHING...and now they are expected to pay for the fuel costs?

Just my opinion but I think the Chief Officers should receive these benefits...during their terms. As long as the chief in question paid for his gas to get up here to hunt, which Im sure he did, I see no problem with it.

[jayhalsey 6]

Correct me if I'm wrong, which I probably am, but does anyone know for sure what the Chief was doing up there? was he on a personal trip, or was he on department business? Unless I missed something, it looks like everyone is assuming that he was up there on a personal hunting trip. Has that been established though?

Edited March 3, 2008 by jayhalsey

[ac316scu 31]

why should he not be able to drive his cheif car where ever. if hes driving and comes up on an mva he can use the equiptment on his car to help out.

[robert benz 344]

I was a member of a Long Island FD for 4 years. Each one of their chiefs (1 Chief and 2 assistants) got issued chiefs vehicles and were given the option of purchasing these vehicles at the end of their terms. These vehicles were purchased with Department money, raised by Department members at Department fundraisers, so I dont see where the abuse of taxpayers money comes into play here.

I believe that the Chief officers of departments deserve this benefit due to the amount of traveling they have to do. Our chiefs get NOTHING up here except the Bar Light and siren on their personal vehicle, yet they drive to fire scenes all over the Village, Town, and even Mutual Aid territories, County Chiefs Meetings and fire classes all over the County and pay for the gas out of pocket. Why wouldnt they deserve the right to $100 in gas a month as stated earlier? Why shouldnt they be issued a gas expense account through the dept they serve to cover the ever increasing costs of fuel? They give their time away from family, friends, and even work so they can do their duty to the community...FOR NOTHING...and now they are expected to pay for the fuel costs?

Just my opinion but I think the Chief Officers should receive these benefits...during their terms. As long as the chief in question paid for his gas to get up here to hunt, which Im sure he did, I see no problem with it.

except for any meetings the chiefs have to go to couldnt the same thing be said for every vol in the dept using his own POV?

Nobody changed the rules while "you or whoever" were rising up thru the ranks, when you started the pay was zero and now that "whoever is the chief" the pay is zero. Is it a very time consuming endever, yes, does it make it difficult to retain good members yes, that is why some dept's started "pension plans" to give back something for all the sacrifice.

I dont believe, and of course it is my opinion, that a chief deserves any benefits that go outside the scope of being the fire chief. The chiefs car is not a personal vehicle to be driven to points where you can't respond from, unless you are on dept business. Should you be able to take a fd vehicle to the Montour Falls Fire Academy, of course, To Giants Stadium I dont think so.

and this is not a bash on vol firefighters it is a rant against the perception that i am owed something for doing what i was going to do anyway, for free.

You Highlite "FOR NOTHING" isnt that what the word volunteer means?

[FirNaTine 370]

While on this topic, I saw a Pleasantville FD Chief car in Yonkers yesterday. Anybody know why?

[helicopper 1,050]

I was a member of a Long Island FD for 4 years. Each one of their chiefs (1 Chief and 2 assistants) got issued chiefs vehicles and were given the option of purchasing these vehicles at the end of their terms. These vehicles were purchased with Department money, raised by Department members at Department fundraisers, so I dont see where the abuse of taxpayers money comes into play here.

Just to focus on this point for a second... The donations were likely made to a charitable organization (IRS 501c3) for the purpose of meeting their fire suppression mission. Were the people donating informed that a percentage of their donation was going to be used to supply employees (that's what the chiefs are in the simplest terms) with vehicles? Are they paying retail value for the vehicle at the end of their term? Are they claiming this "income" on their taxes.

Many, many "charitable organizations" have run afoul of the IRS and other authorities for misuse of funds - even the Red Cross. Remember the outcry after 9/11 when the Red Cross said millions of dollars were going to be put in the Red Cross general fund and not given to victims as the fundraising had indicated. Now, many organizations actually put in their literature the percentage of donations that is used for the management of the organization (such as 9 cents out of every dollar received).

Fire Departments are not exempt from the rules of the IRS and other governing entities. They're just fortunate that they haven't been the target of their scrutiny.

[spin_the_wheel 460]

As some of you may know from my past posts ,and private im's, I am from Long Island and get bashed every now and then, it comes with the territory I guess. There was a prior thread here where this was brought up and I got bashed for defending the use of a Chiefs vehicle going to and from work no less. I Happen to be running for 3rd assistant in my Dept. this April. If I win and get a car to use I will use it to go to and from work (about 5 miles one way), will I use it to go to a Mets game....no, could I probably. Will I use it to visit my Brother in Suffolk, yes. Will I use it to visit my wifes sister in CT., no way. Will I dig into my own pocket for gas from time to time, of course even though I dont have to. To me it all comes down to common sense, especially when there are people out there who take note of this stuff. To be honest with you 99% of the people in my district could care less about how the FD is run no matter how many Newsday articles are run. The fire tax is only $231 a year. Peanuts compared to the rest of the county and school taxes. So the Chiefs get a county bid vehicle to use, we dont have a paid Chief making $190,000 a year, the tax payers dont have to pay for that, so they are still way ahead of the game. Wear and tear from personal use, come on give me a break, the wear and tear is coming from the over 2000 calls a year my Dept. does, all the "hot" runs produce the wear and tear. Your always going to have some people complain, but the majority are in favor of what we do, at least in my neck of the woods.