Non-Official Use of Official Vehicles

[FDNYDCHI 38]

I was reading the "ghost lettering" thread and as per on of the administrators suggested to start a new topic, so here goes............

Left me first say this isn't a knock at any specific department per say but an observation that I have seen for a while now that would fall under this topic

using "your chiefs" car to go to another county and park it at the train station when you work in NYC. I think that this example is a total waste of resources for 10-12 hours a day it's sitting in a parking lot not even in your response area, its used as a glorified station car. Plus add in the tolls (if there is any) and gas

just my thoughts....

[ladder55 26]

Here's my thoughts, what about police chiefs getting their own cars? What about dpw formen getting their own truck? Plenty of vehicles out there without any markings on them doing whatever they feel. Oh add in their enormous salaries and free gas etc. Do u still see a problem with a volly chief using his car to go food shopping in the next town?

Oh and just to add this in so its not so one sided, I know career chiefs that have a take hone vehicle with lettering that they run errands in. Just saying

[Alpinerunner 61]

The career chief in my town gets a take home car and doesn't respond to incidents. It's up to the department to decide what is acceptable. As long as they are operating within SOGs I don't have a problem with it. There are perks and drawbacks to many jobs out there.

[helicopper 1,050]

Search this topic for prior threads on the subject. It has been discussed in great detail and all sides of the argument have been presented.

[ladder55 26]

Helicopter just because it has been discussed before doesn't mean it can't be again. I see this alot on here. Maybe FDNYDCHI never saw the topic and wants to discuss it now. Isn't that the point of a forum?

[FDNYDCHI 38]

helicopper: before I stated it I tried to search for it via the search box in the right corner and didn't find anything. as you stated in the "ghost lettering thread" as follows:

"This thread seems to have derailed and is now way off-topic. The staff understands how it got to this point but if you want to discuss the use of vehicles for non-official purposes, please start another thread to do that and/or search for prior threads on the same subject.

Let's focus on the use of ghost lettering on emergency vehicles for this thread.

Thank you."

Also too people are more and more interested in how governments Fire, police, and EMS are using there money, because at the end of the day the tax payers in the district/village etc are paying for it. I live in the City of Yonkers and I would hope to think the city is going to do right with my tax money, that's a whole other issue.

Edited March 18, 2011 by FDNYDCHI

[cman473 56]

Are we going to be this up again?!

[PFDRes47cue 653]

deleted to avoid confusion

Edited March 18, 2011 by PFDRes47cue

[helicopper 1,050]

Nowhere did I say that we couldn't discuss this again. I was pointing out that it has been discussed before and will try to find and link the prior threads on the same topic.

[ajsbear 11]

What about when that department vehicle is used for monetary gain?

[PFDRes47cue 653]

What about when that department vehicle is used for monetary gain?

such as....a personal work car?

[Haggerty 1029 16]

Just to add to this, i knew a trooper who was with CT SP and told me they are able to take their unmarked virtually anywhere when off duty, but when out of state they must tell their barracks they will be out of state. I guess the idea is that if a accident or somehting should occur when a off duty trooper is around they are supposed to render services till on duty officers arrive. It seams to be a good idea, my dad drives an older crown vic he bought from his nebighoring dept. and had it painted one shade and out fitted it with lights, it is his primary car off duty and when working traffic details.(his dept. doesnt supply cruisers for details) and we have stopped so many time i cant even remember half of them, we usualy are first on the scene of car accident on the mass pike or the very western end of the state on the highways. I understand this is different because its an unmarked personal car but its one of those "marked unmarkes". What about having the FDs taking the rigs out to go get grocerys? Personally it makes sense to me, cant respond without a full crew, it acts a good PR in some light if the guys talk to people or so on, but i understand they may be farther away from the emergency because of the location of the market. In boston i think Eng 52 or 53 was a feature on WBZ news for a week or so when they went to the closetst super market to pick up the evenings meal, the market was just outsde of boston and someone got mad seeing a boston rig in somerville.

[stephen morea 1]

What about when that department vehicle is used for monetary gain?

My department nipped that one in the bud years ago when one of our chiefs used his car as a work vehicle......... persoally I think thats funny but I could see why someone would be angry with that!

[PFDRes47cue 653]

My department nipped that one in the bud years ago when one of our chiefs used his car as a work vehicle......... persoally I think thats funny but I could see why someone would be angry with that!

Wouldn't driving he vehicle to work also technically be using the vehicle for monetary gain? I mean you are not losing gas money and while the vehicle is sitting in a lot all day, you are experiencing monetary gain at work.

[PFDRes47cue 653]

Slightly off topic but.....

What are the benefits of departments issuing vehicles to Chief's? Are there benefits or is it more of a "we have the money so why not" thing? There are a lot of departments that do not have Chiefs vehicles and the Chiefs use there personally owned vehicles. Departments seem to run/operate equally well with or without department issued Chief's vehicles.

[grumpyff 1,159]

If I recall correctly, most Westchester volunteer fire departments only had one or maybe two marked chief cars up to the mid 1990's. Chiefs without marked cars were given red light/siren packages to be installed in their personal vehicles. I think one reason departments got away from that was insurance, i.e the chief in his personal vehicle responding to a call gets in an accident. Whose insurance pays. I personally know a Pleasantville chief that lost his personal vehicle at a fire scene in the late 1970's due to an explosion/ flash over that set his car, the ladder and the patrol truck on fire. The department's insurance would not pay for the loss of the personal vehicle, even though it was being used on official business. Another problem encountered were many people did not want holes drilled into their cars to mount lights that would end up being removed when their term of chief was over. This led to discussions on vehicles being properly outfitted with lights that were visible from 360 degrees. A lesser problem was that of chief who used their red light/siren equipped personal vehicle to travel outside of the area or state. I know one volunteer was pulled over in Florida and forced by the Florida Highway Patrol to remove a lightbar mounted on his personal vehicle or face getting a summons, even with a cover marked "Out of Service".A move to department owned and marked vehicles led to a reduction of this, but opened can of worms being discussed here . You see the discussions here and on other forums about red light/siren equipped personal vehicles. People may know your the fire chief in your town, what happens when you drive a couple towns away?

Edited March 19, 2011 by grumpyff

[ladder55 26]

I don't see a point of complaining about it. If the board of trustees, mayor, administrator doesn't have a problem with it then why should anyone? Again, I know dpw formen, police chiefs, career fire chiefs, building inspectors, fire marshals that have municipal owned vehicles that do the same thing, so what's the problem with volly fire chiefs doing it. Only thing missing is a big salary.

[firemoose827 324]

Fire chiefs in my area do a lot of driving to get to scenes, and work out of their vehicles as the CP some times too. Why not be allowed the perq of taking the car shopping, or to work, or on a drive? What happened if there was a call and they were 4 minutes away from the scene but didnt have their chiefs car and no radios or ID to allow them passed the police car thats already on scene?

The points that Grumpy makes are spot on I feel. Great points.

[ajsbear 11]

Here is a scenario, Volunteer chief uses the department car and get reimbursed for mileage and pockets the money while the department has paid for the gas, maintenance etc. Is the chief then stealing from the department? The taxpayers?

[PFDRes47cue 653]

Fire chiefs in my area do a lot of driving to get to scenes, and work out of their vehicles as the CP some times too. Why not be allowed the perq of taking the car shopping, or to work, or on a drive? What happened if there was a call and they were 4 minutes away from the scene but didnt have their chiefs car and no radios or ID to allow them passed the police car thats already on scene?

The points that Grumpy makes are spot on I feel. Great points.

I also feel they should be allowed the perqs (within reason). As for your last sentence/point...What happens when the average member (firefighter) is 4 minutes away and has no dept vehicle, radio, or id?

If I recall correctly, most Westchester volunteer fire departments only had one or maybe two marked chief cars up to the mid 1990's. Chiefs without marked cars were given red light/siren packages to be installed in their personal vehicles. I think one reason departments got away from that was insurance, i.e the chief in his personal vehicle responding to a call gets in an accident. Whose insurance pays. I personally know a Pleasantville chief that lost his personal vehicle at a fire scene in the late 1970's due to an explosion/ flash over that set his car, the ladder and the patrol truck on fire. The department's insurance would not pay for the loss of the personal vehicle, even though it was being used on official business. Another problem encountered were many people did not want holes drilled into their cars to mount lights that would end up being removed when their term of chief was over. This led to discussions on vehicles being properly outfitted with lights that were visible from 360 degrees. A lesser problem was that of chief who used their red light/siren equipped personal vehicle to travel outside of the area or state. I know one volunteer was pulled over in Florida and forced by the Florida Highway Patrol to remove a lightbar mounted on his personal vehicle or face getting a summons, even with a cover marked "Out of Service".A move to department owned and marked vehicles led to a reduction of this, but opened can of worms being discussed here . You see the discussions here and on other forums about red light/siren equipped personal vehicles. People may know your the fire chief in your town, what happens when you drive a couple towns away?

All good points Grumpy

Edited March 19, 2011 by PFDRes47cue

[milan fire dept probie 2]

Just my opinion but i never agreed that a chief should take the " chief car" to their private job. the vehicle does absolutely nothing for the memebers operating at a scene when the chief is at work. i feel that if going to work the vehicle should be left in the district to be used as a "command vehicle" as they call it and not a personnel car. id like to hear what other people think about it i myself never saw the original thread.

[IzzyEng4 427]

Just to add to this, i knew a trooper who was with CT SP and told me they are able to take their unmarked virtually anywhere when off duty, but when out of state they must tell their barracks they will be out of state. I guess the idea is that if a accident or something should occur when a off duty trooper is around they are supposed to render services till on duty officers arrive.......

Ian, CSP troopers with their vehicles is way different than the discussion here just to let you know. I works as a dispatcher for Troop I and the reasoning for the troopers to have an 24/7 assigned car is so they can be activated at anytime. Technically even when the troop is "off duty" they are still technically "on duty" and can be called into service at anytime. Its just part of their emergency activation guidelines.

Now the book that you are talking about is the "108" (just a code) book which is used by the troopers to denote that they will be out of service and unavailable, regardless if they have their vehicle with them or not. Mind you that CSP cruisers have a range limit on them, they can only go so far in the bordering states (Mass is up to Springfield / I-90 area, Rhode Island is out to about the Coventry area and NY about halfway into Westchester the last that I knew, this may have changed recently). But they must also notify their barracks they are leaving the state line for official or unofficial business. They cannot take their cars say to NYC unless ordered to respond by the Commissioner or the Colonel for an active response.

May of the troopers use their cars for day-to-day travel in the state because of their agreement to be ready when called upon. Just wanted to pass that on to you to expand on what you were told.

[firemoose827 324]

I also feel they should be allowed the perqs (within reason). As for your last sentence/point...What happens when the average member (firefighter) is 4 minutes away and has no dept vehicle, radio, or id?

The average member doesnt have to make all of the critical decisions in the first 5 minutes of the incident, and call the apropriate MA that needs to respond from great distances, and coordinate multi-agency responses on two or three different radio frequencies...

The chief runs the show and has great responsibility, why not equip them with what they need and allow them the perq of driving it all the time? Especialy when the small town volunteer chief working a job with a tiny salary supporting a family has to pay for the expensive gas? Just my opinion though, I see your points but it all boils down to needing someone to run the show, and making sure they have what they need to do the job right.

Stay Safe brother.

[PFDRes47cue 653]

The average member doesnt have to make all of the critical decisions in the first 5 minutes of the incident, and call the apropriate MA that needs to respond from great distances, and coordinate multi-agency responses on two or three different radio frequencies...

The chief runs the show and has great responsibility, why not equip them with what they need and allow them the perq of driving it all the time? Especialy when the small town volunteer chief working a job with a tiny salary supporting a family has to pay for the expensive gas? Just my opinion though, I see your points but it all boils down to needing someone to run the show, and making sure they have what they need to do the job right.

Stay Safe brother.

I see exactly what you are saying. I did not quite understand the post I quoted. It made it seem like the focus of the sentence was having these things to gain access to the scene. I do agree that Chiefs need he radios, etc to be able to communicate properly but keep in mind that there are lots of FD's and counties that do not operate on the multiple frequencies and they get the job done fine with one radio. Of course things vary from place to place and FD to FD. I would hope that the departments that require their Chief's to use their own POV's are reimbursing for gas (especially when the Chief's are as active as the ones I deal with on a daily basis.) I am not positive that it is covered all the time. Stay safe as well.

[x129K 1,393]

I beleive Chief staff cars should be taken out of district, to work, etc, if the operator can leave work/respond in a timely manner.

I do not like when vollie Chiefs, who are career firemen, park there vollie marked car at their work firehouse. It's just bad business in my eye...no disrespect to these guys, I just think it is tacky.

[hfd745 8]

Take the cars away and watch how many people don't want to be chief anymore. There are to many people out there that only do it for the car.

[x129K 1,393]

Take the cars away and watch how many people don't want to be chief anymore. There are to many people out there that only do it for the car.

Sad but true, for some I guess. Personally, it wouldnt change my thought or desire to be a Chief Officer...however, the increased liabilty associated with red lights and siren does concern me with personal auto insurance, but that is a different story.

That said, I do wonder if the increased scrutiny is worth "free gas and a cool car", both from the public, and our own "brothers".....

I wouldnt need a fancy, large SUV or a quad cab pickup with a fancy cap and slide out command center either. Just something to get me there safely...after all, it's not the car that's importnant to the operation, it's the guy in it...

[msm232 69]

Sad but true, for some I guess. Personally, it wouldnt change my thought or desire to be a Chief Officer...however, the increased liabilty associated with red lights and siren does concern me with personal auto insurance, but that is a different story.

That said, I do wonder if the increased scrutiny is worth "free gas and a cool car", both from the public, and our own "brothers".....

I wouldnt need a fancy, large SUV or a quad cab pickup with a fancy cap and slide out command center either. Just something to get me there safely...after all, it's not the car that's importnant to the operation, it's the guy in it...

I can't wait to see the Mini Cooper Chief's Car? Although noble, not realistic for a command/first response vehicle.

Stay Safe.

Matt

[16fire5 693]

I don't think anyone in the fire service debates the fact that the IC needs a vehicle with radios, their equipment, and warning devices to do their job. I have no problem with volunteer fire chiefs that uses the vehicle to pick up the groceries or run errands as long as they are in service. Even going to work where they will leave to respond makes sense as long as they are reasonably close. What does not make sense is what the original poster brought up, and that is the practice of the chief using the vehicle when there is no possible way for them to respond. If a chief takes the car and parks it at the train station for 10 hours a day 5 days a week it is serving the district no possible purpose for 50 hours a week.

The other concept that escapes me is the need for multiple chiefs vehicles especially in smaller volunteer departments. Actually some departments have an extra vehicle for the duty chief to use when the 3 chiefs are out of town. Is it really too much to ask for one chief to leave the vehicle back for the defacto IC to use? I will never understand why a volunteer fire department with 2 engines and 1 truck needs 3 chiefs cars. Compare the a residential alarm between a volunteer department and a career department. In the volunteer side you are more likely to get 3 chiefs and 1 engine. In the career side you will typically get at minimum 2 engines, 1 truck and a chief. I think the volunteer side would be better served if they sent one IC and sent the rest of the sparse resources they have to staff their apparatus.

The concepts I speak of are not ground breaking they are a way of life for the volunteer fire service in places like PA where the one chiefs car they have is a used one they purchased from a department around here.

[SageVigiles 1,194]

In New Fairfield, the Chief can only take his car to work if he lives within a certain range of the town, admittedly I have no clue what that range is, since it doesn't really make a difference in my life, I'm not in any danger of becoming Chief. When he goes away on vacation, it gets assigned to the senior and/or available assistant chief.

Also, as far as the district paying for gas, our Chief uses the town pumps where we fill the rigs/cop cars/etc, so he wouldn't really be able to defraud the town on gas money.

Izzy, those policies are all well and good, but we both know there are Troopers out there that use their cars for much more "personal" business. I met a CSP Lieutenant who told me that they don't even own a personal car, and haven't owned one in over 10 years. If they need to go out of state they rent. And you'd be amazed how many people don't know that all Troopers get take homes. Probably CT's best kept semi-secret.