Not good for Public Perception

[791075 34]

I believe the title of the thread was - not good for PUBLIC PERCEPTION, its not what is legal or not, its what the public views. A chiefs car from a district far away at a mall in this climate is most definitely noticed. People make comments when we shop for meals, they think the department pays for our meals outright, they have no clue its paid out of our own pockets. Its not what is actual fact anymore, its what a budget conscious public views.

[10512 214]

The title of this thread includes "Public Perception". It has to do with how the public perceives it. If the public does not like it, and if they b**ch enough, you can guarantee the laws, rules or bylaws will change.

The public appears to becoming more and more concerned how money is spent.

Just my opinion!

Edited November 4, 2013 by 10512

[TRUCK6018 50]

Could you elaborate on the legality question?

I thought I did but let's put it into a different context:

If you filled up your personal vehicle at the districts pumps and traveled to far away places for personal reasons would that be legal? What is the difference if you use the same gasoline but now in a district vehicle where as now you are not paying any vehicle expenses (insurance, registration, wear and tear, etc) for personal reasons?

Granted I am not a lawyer but it sounds questionable when tax payer money is used for personal reasons.

A chiefs car from a district far away at a mall in this climate is most definitely noticed. People make comments when we shop for meals, they think the department pays for our meals outright, they have no clue its paid out of our own pockets. Its not what is actual fact anymore, its what a budget conscious public views.

Agreed. Every year taxes go up and every year something like this raises more eye brows.

Over the last 5+ years, many government agencies (police, highway, etc) have severely limited take home vehicle use even when they are required to respond during off hours. While I am not suggesting that chief's vehicles be stripped away, their non firematic use should be under scrutiny.

Granted, this vehicle in question is not a chiefs vehicle as per the Jerrico FD's web site the chief designators are 9401, 9402 and 9403. Not 9413 as is pictured. The public doesn't know the difference and realistically, there is no difference.

[INIT915 1,119]

I thought I did but let's put it into a different context:

If you filled up your personal vehicle at the districts pumps and traveled to far away places for personal reasons would that be legal? What is the difference if you use the same gasoline but now in a district vehicle where as now you are not paying any vehicle expenses (insurance, registration, wear and tear, etc) for personal reasons?

Granted I am not a lawyer but it sounds questionable when tax payer money is used for personal reasons.

Well, given your example, it's not necessarily illegal, per se. Thanks for the clarification.

[GAW6 66]

I am willing to bet this person was on their way to the NYS Association of Fire Districts Fall Workshop at Honor's Haven in Ellenville, which started Thursday morning. Woodbury Commons is right off of the Thruway, on the way to Honor's Haven. As a Commissioner, if in fact he/she was on their way to the Conference, there is nothing wrong with using the District vehicle. Most Commissioner's will put in a requisition for their mileage to attend, so what is the difference if a District vehicle is being used?

In case anyone is wondering, the Workshop is very informative for Commissioners/Chiefs. Travel Policy is something that is always discussed and every District should have one in place.

[CHIEFPHIL 90]

There is no public perception IMO one way or another. the public does not really care. Nor do the public officials.

We are the only ones who care. Usually some bitter member is the person who makes it a problem.

Yeh, I know... 9 years as a chief officer and I never had a problem taking my town issued car to work ( grant it was in the next town and I did respond to when I could. Ya know who made it a problem, a member that was disgruntled. He went out of his way to document via photos the 3 chiefs cars at work, at shopping etc. Needless today, one car sits in the chiefs driveway while he is at work the other two sit in the FD parking lot 18 hours a day and only used when a member wants to go to the pizza joint.

As one of my mentors and favorite Chiefs once said..." WE have met the enemy and WE are them".

[16fire5 693]

So if a department only has one command vehicle the chief should drive it 20 miles each way to work when they won't respond? I disagree. Leave it for who ever will be command. Plenty of places are forced to share the vehicle because that's what's economically feasable. Too much sense of entitlement for some.

[TFD141@aol.com 26]

I would agree he was on his way to the Districts convention in Ellenville and that is a perfectly good use of the vehicle in this case as it is directly on the way up. In the private sector the boss in nearly every corporation is given not only take home privileges, but have drivers. And to say I pay taxes and a corporation is private is not true, I own many corporations through shares of the company and very concerned about how the corporation spends it (my) dollars. My previous employer CEO earned 11 million a year, had a driver and got a 19 million dollar pension...so whats fair??? Some FD's (not mine) allow the use of the car as a reward for doing the job for NO PAY. I can see that as a nearby FD pays several career chiefs over $200k salary, very good benefits, best of pensions, expenses, etc. and they all have a take home vehicle. His counterpart in the very next FD gets no pay, very little or no expenses. So if you look at it can you justify allowing the chief who puts in a LOT of time (both career and volunteer) some perks just like corporations do?? While I fully understand taxes and everything else (perceptions, jealousy, bad hair day, etc), most people outside of the FD pay little or no attention to the chiefs vehicle as they assume he is the CEO of a small/medium//large "corporation" and that is a perk of the job. (My GOD he is the chief!)

[Remember585 815]

It is ALWAYS a person with an ax to grind that creates problems.

Opinions are like a$$holes, everyone has them but do we really need to hear from them?

[markmets415 524]

Reading some of the comments and posts here makes me smile, I am curious how many have no issues taking rigs to parades as far as Lake George for a weekend, it's parade people, some of these I am sure these rigs are valued over 1 million+ and paid for by the taxpayers of their districts, justified for purchased, yet this is ok? Personally I do not see how any fire district can justify taking any of their apparatus to a parade unless it's to a neighboring department, that just me as we are continually being asked or forced to do more with less.

Above it was posted that this vehicle is not a Chief staff vehicle and a fire district vehicle and perhaps just maybe the operator was in attendance at the Fire District conference that was the same weekend, are we really debating this topic without even having any facts other then this photo?

Edited November 6, 2013 by markmets415

[spin_the_wheel 460]

I am willing to bet this person was on their way to the NYS Association of Fire Districts Fall Workshop at Honor's Haven in Ellenville, which started Thursday morning. Woodbury Commons is right off of the Thruway, on the way to Honor's Haven. As a Commissioner, if in fact he/she was on their way to the Conference, there is nothing wrong with using the District vehicle. Most Commissioner's will put in a requisition for their mileage to attend, so what is the difference if a District vehicle is being used?

In case anyone is wondering, the Workshop is very informative for Commissioners/Chiefs. Travel Policy is something that is always discussed and every District should have one in place.

BINGO.

[spin_the_wheel 460]

That vehicle isn't a perk. It is an emergency vehicle. It doesn't have a license plate, it has a unit identification tag in place of a license plate. It's granted exception from many v/t laws because it's an Emergency Vehicle. An emergency response vehicle for use in Jericho L.I., not shopping at Woodbury Commons.

Look, lets be honest and fair. Chiefs in volunteer fire departments often put in a lot of time. Some departments, those with modest budgets, will simply offer to put a little flashing red light and siren in a chiefs personal car. In districts with the finances, they offer their chiefs a vehicle specifically dedicated to serve in that capacity. I think this is all well and good. Should the chief be able to use that vehicle for personal business? Of course! He's available to operate in his capacity as chief, he should be in the vehicle that is dedicated to that purpose. However, if that person is out of response range and not on department business, he should use his personal vehicle. If that vehicle is a "perk" for elected officials, than it should be properly tagged as such, not given a unofficial plate as the one in the photo has.

The fire service needs to smarten up......and yes, extravagant practices concentrated in L.I. have brought a huge microscope on the volunteer fire service. After all, this is an area with 30x the number of rescue apparatus as operate in a city of 8.5 million people. Has the behavior changed? Who knows, but that picture might lead inquiring minds to think that it hasn't.

Actually the trend on LI seems to be to do away with the traditional dedicated rescue truck, unless its for specialized equipment hazmat, TRT, dive team truck. Many departments are replacing them with a Rescue Engine. Plenty of room to store extrication equipment and other "every day stuff".

Lots of things have changed on LI including much tighter accountability on how money is spent.

Also note many of the required classes commissioners need to take now are required by law. What's wrong with taking a district vehicle to one of the seminars and stopping at a mall on the way?

Edited November 7, 2013 by spin_the_wheel

[38ff 250]

There is only one required course that commissioners have to take, within 280 days or so of getting elected.