There is an interesting video story from Long Island about how the Fire Chiefs take there Department provided vehicle into the City for their job. To read the full story click the link below and watch the video clip.
I have approximately 26 years as a volunteer, where is my vehicle? I've dedicated thousands of hours volunteering. When I was Chief of my department, I was assigned a Chief's vehicle and I was very careful about where I drove it. For a while, I even logged all my trips and fill ups. You know what? All the little trips here and there around town etc... made up for the vast majority of my mileage...using the vehicle around the area so that I would have it in case there was a call.
According to the department in question's website, they run about 100 calls per month, about twice what my department does. I'm assuming that the majority are EMS related as I think I saw three ambulances in their apparatus section.
I think that driving the vehicle 53 miles one way to work is an expensive perk. You have to use common sense. Of course I guess that when your budget is $2.2 million, you can afford to buy new vehicle every couple of years.
Sorry Jack, been around the fire service in NY State long enough to know a couple of things....
1.) Long Island is the poster child for elaborate apparatus, palatial stations etc.. I used to watch them all drive in to the state Chiefs Show at the Concorde years ago...the Chief and all his assistants from numerous departments- what good were those vehicles doing there?
2.) Too many different departments/ districts, too much apparatus, stations; not enough firefighters
3.)I don't necessarily agree with the fire district concept...it's another layer of government we don't need in in every or every other neighborhood and definitely not multiple ones in a single town.
This is ridiculous. On one hand the community supports and really stands behind their FD, yet when it comes to their chief using his dept. vehicle to get to and from work (which is completely within dept. SOP's) they become cynical and outraged. God forbid he has to respond to a call, but first he has to stop at his home to pick up the dept. vehicle. That would cause a stir in the community for the response time that has been "wasted". They need to release a statement to the public, and specifically that news broadcast that actually explains the benefits and necessities that being the chief entails.
For those of you that are opposed to this kind of thing, then that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. However, don't chastise someone for doing the same thing a little different. There are many ways to skin a cat, just like there are many ways to operate a fire department. Use what works for you and just learn and adapt from everyone else. No one is perfect.
To me it's not a question of opinion, it's a question of is what he did allowed? Yes, it is.
As for L.I. FD's, yup, they are notorious for big spending and have been in the news for excessive spending. Some departments have 1 sq. mi. response areas.
Then again, some of those departments serve very affluent communities. As it stands, Holtsville is getting up there in terms of median income (I think it's around $90,000, decent money by any account).
But again, people (interviewed in the link as well as in here) seem to be confused. The Chief did nothing wrong. It really doesn't matter what people think since the Chief did nothing wrong. The issue, if any, lies with his district and if THOSE people want the perq's changed then it's THEIR prerogative.
Until the rules are changed, why condemn the Chief for doing something NOT wrong.
On one hand the community supports and really stands behind their FD, yet when it comes to their chief using his dept. vehicle to get to and from work (which is completely within dept. SOP's) they become cynical and outraged.
Who is "they"? Seems like this whole story came about because a reporter ambushed one of these chief's and brought the subject up. As I mentioned before I don't agree with the use of the vehicle in this way, but if that is what the dept and community is allowing, then there also is no problem. When it comes down to being outraged and cynical, it depends upon who you are talking about, I haven't really seen the public opinion from the community itself.
The Chief did nothing wrong. It really doesn't matter what people think since the Chief did nothing wrong. The issue, if any, lies with his district and if THOSE people want the perq's changed then it's THEIR prerogative
And this is exactly right, it really is not anyone else's issue but those who live within the community served. If this "perk" is viewed as a means of compensation for the job being done, then so be it, it is the choice of that community. It is not the choice I would go with personally, but I don't live in the community to make the decision either.
John, good point. I didn't mean to generalize the comment. Thank you for pointing that out. More than anything I am just trying to say the same thing you just said. Although it might not be the option I agree with the most, it is their procedures, and he did nothing wrong by them.
Because it IS allowed, it IS right. Right up until the community decides to no longer allow it. Comments to the contrary is just preaching. YOU (and others) may not think it's right, but so what? Unless you're a taxpayer in THAT community, you're just trying to impose your own idea of what or how things should be, in a community to which you do NOT belong.
How about if we here on FFN vote to decide how YOUR department is run? That would be fair...wouldn't it?
Jack, I'm all over that he's allowed to do it. I'm suggesting that where nearly all agencies are being asked to tighten spending, is it the right thing to do? It's an expensive perk with those sort of miles being driven and I struggle to see how he can be of any benefit 53 miles away...