Local Government Watchdogs

[vincegatto]

When I started reading the old board years ago, it was my impression that Mr Audubon was a crusader against corruption in the local Audubon government. Someone who was ready to take on the POWERS and challenge their policies and decisions head-on. A true advocate of the residents, someone to fight for the little guy. However, my impression changed over time. Most towns have a local activist, someone who attends municipal meeting and challenges the local leadership. You read about these people in the local newspapers. They stand up, announce their name, give their address and lodge their complaints. Some issues they raise are valid and some are not. But, at least they are willing to stand by their convictions and willing to take any repercussions they may have to endure. Sometimes they come off as heroes and sometimes just complainers and malcontents.

Mr Audubon, on the other hand, hid in the shadows, anonymously posting on Audubon talks. He leveled charges against public official, businesses and private individuals, passed on rumors and gossip and swore they were facts. However, never once did he go public and stand by anything he said. His excuse was that the POWERS would retaliate against him if they knew who he was. That, of course, would have been the biggest expose' in town, if an individual was attacked by the government for speaking out. We call it our first amendment right and many are prepared to fight for theirs, but not "scoop", our local watchdog.

The Courier Post did a feature story on local town watchdogs, advocates of the people, at least in their own minds. Their names and stories are on this link. Obviously, our local watchdog's name is missing, a testament to his credibility and lack thereof.

www.courierpostonline.com/article/20100131/NEWS01/1310357/Activists-eye-every-move-by-leaders

Even though we have a new board, there are still people here that level charges against our public official anonymously and it is good to see that people in other towns at least have the guts to go public with their charges. Keep that in mind as you read some of the garbage that appears here lacking in any substance and fact. It's easy for people to post statements that they don't have to be accountable for or back up personally.

[daddydog]

Ok, I will ask a watchdog type question:

I was at the Acme this evening and observed a sports utility vehicle bearing the AUDUBON FIRE POLICE logo and on the front bracket where it should have had a license plate, it read AUDUBON FIRE POLICE CAPTAIN. I did not see if it had municipal license plates (since the front plate was missing). The driver exited this vehicle wearing civilian clothing and went into the Acme, ostensibly to shop.

So the questions are these:

Does the boro own the vehicle? What regulations are put on the drivers of these vehicles if they are owned by the boro? Should he have gone shopping while using this vehicle, seemingly off duty (if they have a duty type schedule)?

It doesn't seem fair that an off-duty Fire Policeman should use a boro vehicle (and gas) to go shopping for groceries.

Any responses from those in the know?

[vincegatto]

Jan 31, 2010 19:59:10 GMT -5 daddydog said:

Ok, I will ask a watchdog type question:

I was at the Acme this evening and observed a sports utility vehicle bearing the AUDUBON FIRE POLICE logo and on the front bracket where it should have had a license plate, it read AUDUBON FIRE POLICE CAPTAIN. I did not see if it had municipal license plates (since the front plate was missing). The driver exited this vehicle wearing civilian clothing and went into the Acme, ostensibly to shop.

So the questions are these:

Does the boro own the vehicle? What regulations are put on the drivers of these vehicles if they are owned by the boro? Should he have gone shopping while using this vehicle, seemingly off duty (if they have a duty type schedule)?

It doesn't seem fair that an off-duty Fire Policeman should use a boro vehicle (and gas) to go shopping for groceries.

Any responses from those in the know?

Why not contact the Director of Public Safety (Mayor Ward) and tell him this does not look right to you. What are trying to accomplish posting this on a message board, other than trying to embarrass someone.

That was my point. Do you want to do something about this or not? If yes, why not go through the correct channels. Nobody here knows who you are or if there is any truth to what you say.

Why are you asking for responses, do you want to get another anonymous poster to start trashing the Fire Police along with you. This is an "old board tactic" and I have a feeling others beside myself don't welcome it here. If you want to be a watchdog, do the right thing if you feel something is wrong- don't just come here and bark.

[mtephraimneighbor]

Jan 31, 2010 20:44:41 GMT -5 @vincegatto said:

If you want to be a watchdog, do the right thing if you feel something is wrong- don't just come here and bark.

I like this. I may start using it as my tag line: "Don't just come here and bark."

[billmelater]

The guy asked a question. A truthful and factual response would be appropriate.

[billmelater]

Jan 31, 2010 19:59:10 GMT -5 daddydog said:

Ok, I will ask a watchdog type question:

I was at the Acme this evening and observed a sports utility vehicle bearing the AUDUBON FIRE POLICE logo and on the front bracket where it should have had a license plate, it read AUDUBON FIRE POLICE CAPTAIN. I did not see if it had municipal license plates (since the front plate was missing). The driver exited this vehicle wearing civilian clothing and went into the Acme, ostensibly to shop.

So the questions are these:

Does the boro own the vehicle? What regulations are put on the drivers of these vehicles if they are owned by the boro? Should he have gone shopping while using this vehicle, seemingly off duty (if they have a duty type schedule)?

It doesn't seem fair that an off-duty Fire Policeman should use a boro vehicle (and gas) to go shopping for groceries.

Any responses from those in the know?

My understanding is that the boro does own and insure these vehicles. They are staffed by volunteers who direct traffic in the event of a fire call. This way they do not use their own vehicles for their responses. While it may seem like "free transportation", I see it as a quid pro qou (sp?) in return for their service.

There have been instances in the past where I have seen these vehicles way out of town on personal business (kid's functions). I have not seen this lately. Perhaps the new administration set some rules in regards to their usage.

[vincegatto]

Feb 1, 2010 18:21:12 GMT -5 billmelater said:

The guy asked a question. A truthful and factual response would be appropriate.

Unless the Mayor/Director of Public Safety signs up to post here, he is asking anonymous people to give him an answer which may be a guess, speculation, misinformation or an outright lie --who knows -- and, nobody here can do anything about it, anyway.

If the car does not meet the State standard for a license plate and is being used for personal business, he has a legitimate beef.

This current administration says that it will be "transparent" they video all the meetings and we all can see what happens. He goes to a meeting lodges his complaint and the Commissioners have to deal with it in front of the public.

Isn't that what everyone wants Bill, everything done out in the open? Why are you giving him an answer, it sounds like you are guessing and just giving an opinion. I'm glad quid pro quo to use the vehicles for personal business is OK with you, but you don't set Borough policy.

[billmelater]

I don't know what everyone wants, and I don't pretend to be everyone's voice. I just answered his question without making it some Oliver Stone conspiracy.

[vincegatto]

Feb 1, 2010 18:49:19 GMT -5 billmelater said:

I don't know what everyone wants, and I don't pretend to be everyone's voice. I just answered his question without making it some Oliver Stone conspiracy.

You answered one of his questions (he asked if people thought it was fair to use vehicles off duty) You think its fair (quid pro quo for service) Great. But you are just guessing at the other questions unless you work for the Borough and we don't know that because you are anonymous.

I also agree with your Oliver Stone analogy. Personally, I think it is a "candy-@ss" complaint. But, if it bothers him let him go complain to the Commissioners. He can be a real watchdog.

[daddydog]

Feb 1, 2010 18:39:45 GMT -5 billmelater said:

Jan 31, 2010 19:59:10 GMT -5 daddydog said:

Ok, I will ask a watchdog type question:

I was at the Acme this evening and observed a sports utility vehicle bearing the AUDUBON FIRE POLICE logo and on the front bracket where it should have had a license plate, it read AUDUBON FIRE POLICE CAPTAIN. I did not see if it had municipal license plates (since the front plate was missing). The driver exited this vehicle wearing civilian clothing and went into the Acme, ostensibly to shop.

So the questions are these:

Does the boro own the vehicle? What regulations are put on the drivers of these vehicles if they are owned by the boro? Should he have gone shopping while using this vehicle, seemingly off duty (if they have a duty type schedule)?

It doesn't seem fair that an off-duty Fire Policeman should use a boro vehicle (and gas) to go shopping for groceries.

Any responses from those in the know?

My understanding is that the boro does own and insure these vehicles. They are staffed by volunteers who direct traffic in the event of a fire call. This way they do not use their own vehicles for their responses. While it may seem like "free transportation", I see it as a quid pro qou (sp?) in return for their service.

There have been instances in the past where I have seen these vehicles way out of town on personal business (kid's functions). I have not seen this lately. Perhaps the new administration set some rules in regards to their usage.

Thank you Bill. I appreciate your answer, even if it based on your speculation. At least you provided me with a place to start.

Mr Gatto, I know you have the title of moderator on this board, however, no one appointed you as the moral police. Just who do you think you are judging my motives, based on what.....your impression on what I was trying to ? I simply asked a question. I do know how to find out, but I didn't make any accusations. I simply asked a few questions and provided my thoughts on whether or not it was a fair thing to do (if it was a boro owned vehicle). I sparingly post here, and you are the reason why.

Somethings will never change.

[vincegatto]

Feb 1, 2010 20:31:32 GMT -5 daddydog said:

Feb 1, 2010 18:39:45 GMT -5 billmelater said:

My understanding is that the boro does own and insure these vehicles. They are staffed by volunteers who direct traffic in the event of a fire call. This way they do not use their own vehicles for their responses. While it may seem like "free transportation", I see it as a quid pro qou (sp?) in return for their service.

There have been instances in the past where I have seen these vehicles way out of town on personal business (kid's functions). I have not seen this lately. Perhaps the new administration set some rules in regards to their usage.

Thank you Bill. I appreciate your answer, even if it based on your speculation. At least you provided me with a place to start.

Mr Gatto, I know you have the title of moderator on this board, however, no one appointed you as the moral police. Just who do you think you are judging my motives, based on what.....your impression on what I was trying to ? I simply asked a question. I do know how to find out, but I didn't make any accusations. I simply asked a few questions and provided my thoughts on whether or not it was a fair thing to do (if it was a boro owned vehicle). I sparingly post here, and you are the reason why.

Somethings will never change.

First, I am not a moderator, only commentator. Second my intention was to generally discuss why some people post in the form of complaints. I don't know you, so if it sounded like I was judging you, I apologize.

I think that you raise valid points. The questions that you should have asked are.

1.) Do you folks think its right for the car not to have a front license plate?

2) Do you think that boro cars should be used off duty?

3) Do you think I should complain to the Commissioners about this?

You asked policy questions sort of looking to catch someone breaking the rules. You know that you are right

1) The car should have a front plate (even if the Boro allows them not to)

2) Boro cars should not be used for off duty personal use (even if the Boro allows that)

3) If I were you, I would not go to a meeting and complain, because I think that it is a trivial offense, but if you feel strongly go. YOU ARE RIGHT AND NOBODY CAN ARGUE LOGICALLY AGAINST YOU.

Again, I apologize for being harsh with you. It was wrong of me. Sometimes I do not take a persons feelings into consideration when I am trying to make a point.

[Pasta]

Feb 1, 2010 21:34:20 GMT -5 @vincegatto said:

Feb 1, 2010 20:31:32 GMT -5 daddydog said:

Thank you Bill. I appreciate your answer, even if it based on your speculation. At least you provided me with a place to start.

Mr Gatto, I know you have the title of moderator on this board, however, no one appointed you as the moral police. Just who do you think you are judging my motives, based on what.....your impression on what I was trying to ? I simply asked a question. I do know how to find out, but I didn't make any accusations. I simply asked a few questions and provided my thoughts on whether or not it was a fair thing to do (if it was a boro owned vehicle). I sparingly post here, and you are the reason why.

Somethings will never change.

First, I am not a moderator, only commentator. Second my intention was to generally discuss why some people post in the form of complaints. I don't know you, so if it sounded like I was judging you, I apologize.

I think that you raise valid points. The questions that you should have asked are.

1.) Do you folks think its right for the car not to have a front license plate?

2) Do you think that boro cars should be used off duty?

3) Do you think I should complain to the Commissioners about this?

You asked policy questions sort of looking to catch someone breaking the rules. You know that you are right

1) The car should have a front plate (even if the Boro allows them not to)

2) Boro cars should not be used for off duty personal use (even if the Boro allows that)

3) If I were you, I would not go to a meeting and complain, because I think that it is a trivial offense, but if you feel strongly go. YOU ARE RIGHT AND NOBODY CAN ARGUE LOGICALLY AGAINST YOU.

Again, I apologize for being harsh with you. It was wrong of me. Sometimes I do not take a persons feelings into consideration when I am trying to make a point.

Mr. Gatto, thank you for posting that. When daddydog asked his question, I was reminded of me doing the same thing and people jumping up and down.

Billmelater is someone who I think tries to provide answers when he can, and is someone who I think posts good information. I think he is an asset.

Having been there, I felt that daddydog was only looking for direction.

I also know that you are someone who prefers "factual" information over, "I heard this..." and I saw that in your response, but, as you mentioned, it could have been viewed as a little sharp. You recognized this too in your most recent post.

That having been said, I am so thankful at what you just posted. I do not ever recall anyone on this board ever making an apology for something like that, and I am glad you did. It says a lot about your own personal integrity. It was a kind and civil gesture on your part.

I am certain that daddydog and billmelater will understand.

[blackbelt]

Jan 31, 2010 19:59:10 GMT -5 daddydog said:

Ok, I will ask a watchdog type question:

I was at the Acme this evening and observed a sports utility vehicle bearing the AUDUBON FIRE POLICE logo and on the front bracket where it should have had a license plate, it read AUDUBON FIRE POLICE CAPTAIN. I did not see if it had municipal license plates (since the front plate was missing). The driver exited this vehicle wearing civilian clothing and went into the Acme, ostensibly to shop.

So the questions are these:

Does the boro own the vehicle? What regulations are put on the drivers of these vehicles if they are owned by the boro? Should he have gone shopping while using this vehicle, seemingly off duty (if they have a duty type schedule)?

It doesn't seem fair that an off-duty Fire Policeman should use a boro vehicle (and gas) to go shopping for groceries.

Any responses from those in the know?

Is it "possible" that he was there on official business (maybe checking the sprinkler system)?