“Why was the MVFD Sprint cell phone bill for April 27-May 26, 2007 $2283.90? Is this why Perrotti won't keep his word and provide the copies we have already paid for? FOI was made aware of this yesterday.”
Wrong again. Apparently, Mr. DeAngelis had difficulty reading the statement. The MVFD cell phone charges did not come to $2283.90 for the period between April 27 and May 26, 2007.
In addition cell phone records as far as I know are not subject to FOI. The statements may be, but not the actual call-by-call record.
In addition the MVFD cell phone bill is not paid through taxpayer money. The MVFD Inc. pays that bill.
The cell phones have proven to be an invaluable tool for officers to quickly communicate with each other. The cell phones have also made the Fire Chief extremely accessible to the public. If you need to speak with the Chief he is almost instantly available. This brings the level of service the MVFD can provide Middlebury residents to a much higher level.
Yes Virginia the phone call bills from Sprint are itemized. If
the officers and men at the Fire Dept. had any onions at all they
would simply request copies of the phone bills from Sprint for
2007. On the other hand FOI has assured us that our copies of the
phone bills are "on the way."”
The information regarding any MVFD bill is available to any member at any time. It is not about onions, it is about having the correct information. Mr. DeAngelis does not have the correct information, and does not report the correct information on his website.
There is a set number of minutes alloted to each MVFD phone. If the person in possession of the phone goes over the minutes, he is responsible for paying the difference. This is the same policy as the PD and I believe the Public Works have, with one exception. Taxpayers are paying for the PD and PW phones, but are not paying for the MVFD phones. Since Mr. DeAngelis, as a taxpayer, has no financial stake in this matter, I wonder why he spends so much time looking into it?
The Chief is allocated more minutes than the rest of the officers, because his duties require it. Paul Perrotti is not only Chief of the Department, but head of Emergency Management as well. These duties are 24/7, 365 days a year. In a post 9-11 world the amount of work Chief Perrotti is responsible for, has exponentially skyrocketed each and every year. Chief Perrotti has set high standards for himself and his position, and if these standards are compromised, will result in a lower quality of service the MVFD provides Middlebury residents.
On top of that, Chief Perrotti is not a full-time paid Chief. If that were so, he could sit at his desk all day long making phone calls from Fire HQ. But, since Chief Perrotti works for a living, he must take his job as Chief where ever he goes, and you can’t do that unless you have a cell phone.
Posts
6 comments:
Welp... ...there goes the Half-Wit, half "lie-berrian" Pattie master-baiting the town yet again about things he has absolutely no clue about in the hopes of stirring up non existing, half-cocked "controversy"!
Guess that's how one builds readership to one's own blog.
Since he's gonna start charging a monthly subscription fee for his "digital dogma" dis-service, I wonder if he's gonna start taking the costs of liability settlements, FOI expense and rhinoplasty costs (from getting his nose so far out of joint or getting poked in it) off his taxes as legitimate business expense.
What a half-assed jerk!
PS: Don't forget to write off the cost of the Vaseline 'cause you're gonna need a lot of it when PhD (Piled high & Deep) Eddie no longer needs you and screws you over "in the end" when he's done using you doing his dirty work to his advantage. It's his M.O. There's a bunch of empty Vaseline jars laying around Middlebury after all these years of "public service"
wow, what the hell does Periotti do with the cell phone for $2300 a month ??? wow
$2300 a month !!!!!!!!
Are the cell phones expensive? Yes. Is it just one phone? No, half-wit, it's all the dept.'s phones. Also, the bill was for two months of service, not one. You do the math...
p.s. if anyone is a phone co. salesman, why not be a hero and get the Fire dept. a better deal?
what exactly in the mvfd is paid for by taxpayers and what is not ? Seems like voodoo accounting everywhere.
anything that is excessive ...."oh thats not paid for with public funds"
This fund, that fund, uncle joeys fund, et.c etc.,
so 1/2 the dept is public and 1/2 is private
Dear Curious Anonymous:
Why not join the Department, do something useful and constructive FOR the community, AND get your curiosity concerns answered at the same time! ...Bring a friend
"what exactly in the mvfd is paid for by taxpayers and what is not ? Seems like voodoo accounting everywhere.
anything that is excessive ...."oh thats not paid for with public funds"
This fund, that fund, uncle joeys fund, et.c etc.,
so 1/2 the dept is public and 1/2 is private"
It's actually very easy to understand, if you check for yourself, instead of listening to the PhD of Library Science. But then again, you probably already know the answer to this. There is the town department, which spends town funds thru the established town policies. Bills are submitted, and payments are approved. Very simple. There is also the MVFD, Inc. The only tax dollars that ever touch the accounts of the MVFD, Inc, are the fire and incentive pay. Every single other dollar in those accounts comes from donation or fund-raising. Again, very simple. Thirdly, there are the Ambulance accounts. All of that money comes from patient billing. Again, no tax dollars. Once again, simple to understand. What's so "voodoo" about it? Check around, if you dare. Many other volunteer fire departments in this very State operate EXACTLY like the MVFD does. In fact,oh my gosh, there are volunteer departments that actually allow the tax dollars AND donation/fund-raising dollars to MIX!!!!! How horrible is that, I ask?? Why is it that this seems to be a big issue only here in Middlebury? I've been watching the DeAngelis charade for well nigh on two years now, and have yet to see one concrete accusation of wrong-doing yet. Could it be because there is no wrong-doing, only malice on the part of the "accuser"? I will make one caution here: Mr DeAngelis needs to really sit down and carefully read the FOI laws. The very laws he trumpets so loudly could be used against him. If I am not mistaken, he was an employee of the state of Connecticut. Hmmmmm. Also, tax records are public records, and can be FOI'd as well. Hmmmmmmm. A word to the wise: Be careful what you wish for........
Post a Comment