Jump to content

Fire Grant


Guest Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Guest
Oh, snap!

What's to mention. That the town first said they would take it knowing all the stipulations, but not thinking Kearny would actually get it. Then when it was awarded the got caught with their pants around their ankles.....AGAIN! The FD could have taken over the ambulance which in turn would have made the town money instead of a private ambulance company that has the name Kearny in it making all the dough. And they also boast hey we runn 1 1/2 ambulances daily! Wow real impressive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

The grant, I've heard, was written to bring the manpower levels to reflect nationally recognized standards. So, the federal government thought there was a need to increase manpower, gave the town money to help, and the town's brain trust decided we wouldn't accept the grant. Sounds about normal with this Mayor and Council. I'm sure the debate over this issue lasted all of a minute and a half.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

I would expect more discussion on this. Santos and others always talk about the lack of federal funding with regards to homeland security, and when presented with the gift, passes on the opportunity.

So, was the concern for safety just the usual lip service?? Thanks, Al.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest I Wasthere
I would expect more discussion on this. Santos and others always talk about the lack of federal funding with regards to homeland security, and when presented with the gift, passes on the opportunity.

So, was the concern for safety just the usual lip service?? Thanks, Al.

I am continually amazed at how much misinformation is disseminated in an attempt to discredit the current administration. Do you seriously believe that elected officials would bypass anything that would be of financial benefit to the Town? These people have struggled with impossible budgetary problems based on an horrific economy and rising costs in every single operating expenditure. They have been drowning in a sea of criticism and frustration. Don't you think that they would happily grab onto any REAL financial lifeline?

If you had any knowledge at all concerning the SAFER grant, you would know that the grant has a life of only five years, with the amount decreasing each year. One of the conditions of the grant is that the firefighters hired to expand the table of organization could not be laid-off at the end of the five years. Simply put, the grant would begin to cost the town significant money in its second year and by its conclusion would promulgate a price tag to Kearny of close to two million dollars per year!

While the grant is hardly a "gift", in better economic circumstances it would have provided a terrific incentive for any fire department to beef up its ranks. I just don't believe that the Town's current fiscal situation could tolerate the ensuing tax increase. The Mayor and Council, after much research and discussion (which apparently you were not personally notified of) made a difficult but correct decision. As a taxpayer, I say, "Thanks, Al." Only I really mean it.

BTW, the projected revenue which would have resulted from the takeover of the ambulance squad would not have been sufficient to pay for the extra operating costs of the fire department and the Town's escalating share of the cost in accepting the grant.

Next time you're tempted to sit in judgment, at least try to incorporate a modicum of truth and an iota of logic into your statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Partly Disillusioned K-ian
I am continually amazed at how much misinformation is disseminated in an attempt to discredit the current administration. Do you seriously believe that elected officials would bypass anything that would be of financial benefit to the Town? These people have struggled with impossible budgetary problems based on an horrific economy and rising costs in every single operating expenditure. They have been drowning in a sea of criticism and frustration. Don't you think that they would happily grab onto any REAL financial lifeline?

If you had any knowledge at all concerning the SAFER grant, you would know that the grant has a life of only five years, with the amount decreasing each year. One of the conditions of the grant is that the firefighters hired to expand the table of organization could not be laid-off at the end of the five years. Simply put, the grant would begin to cost the town significant money in its second year and by its conclusion would promulgate a price tag to Kearny of close to two million dollars per year!

While the grant is hardly a "gift", in better economic circumstances it would have provided a terrific incentive for any fire department to beef up its ranks. I just don't believe that the Town's current fiscal situation could tolerate the ensuing tax increase. The Mayor and Council, after much research and discussion (which apparently you were not personally notified of) made a difficult but correct decision. As a taxpayer, I say, "Thanks, Al." Only I really mean it.

BTW, the projected revenue which would have resulted from the takeover of the ambulance squad would not have been sufficient to pay for the extra operating costs of the fire department and the Town's escalating share of the cost in accepting the grant.

Next time you're tempted to sit in judgment, at least try to incorporate a modicum of truth and an iota of logic into your statement.

Good answer. Glad to see there are still people with their freaking heads on straight in Kearny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
I am continually amazed at how much misinformation is disseminated in an attempt to discredit the current administration. Do you seriously believe that elected officials would bypass anything that would be of financial benefit to the Town? These people have struggled with impossible budgetary problems based on an horrific economy and rising costs in every single operating expenditure. They have been drowning in a sea of criticism and frustration. Don't you think that they would happily grab onto any REAL financial lifeline?

If you had any knowledge at all concerning the SAFER grant, you would know that the grant has a life of only five years, with the amount decreasing each year. One of the conditions of the grant is that the firefighters hired to expand the table of organization could not be laid-off at the end of the five years. Simply put, the grant would begin to cost the town significant money in its second year and by its conclusion would promulgate a price tag to Kearny of close to two million dollars per year!

While the grant is hardly a "gift", in better economic circumstances it would have provided a terrific incentive for any fire department to beef up its ranks. I just don't believe that the Town's current fiscal situation could tolerate the ensuing tax increase. The Mayor and Council, after much research and discussion (which apparently you were not personally notified of) made a difficult but correct decision. As a taxpayer, I say, "Thanks, Al." Only I really mean it.

BTW, the projected revenue which would have resulted from the takeover of the ambulance squad would not have been sufficient to pay for the extra operating costs of the fire department and the Town's escalating share of the cost in accepting the grant.

Next time you're tempted to sit in judgment, at least try to incorporate a modicum of truth and an iota of logic into your statement.

I love a challenge. Between 1986 and 1992 the KFD hired 56 men, which means in three years time they begin to become eligible to retire. You know, taken off the payroll completely. This is where the savings comes in; as the town becomes responsible for the new hirees pay, they start to lose some members through retirement. Now, most certainly, you cannot guarantee who will or won't retire, but you can take an educated guess that some will start to leave.

The next time you're tempted to sit in judgement of my integrity (read: modicum of truth and an iota of logic) let it go. I know more about this than you do. In fact, I know more about most things than you do, and I don't even know you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
I love a challenge. Between 1986 and 1992 the KFD hired 56 men, which means in three years time they begin to become eligible to retire. You know, taken off the payroll completely. This is where the savings comes in; as the town becomes responsible for the new hirees pay, they start to lose some members through retirement. Now, most certainly, you cannot guarantee who will or won't retire, but you can take an educated guess that some will start to leave.

The next time you're tempted to sit in judgement of my integrity (read: modicum of truth and an iota of logic) let it go. I know more about this than you do. In fact, I know more about most things than you do, and I don't even know you.

See everything is not always as it seems. What the person before you stated is correct about the grant only covering part of the salaries for 5 years. What the person failed to leave out though is that the mayor and council told the FD that if the federal government gave them the grant, the town of Kearny would accept. So when the government called to make sure that Kearny would accpet before they awarded the grant the answer was yes. BUT! After the grant was awarded then good ole Alberto and the rest of the dummies....(except Pettigrew and Eckle ofcourse they said yes to it like agreed on) turned around and said no. So instead of saying no off the bat like they should have, Kearny is going to be penalized and most likely wont be awarded any more grants anytime soon. And FYI grants get more than just manpower. They buy equipment for the men so the town doesnt have to shell out money. Thats why turning down the grant just further proves that the M&C has their heads up their behinds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest I Wasthere
I love a challenge. Between 1986 and 1992 the KFD hired 56 men, which means in three years time they begin to become eligible to retire. You know, taken off the payroll completely. This is where the savings comes in; as the town becomes responsible for the new hirees pay, they start to lose some members through retirement. Now, most certainly, you cannot guarantee who will or won't retire, but you can take an educated guess that some will start to leave.

The next time you're tempted to sit in judgement of my integrity (read: modicum of truth and an iota of logic) let it go. I know more about this than you do. In fact, I know more about most things than you do, and I don't even know you.

You may love a good challenge, but you certainly did not rise to the occasion on this one. In your own words, "...you cannot guarantee who will retire..." before the conclusion of the grant. Should the Town administration gamble on the chance that there will be fewer positions in the table of organization because of attrition? Any savings through retirements can only be presumed; and presumption can't be translated into budget revenues. On the other hand, the expenditures for accepting the grant are real, fixed and payable by the Town beginning in the third year of the life of the grant. So while we can't bank on the savings due to attrition, we can bank on the Town's obligation to pay for its share of the costs which are built into the grant stipulations.

The variables in your scenario are just too numerous to risk the Town's fiscal future. For instance, what if the fire department has no retirees in the third, fourth or even fifth years? What if the fire unions grieve the loss of manpower (through attrition) and win? Then the Town is obligated to pay for personnel it didn't plan for and cannot afford.

If you interpreted my assertions as an attack on your integrity, I apologize. Unlike you, I would not presume to evaluate either the integrity or intelligence of someone with whom I am not well acquainted. Based on your statement, I merely deduced that your fact-finding left something to be desired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest I Wasthere
See everything is not always as it seems. What the person before you stated is correct about the grant only covering part of the salaries for 5 years. What the person failed to leave out though is that the mayor and council told the FD that if the federal government gave them the grant, the town of Kearny would accept. So when the government called to make sure that Kearny would accpet before they awarded the grant the answer was yes. BUT! After the grant was awarded then good ole Alberto and the rest of the dummies....(except Pettigrew and Eckle ofcourse they said yes to it like agreed on) turned around and said no. So instead of saying no off the bat like they should have, Kearny is going to be penalized and most likely wont be awarded any more grants anytime soon. And FYI grants get more than just manpower. They buy equipment for the men so the town doesnt have to shell out money. Thats why turning down the grant just further proves that the M&C has their heads up their behinds.

I think you are confused about the "grants process". Municipal agencies are always encouraged to research all grants even if there is some doubt as to their being useful to the Town. I would think that in this case where there was so much money at stake, the Chief and the Mayor and Council decided to apply, see if Kearny met the criteria and upon being approved studied every possible way in which this could be accepted without causing a huge tax burden. Alas, there was none. I doubt that someone of Mayor Santos' intelligence would have given advance approval knowing that it would create a huge debt.

FYI, this particular grant was very specific as to the utilization of the funds. Money could not be diverted to the purchase of equipment without meeting the primary purpose of the grant: the new hires.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
I think you are confused about the "grants process". Municipal agencies are always encouraged to research all grants even if there is some doubt as to their being useful to the Town. I would think that in this case where there was so much money at stake, the Chief and the Mayor and Council decided to apply, see if Kearny met the criteria and upon being approved studied every possible way in which this could be accepted without causing a huge tax burden. Alas, there was none. I doubt that someone of Mayor Santos' intelligence would have given advance approval knowing that it would create a huge debt.

FYI, this particular grant was very specific as to the utilization of the funds. Money could not be diverted to the purchase of equipment without meeting the primary purpose of the grant: the new hires.

Yes and the town had ample time to figure out if it could accept the grant long before it was awarded. If Kearny would have just said no off of the bat after the government asked if we were able to accpet we wouldnt look so foolish. Any grant Kearny goes for now you better believe whoever is giving out a certain grant is going to think twice before giving it to the town of kearny. Dont be fooled the kfd runs off of mostly grant or UEZ money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest I Wasthere
Any grant Kearny goes for now you better believe whoever is giving out a certain grant is going to think twice before giving it to the town of kearny. Dont be fooled the kfd runs off of mostly grant or UEZ money.

Absolute nonsense! Federal and state government looks much more kindly on municipalities that make sound fiscal decisions whether the decisions come before or after the fact.

The Kearny Fire Department, like all other departments, is funded largely through municipal property taxes. Grant money makes up a welcome, but minimal portion of the revenue necessary to pay operating and contractual expenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
You may love a good challenge, but you certainly did not rise to the occasion on this one. In your own words, "...you cannot guarantee who will retire..." before the conclusion of the grant. Should the Town administration gamble on the chance that there will be fewer positions in the table of organization because of attrition? Any savings through retirements can only be presumed; and presumption can't be translated into budget revenues. On the other hand, the expenditures for accepting the grant are real, fixed and payable by the Town beginning in the third year of the life of the grant. So while we can't bank on the savings due to attrition, we can bank on the Town's obligation to pay for its share of the costs which are built into the grant stipulations.

The variables in your scenario are just too numerous to risk the Town's fiscal future. For instance, what if the fire department has no retirees in the third, fourth or even fifth years? What if the fire unions grieve the loss of manpower (through attrition) and win? Then the Town is obligated to pay for personnel it didn't plan for and cannot afford.

If you interpreted my assertions as an attack on your integrity, I apologize. Unlike you, I would not presume to evaluate either the integrity or intelligence of someone with whom I am not well acquainted. Based on your statement, I merely deduced that your fact-finding left something to be desired.

So, councilman/woman, in 2011 when they become eligible to retire, we will revisit this. I guarantee the mayor and council take their sweet time to replace members as large numbers opt to retire. I'm not going anywhere, and I'm patient. Until then, I suppose we'll just have to wait and see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
So, councilman/woman, in 2011 when they become eligible to retire, we will revisit this. I guarantee the mayor and council take their sweet time to replace members as large numbers opt to retire. I'm not going anywhere, and I'm patient. Until then, I suppose we'll just have to wait and see.

During the same period there were on the order of 30 hires on the PD as well, once again MOST of whom will probably be retiring in large groups. While there are some who will stay past 25 years, the times of PD and FD employees staying well past 30 is LONG gone. IIRC the Badge numbers go from 162 to 196 during 1987-1999, with 2 of those not actually going to the PD, one went to Fire, the other was a dropout. At the time Pd manpower numbers were in the 140 range, now it's maxed at 85 Patrolman. Considering the 10-12 Months from hire to being certified to work on their own, if everyone hired in lets just take 1987 for example, were to retire at once in 2012, you would have a more than 10% loss of patrolmen for the better part of a year, since they cant hire anymore in anticipation of people leaving... The Mayor and most of the council have sold you sheep a Pig in a poke..and you all LOVE them for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest I Wasthere
So, councilman/woman, in 2011 when they become eligible to retire, we will revisit this. I guarantee the mayor and council take their sweet time to replace members as large numbers opt to retire. I'm not going anywhere, and I'm patient. Until then, I suppose we'll just have to wait and see.

Gee, this is frustrating! You really aren't getting this, are you? Let me try to simplify it. You are under the misguided impression that if as you predict, the majority of the fire department hires from the five year period around 1985 actually retires over the next five years, you somehow win this discussion. Do you not realize that it really doesn't matter how many, if any, leave the department then. What matters is the fact that the Mayor and Council have no way of obtaining that guarantee now-----during the decision making process. It becomes a roll of the dice; a spin of the wheel; a calculated guess, at best. The administration cannot in good conscience gamble with 2 million dollars of taxpayers' money. I remind you again that the Town begins sharing the expense of these proposed 16 new firefighters in the second or third year of the grant, not at its expiration.

As far as the M&C procrastinating in hiring upon retirements, they are given some latitude by ordinance, but would be foolish to allow gaps that could prove dangerous. The record shows that they have never, to this point, done that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest I Wasthere
During the same period there were on the order of 30 hires on the PD as well, once again MOST of whom will probably be retiring in large groups. While there are some who will stay past 25 years, the times of PD and FD employees staying well past 30 is LONG gone. IIRC the Badge numbers go from 162 to 196 during 1987-1999, with 2 of those not actually going to the PD, one went to Fire, the other was a dropout. At the time Pd manpower numbers were in the 140 range, now it's maxed at 85 Patrolman. Considering the 10-12 Months from hire to being certified to work on their own, if everyone hired in lets just take 1987 for example, were to retire at once in 2012, you would have a more than 10% loss of patrolmen for the better part of a year, since they cant hire anymore in anticipation of people leaving... The Mayor and most of the council have sold you sheep a Pig in a poke..and you all LOVE them for it.

I'm not sure exactly what your point is, but I do know that some of your statistics are incorrect. So I'll just address those inconsistencies: 1) you stated that the KPD maintained a roster of 140 during the period 1987-1999; the truth is that in 1994 Mayor Leo Vartan reduced the department considerably; 2) the ranks only began to be restored in 1998 when some of the members of this current administration first got elected; 3) the current manpower of the police department is about 118, not 85.

When you insinuate that M&C have connived to dupe the people of Kearny, you insult the integrity of the governing body and the intelligence of the governed. Everybody should be pissed at you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
I'm not sure exactly what your point is, but I do know that some of your statistics are incorrect. So I'll just address those inconsistencies: 1) you stated that the KPD maintained a roster of 140 during the period 1987-1999; the truth is that in 1994 Mayor Leo Vartan reduced the department considerably; 2) the ranks only began to be restored in 1998 when some of the members of this current administration first got elected; 3) the current manpower of the police department is about 118, not 85.

When you insinuate that M&C have connived to dupe the people of Kearny, you insult the integrity of the governing body and the intelligence of the governed. Everybody should be pissed at you!

Point #1 Yes Vartan reduced the total number on both Police and Fire to 99 through attrition. That said in 1987 the Total manpower of the Dept was 140 AS I STATED

Point #2 of yours makes no Point, as i never mentioned that period.

Point #3 In December of 2007 the Mayor and Council put a MAX of 85 PATROLMEN...which i Clearly stated. the Total number on the department is supposed to be at, IIRC 122, but there are max numbers for each rank. Once again, the Bald Truth. IN the past the PD and FD were able to hire replacements somewhat ahead of time, so that they would at least be out of the academy at around the same time as people would retire (Traditionally retirees for the most part leave in February). Instead, with their Latest Idiocy Santos and D'arco have ensured that no replacements can be hired until people are already off the books. again taking just the Police department into account. That means, if a group of people retire (Of any rank) in February, that means they CANNOT BE REPLACED, (and i mean replaced as having boots on the ground, not just hirees. This is so because Academies run 2 classes, beginning in January, and beginning in July/August. 6 months of academy time, plus abother 2-3 months of Field Training, and you have most of a year before a new hiree is actually countable on the roster. As for Transfers from other departments, yes KPD gets some, but not too many anymore) Until almost the same time the NEXT year..just in time for...you guessed it, the NEXT round of retirements. Thank you Mayor and council for ensuring that the Police Department will ALWAYS be short handed..AND, Conveniently, they now have a scapegoat for any Budget problems..since the M&C can complain about the large amount of overtime generated by the short numbers, which they created, can be blamed on those "Greedy Cops and Firemen".

I said a Pig in a Poke, and I MEANT a Pig in a Poke...and all of the M&C Supporters who blindly follow along with the nonsense they do are, indeed Sheep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest I Wasthere
Point #1 Yes Vartan reduced the total number on both Police and Fire to 99 through attrition. That said in 1987 the Total manpower of the Dept was 140 AS I STATED

Point #2 of yours makes no Point, as i never mentioned that period.

Point #3 In December of 2007 the Mayor and Council put a MAX of 85 PATROLMEN...which i Clearly stated. the Total number on the department is supposed to be at, IIRC 122, but there are max numbers for each rank. Once again, the Bald Truth. IN the past the PD and FD were able to hire replacements somewhat ahead of time, so that they would at least be out of the academy at around the same time as people would retire (Traditionally retirees for the most part leave in February). Instead, with their Latest Idiocy Santos and D'arco have ensured that no replacements can be hired until people are already off the books. again taking just the Police department into account. That means, if a group of people retire (Of any rank) in February, that means they CANNOT BE REPLACED, (and i mean replaced as having boots on the ground, not just hirees. This is so because Academies run 2 classes, beginning in January, and beginning in July/August. 6 months of academy time, plus abother 2-3 months of Field Training, and you have most of a year before a new hiree is actually countable on the roster. As for Transfers from other departments, yes KPD gets some, but not too many anymore) Until almost the same time the NEXT year..just in time for...you guessed it, the NEXT round of retirements. Thank you Mayor and council for ensuring that the Police Department will ALWAYS be short handed..AND, Conveniently, they now have a scapegoat for any Budget problems..since the M&C can complain about the large amount of overtime generated by the short numbers, which they created, can be blamed on those "Greedy Cops and Firemen".

I said a Pig in a Poke, and I MEANT a Pig in a Poke...and all of the M&C Supporters who blindly follow along with the nonsense they do are, indeed Sheep.

You need to go back and read your post. Clearly you stated that the during period 1987-1999 the KPD boasted a roster of 140 officers. My reply was that for at least 4 years of that time frame Vartan had reduced that number (according to your own words to 99) and the number stayed at that low level until 1998 when Doyle and Sherry were first elected and Sherry became the Chairperson for the department.

As for replacements, I went back over the past ten years to see if the Council ever hesitated on hiring or promoting and could not find one instance where that was true. There is an ordinance in place which gives the Mayor & Council the mechanism to satisfy the table of organization. That ordinance provides a "not to exceed" number at each rank from patrolman to chief. If I understand you correctly, what you're suggesting is to hire newbies before the retiring members actually leave. So you want to overlap salaries until the recruits are ready to hit the streets? And you figure about a year of this double budgeting would be sufficient? Wow! That would not only be in violation of the ordinance, but the taxpayers, who are already bitching about high taxes, would likely have a field day with that suggestion.

I don't see how your "pig in a poke" analogy or your "sheep" label are applicable here, but name calling is really immature and solves nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Donny D

ACT 1: TOK Administration asks KFD personnel to request SAFER Grant

ACT 2: KFD successfully attains $1,600,000 to bring department up to NFPA standards

ACT 3: FEMA Calls TOK Administration to confrim award and assure they will accept it... they say "yes!"

ACT 4: The award is announced, TOK turns it down...

The real tragedy here is two fold... 1) the wild goose chase the KFD members were sent on when they could have spent their time doing something more productive, and 2) KFD is still understaffed.... that was proven at the big brush fire that required a response from 7 other municipalities...

I know... here's where the guy who hates his life says, "They're all overpaid anyway," and the jealous cop says, "They dont do anything," and the town official says, "you dont know what you're talking about..." Bottom line... If you didnt want it to begin with, why ask for it?

Yes, I am a firefighter. It was terrific to see how the morale jumpoed when the award was announced, only to see it come crashing back down three weeks later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest I Wasthere
ACT 1: TOK Administration asks KFD personnel to request SAFER Grant

ACT 2: KFD successfully attains $1,600,000 to bring department up to NFPA standards

ACT 3: FEMA Calls TOK Administration to confrim award and assure they will accept it... they say "yes!"

ACT 4: The award is announced, TOK turns it down...

The real tragedy here is two fold... 1) the wild goose chase the KFD members were sent on when they could have spent their time doing something more productive, and 2) KFD is still understaffed.... that was proven at the big brush fire that required a response from 7 other municipalities...

I know... here's where the guy who hates his life says, "They're all overpaid anyway," and the jealous cop says, "They dont do anything," and the town official says, "you dont know what you're talking about..." Bottom line... If you didnt want it to begin with, why ask for it?

Yes, I am a firefighter. It was terrific to see how the morale jumpoed when the award was announced, only to see it come crashing back down three weeks later.

Your ACT 4 is incomplete. To be fair, it should read: The award is announced, TOK turns it down....when upon full disclosure it is shown that to accept would end up costing the taxpayers about 2 million dollars.

If you are truly a firefighter, I have the utmost admiration and respect for you; I trust your assessment, although it may be based on a somewhat biased perception, that the department is understaffed; and I don't think that you are overpaid. I do, however, believe that in asking the Town to accept the SAFER grant you are ignoring the plight of the already overburdened taxpayer. As a Kearny resident, I am extremely proud of our Police and Fire Departments but I really can't afford another tax increase. This should not be an adversarial situation. We should be trying to solve problems together and when it is shown that a proposed solution is not what it seems, we need to be grown-ups and move on to something else. In my opinion, Mayor Santos and the Council exercised painful but necessary prudence in coming to their decision.

Look, life is not always fair. Any fool who lives here should want fully staffed, well trained and adequately paid departments with state of the art equipment and perfect buildings to work in....all of which comes with a high price tag. After working hard for many years to pay for orthodontics, college, weddings and all the other window dressings of life, I would like to have some money left at the end of the month...but I don't. I'm not complaining and I'm not going anywhere. I'm just asking for a fair shake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Your ACT 4 is incomplete. To be fair, it should read: The award is announced, TOK turns it down....when upon full disclosure it is shown that to accept would end up costing the taxpayers about 2 million dollars.

If you are truly a firefighter, I have the utmost admiration and respect for you; I trust your assessment, although it may be based on a somewhat biased perception, that the department is understaffed; and I don't think that you are overpaid. I do, however, believe that in asking the Town to accept the SAFER grant you are ignoring the plight of the already overburdened taxpayer. As a Kearny resident, I am extremely proud of our Police and Fire Departments but I really can't afford another tax increase. This should not be an adversarial situation. We should be trying to solve problems together and when it is shown that a proposed solution is not what it seems, we need to be grown-ups and move on to something else. In my opinion, Mayor Santos and the Council exercised painful but necessary prudence in coming to their decision.

Look, life is not always fair. Any fool who lives here should want fully staffed, well trained and adequately paid departments with state of the art equipment and perfect buildings to work in....all of which comes with a high price tag. After working hard for many years to pay for orthodontics, college, weddings and all the other window dressings of life, I would like to have some money left at the end of the month...but I don't. I'm not complaining and I'm not going anywhere. I'm just asking for a fair shake.

Save some money and fire the Business Administrator who did not realize that the grant came with strings.

The town with the Kuehne Chemical plant should be fully staffed and federally subsidized fire department. Why haven't the Mayor and Council publicaly pushed for that to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
You need to go back and read your post. Clearly you stated that the during period 1987-1999 the KPD boasted a roster of 140 officers. My reply was that for at least 4 years of that time frame Vartan had reduced that number (according to your own words to 99) and the number stayed at that low level until 1998 when Doyle and Sherry were first elected and Sherry became the Chairperson for the department.

As for replacements, I went back over the past ten years to see if the Council ever hesitated on hiring or promoting and could not find one instance where that was true. There is an ordinance in place which gives the Mayor & Council the mechanism to satisfy the table of organization. That ordinance provides a "not to exceed" number at each rank from patrolman to chief. If I understand you correctly, what you're suggesting is to hire newbies before the retiring members actually leave. So you want to overlap salaries until the recruits are ready to hit the streets? And you figure about a year of this double budgeting would be sufficient? Wow! That would not only be in violation of the ordinance, but the taxpayers, who are already bitching about high taxes, would likely have a field day with that suggestion.

I don't see how your "pig in a poke" analogy or your "sheep" label are applicable here, but name calling is really immature and solves nothing.

Yes, You are correct in one point. I Mis-typed the date 1999, It was meant to be 1989 The Numbers werent decreased until the Vartan Administration begining in, IIRC 1994 when the State rant the Pension "Buyout". At that time the numbers had dropped through regular attrition, and then there was the huge rush of people who met the buyout criteria to go. The PD was cut by just under a Third, the FD was cut a comparable amount, and when response times increased and complaints started being made thr administrations response was an order (and Discilimary action to anyone who violated it) to never tell a civilian what the manpower situation was in response to a complaint about response time (I've Seen a copy of the Memo). We WILL be having the same situation soon, when we have mass retirements, with no replacements. As far as your "Overlapping Salaries" Complaint, THREE in-Academy Recruits makes what ONE senior Patrolman makes, nevermind other ranks... "Double Budgeting" isnt really an Issue, however the safety of both the public, and the officers themselves IS an issue. Also when it comes to budgeting, lets not forget the MASSIVE amounts of overtime that will be generated when the numbers get short, and vacation time comes, not to mention the sick/injury replacements that you cant really ever plan for. The Hiring in anticipation of retirements has been a past practice for Decades..NOW the M&C have negated that, In actuality theer had even bene instances, when a Superior had been out on an injury or Illness before retiring that Promotions were made in anticipation as well..in actuality costing the taxpayers LESS since it reduced overtime for that rank. The Taxpayers cant have it boith ways..they want to B**ch about the high taxes, but then they'll B**ch just as much when these ridiculous policies cost THEM safety. Much like the PEnsion issue..the TOWN did not pay its contributions to the pension system for a decade..money thtat was supposed to be put aside to do so later, instead they spent it (Much like with the money they saved from the "Buyout" ) When it came time to PAY BACK THAT LOAN..the town cired poor, and blamed everything on the Workers, who HAD been paying their contributions. It's all smoke and mirrors and the sheep just lap it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest I Wasthere
Save some money and fire the Business Administrator who did not realize that the grant came with strings.

The town with the Kuehne Chemical plant should be fully staffed and federally subsidized fire department. Why haven't the Mayor and Council publicaly pushed for that to happen.

I am curious to know who actually wrote the request for the grant. Wouldn't that be the first person to know all the stipulations contained in it? Was the writer forthcoming in advising everyone else of the conditions? Maybe all were aware of the grant's limitations, but were hoping against all odds to somehow crunch the numbers to make it work. I really don't see any villains here, just a whole lot of people trying to do the right thing.

You're absolutely correct about the sensitive nature of some facilities in South Kearny and the fact that our safety personnel should be federally subsidized----the operative word being "should". If everything that should be true was actually true, wouldn't this be a beautiful world? The Mayor and Council have both publicly and privately brought this plea to our legislators and to the White House. Don't you read the papers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Yes, You are correct in one point. I Mis-typed the date 1999, It was meant to be 1989 The Numbers werent decreased until the Vartan Administration begining in, IIRC 1994 when the State rant the Pension "Buyout". At that time the numbers had dropped through regular attrition, and then there was the huge rush of people who met the buyout criteria to go. The PD was cut by just under a Third, the FD was cut a comparable amount, and when response times increased and complaints started being made thr administrations response was an order (and Discilimary action to anyone who violated it) to never tell a civilian what the manpower situation was in response to a complaint about response time (I've Seen a copy of the Memo). We WILL be having the same situation soon, when we have mass retirements, with no replacements. As far as your "Overlapping Salaries" Complaint, THREE in-Academy Recruits makes what ONE senior Patrolman makes, nevermind other ranks... "Double Budgeting" isnt really an Issue, however the safety of both the public, and the officers themselves IS an issue. Also when it comes to budgeting, lets not forget the MASSIVE amounts of overtime that will be generated when the numbers get short, and vacation time comes, not to mention the sick/injury replacements that you cant really ever plan for. The Hiring in anticipation of retirements has been a past practice for Decades..NOW the M&C have negated that, In actuality theer had even bene instances, when a Superior had been out on an injury or Illness before retiring that Promotions were made in anticipation as well..in actuality costing the taxpayers LESS since it reduced overtime for that rank. The Taxpayers cant have it boith ways..they want to B**ch about the high taxes, but then they'll B**ch just as much when these ridiculous policies cost THEM safety. Much like the PEnsion issue..the TOWN did not pay its contributions to the pension system for a decade..money thtat was supposed to be put aside to do so later, instead they spent it (Much like with the money they saved from the "Buyout" ) When it came time to PAY BACK THAT LOAN..the town cired poor, and blamed everything on the Workers, who HAD been paying their contributions. It's all smoke and mirrors and the sheep just lap it up.

Uh, could someone please decode this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...