Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Extras | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

‘Truth’ lacking in village

March 3, 2013

I would like to address the article “Village weighs future of police” (Feb. 17)....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(6)

AWorkingSupervisor

Mar-04-13 5:13 PM

EAGLESWINGS DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING PERSONALLY AGAINST THE DPW SUPERVISOR? WHAT DOES A PIECE OF BUDGETED EQUIPMENT THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID FOR HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT? I THINK SOMEONE PULLED THE WOOL OVER YOUR EYES. EMPLOYEE BENEFITS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN INDIVIDUAL BUDGETS ONLY SALARIES, THE GENERAL FUND PAYS BENEFITS. I DON'T HAVE TO SIT IN A BOARD MEETING TO FIGURE THAT OUT.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eagleswings

Mar-04-13 4:23 AM

Further, Baseball, you have no clue to the actual benefits and insurance costs. In the last financial report they are all lumped together. Try looking at equipment that isn't paid for. The last fire truck purchased, the last ambulance purchased,a John Deere loader, A 30,000 F350 that no one gets to drive except the working foreman of the DPW. You want the Sheriffs, fine... you'll get 2 shifts of coverage for most of the yr and the Town of Hanover pays $350,000 a yr. If you think they will put another car on for the village, have another thought as their sub station is in the village of SC. If you don't reside in the village, your untrue facts are pointless. If you do, then start getting the reports from the state and get YOUR facts straight before you accuse others.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eagleswings

Mar-04-13 4:07 AM

I do love all these armchair quarterbacks who know less than they claim Ms. Fredericson does. Come and sit at board meetings for a year and see what you learn.

If you really knew what you were talking about, you would know that the working streets foreman was behind the DPW building pushing for it since it is right across the road from his home and the Mayor couldn't be bothered to verify what he claims that the FEMAfield rep told him in writing that cost the taxpayers the reimbursement of FEMA monies after the flood. Baseball, you must have flunked math as your figures are out in left field. They are more inaccurate than what was in the paper. You purposely neglected to to inform the public that 4 high paid officers left the force from July to Jan and it is still the current fiscal year removing over $200,000 in payroll alone never mind benefits. You have also neglected to mention that the 3 officers we do have 1 full and 2 part time are rookies and earn significantly less .

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

StatlerandWaldorff

Mar-03-13 12:24 PM

Anna must be a financial wizard. She must have a short term memory, apparently she forgot she spearheaded and voted to purchase the Bentges bldg outside the Village for over twice the assessed value. Could this be one of the several reasons she failed to be re-elected and now is bitter towards her sucessor?

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

butchy58

Mar-03-13 10:09 AM

Once again Fredrickson has come to the defense of the chief.I wonder if this song and dance is ever going to get old.She criticizes Tom Harmon for doing his job but she finds no fault in the chief when he tells blatant lies to the village board.If she had put half the effort in doing her job while on the board she still might be there.She is just another conduit for the chief to save face.It's kind of ironic that her beloved police departments didn't keep all the businesses from leaving the village.Wake up Anna and realize that funding a department that costs almost $500,000 a year is not feasible any longer.Maybe if the chief spend less time at your house and the town hall promoting his own self interest things might be better.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

baseball

Mar-03-13 2:50 AM

Comming to the defense of your pet chief! The Village can contract with the County for police and save money. The figures for the cost of the PD were very mis-leading, it only included the basic salaries. It did not include: all the benefits, liability insurance, uniform allowance, vehicle fuel and maintenance, weapons, ammo, training, retirement costs, the list does add up to quite a bit more.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 6 of 6 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web