The driveways of DPW employees, of course!
In this case, Angelo Costello’s driveway, photographed last Sunday afternoon.
Personal use of Borough vehicles is sort of an open secret in North Plainfield – to my knowledge, DPW and police employees are the most frequent offenders.
Allowing it go on despite resident complaints is one of the many ways current Borough leaders demonstrate a lack of interest in halting wrongdoing, or at least halting the appearance of wrongdoing even if the wrong being done isn’t technically illegal.
I don’t know if there’s a law that says public employees should use their own transportation to go to and from work and to handle personal errands. But even if it’s not technically illegal, it’s wear and tear and gas mileage on publicly-owned vehicles for private purposes, and it just doesn’t seem right.
7 responses so far ↓
neosporin // April 25, 2008 at 7:12 pm |
The issue is a simple one. First, what is a ‘work truck’ doing with alloy wheels? That’s a cosmetic luxury that doesn’t belong on a truck that’s supposed to be getting dirty. Steel wheels would’ve been just fine.
No commute in North Plainfield is very long; an employee living in the borough does not need a vehicle for this one or two mile commute. Costs associated with PUBLICALLY PURCHASED vehicles (i.e taxpayers dollars) should be related solely to public services performed. Even if the truck is used only to go to and from work, that’s a luxury in this day and age that doesn’t wash.
Mark Williams, Co-Chair NPCCR // April 26, 2008 at 5:44 pm |
During this past school spring break I noticed on two occasions a North Plainfield DPW truck with a landscape type of trailer attached to its rear bumper. In the drivers seat there was an adult male driving and in the passanger seat, barely visable above the window opening, sat a child. I thought at first, “how nice to go to work with daddy”, then I thought in this very litigious
environment in which we find ourselves was this a wise choice for a borough employee? Unfortunatly, I think it was not a wise choice!
Quiet Storm
Kevin // June 17, 2008 at 1:45 am |
Did it ever occur to you that this truck might belong to a foreman and/or highway superintendent? As an employee who has 12+ years of experience working for two different municipalities in this capacity it’s easy to see why someone in this position of responsibility would be given the right to for a “take-home” vehicle.
Answer this: If a tree falls across a main right of way through your community at any time of day, what makes more sense, having a DPW employee drive to the yard and pick up a truck (mind you, not all municipal employees necessarily live in said municipality), or simply have the DPW employee respond to the incident directly from their house? I think the answer should be obvious…
KW // June 17, 2008 at 9:14 am |
In some cases, that scenario might make sense. However, Angelo Costello, and the other leader of the DPW (Jim Rodino) both have earned reputations for incompetent and lax job performance.
It’s not clear that the local DPW would clear a fallen tree – many such services are contracted out.
And Costello does live in the Borough, which is only three square miles. The question does become a cost-benefit analysis, factoring in the ongoing gas costs for Borough employees who live in and out of town using Borough vehicles for commutes and personal business, against the probability of a situation arising in which the extra few minutes it would take for them to drive to the DPW yard in their own cars and get a work truck would make a significant difference.
No one in the Borough has yet provided any information to prove that this personal use of Borough-owned vehicles is a cost savings; all the data we have to date tends to support the conclusion that money is being wasted in numerous ways.
GimmeABreak // June 17, 2008 at 12:15 pm |
A lot of defenders … anyone care to explain the alloy wheels on a work truck, and the observed use for personal tasks? The guys who do the WORK in town have dirty trucks with basic amenities. Seems a lot of people want to see the hypothetical stuff, but when presented with the factual stuff, they have nothing to say.
Oleh Kaniuka CPA // June 18, 2008 at 2:04 pm |
That is a SWEET truck. If you enlarge the photo, you can see that it has the 345 horsepower HEMI motor. According to kbb.com, the cheapest version of that truck (for 2008, assuming 4 wheel drive, and a 6 speed manual transmission) is $29,875. That price, of course, does not include the aftermarket chrome running boards you can see right below the doors. Nice perk!
Jerry Jacala // June 19, 2008 at 8:03 am |
Someone suggested above that this truck could belong to a foreman or highway superintendent. Well, does it? Does anyone care to inform us as to what the truck’s intended use is? Anyone out there from DPW? I think a no reply from anyone means we don’t really have a good reason for this overexpenditure. And that should bother us all taxpayers.