I think that it is inexcuseable that Mark Gee sits on the Board of Fire Commisioners while he is a town councilman. He clearly has his own agenda. Talk about having a "fox in the henhouse" ! I'm old school. I don't believe in trying to fix something that already has worked just fine for many years.

If someone could show me actual meaningful savings, consolidation might make sense. If it is just to aggregate authority in Town Hall, that is something different. Is the council suggesting we will no longer have a fire chief or fewer firefighters and EMT's. Will the need for equipment be reduced? What exactly is the "bureaucray" they will eliminate? Regionalization in some form would seem to be the real way to save money - with fire and rescue coordinated among cities and towns. You would have more efficient use of personnel and equipment. Will regionalization be more or less likely to happen if the Fire District is merged with the town?

seems like cianciolo has his own agenda. merging the district with the town is a way of taking district funds and putting them in the big cookie jar and spending it for other than intended purpose. leave it alone.

The Fire District's actions were tone deaf, entirely inappropriate, and an insult to East Greenwich taxpayers.

Likely violations of both Rhode Island Open Meeting and campaign finance statutes aside, the arrogance of this action by the Fire District is what stands out. The Fire District’s constituency is the taxpayers of East Greenwich, and here we have a public body spending $2,000 in taxpayer dollars to campaign for votes to ensure its continued existence independent of the town. If this is the typical reaction of government bodies when even the smallest of government consolidation is sought, Rhode Island will never escape the hold of inefficient and ineffective government.

We have no criticism at all of the way the Fire District carries out its fire and safety mission, and virtually all applaud its responsiveness and its professionalism. But this is a governance and accountability issue, and in this action, the need for change has been magnified by the Fire District Commissioners. The Fire District operated here in near-total disregard of East Greenwich taxpayers. If this is the way it treats its primary constituents, there is no justification for its continued operation in its current form.

I think spending $1700 of taxpayer money (which wasn't posted on the Fire District agenda) shows the lack of accountability and the type of governance that merits a "Yes" vote for consolidating the Fire District with the town.

I guess you got up early to steal this story from North East Independent. Why not give them credit?

I think it wrong what they are trying to do, I used to be a member of EGFD until we were run out, now its all about money, b4 it was a combination dept. where we all worked as one. ask some of the older members when it was like that it was never about money it was helping the community, as for the man holding two seats needs to step down from one seat or maybe both.. Its just wrong what they are doing the district needs to be left alone...

I was one of a handful of taxpayers that attended the recent informational meeting at Swift Community Center. I addressed two factors that come into play; cost and efficiency, believing those two items should be the motivating factors to consider. I also stated that if we were to do anything, it should be regionalization (as so aptly stated by Chuck Barton in his earlier comment), which would be a "hard sell" as our 39 cities and towns seem to love their autonomy. However, there are many places where county government (e.g. Howard County MD) works just fine.
Finally, it has been said that one "saving" would be the $5200 paid to the Fire Commissioners. However, I feel that those "savings" would just be shifted to other people in Town government due to their increased duties and responsibilities.
'nuff said!

Here is another reason for East Greenwich Taxpayers to want to keep a separate Fire District from the Town government.One of my neighbors, a single woman living by herself, had a tree blown down in the recent hurricane. She called the East Greenwich Emergency Management Department and asked if the Town could cut and move the part of the tree blocking her driveway so she could get out or an emergency vehicle could get in if she had an emergency.

She was told that the Town insurance regulations do not permit the Town to cut the downed tree unless it is within 10 feet of the road. However, if she had an emergency, the Town would then come out and open up a path to her house.

She then called the Fire District and was told that a couple of fire fighters would be right out to cut the tree away from her driveway Chief Henrickson said,"we'd rather open the driveway before an emergency rather than wait until one occurs and then have to take the time that could be better used assisting the resident."

This common sense, no nonsense approach to solving the problem is what residence deserve, not bureaucracy. The Fire District gets dozens of calls during a severe weather event like this one to pump out cellars, help elderly residents or others in need and they always respond.


Steve Bartlett

Steve, with all due respect, situations such as that you describe is what fire and safety organizations are SUPPOSED to be dealing with. And one anecdote does not a rationale for keeping the FD independent make.

How does this change - for better or worse - if fire & safety responsibilities are, like the police department, part of town government? I suspect Bill Sequino, if asked who his ultimate constituency is, would reply 'East Greenwich taxpayers." When I asked that question of the FD Commissioners at the recent forum on the issue, NOT ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS would answer the question - I had to ask it twice before getting even a mumble. That's just not right.

I probably entered that meeting quite open to an independent fire district; I left astounded at the arrogance of the organization, and convinced that taxpayers would be better served with Town government in control.

Absolutely, Bob. Renters implicitly pay taxes, and do get the benefit of municipal services even if they don't physically get a tax bill. As for 'due respect,' Steve and I play golf from time to time, and I hope that will continue. With all due respect.

I'm not sure they do implicitly pay taxes ... I think that's up to the landlord.
...And now that I think about it, resident isn't really perfect either, given that some voters and taxpayers aren't residents!! But I tend to think calling government constituents "taxpayers" is one of those dog whistle Republican terms meant to invoke the notion that cutting costs is more important than providing services!