Albey Brock and the Closed Fire Stat...

Albey Brock and the Closed Fire Stations

Posted in the Pineville Forum

First Prev
of 11
Next Last
Wondering

Somerset, KY

#1 Jan 11, 2012
I thought he said he would have these stations back open if he had to do it?
kmart shopper

United States

#2 Jan 11, 2012
Brock said we'd get a power plant, said we owned the fire stations, said he was president of the fire department, said the state told him he could use official tags without filling out an application.

Brock is never wrong but sometimes he's a lot less right than others.
Hmm

Somerset, KY

#3 Jan 11, 2012
KEEP TALKING IT UP BROCK. ITS NOT GOING TO HELP NEXT ELECTION. NEW CHANGE IN JUDGE EXECUTIVE. HELL PUT BO BUSH IN THERE. ATLEAST HE WOULD WORK WITH THE FIRE DEPT AN HELP THEM.
Daily News

Nashville, TN

#4 Jan 11, 2012
So who went to the fire department meeting? Any new members sign up?
LOL

Macon, GA

#5 Jan 12, 2012
LOL @ the fire department posting on topix!
Pick One Boys

Versailles, KY

#6 Jan 12, 2012
So the fire dept. is claiming they are a private entity and then come out in the next breath and bitch about not getting proper funding from the counties coffers aka our tax dollars. Which really makes them seem quite absurd and talking out of the both sides of their mouth.

And when they get the tax dollars they want no questions asked by the fiscal court, seriously, the magistrates are supposed to hand over tens of thousands of dollars without a question being asked?

The fire dept. will not win this in the court of public opinion. They arbitrarily close fire stations, then hold meetings which seem to be open to the public if you support them, but if you question them you are told its a private meeting to be silent.

Frankly, I think the county should consider taking over the fire houses since they have obviously paid for most of the houses and equipment with tax dollars, and instituting a mandatory fire coverage fee of $100 or less for each residence if they want coverage.

BCVD pick one, either your private and seek private funds or quite bitching about being questioned when you receive taxpayer money.
jed

Dexter, MO

#7 Jan 12, 2012
Daily News wrote:
So who went to the fire department meeting? Any new members sign up?
just albey signed up.
Daily News

Knoxville, TN

#8 Jan 12, 2012
Pick One Boys wrote:
So the fire dept. is claiming they are a private entity and then come out in the next breath and bitch about not getting proper funding from the counties coffers aka our tax dollars. Which really makes them seem quite absurd and talking out of the both sides of their mouth.
And when they get the tax dollars they want no questions asked by the fiscal court, seriously, the magistrates are supposed to hand over tens of thousands of dollars without a question being asked?
The fire dept. will not win this in the court of public opinion. They arbitrarily close fire stations, then hold meetings which seem to be open to the public if you support them, but if you question them you are told its a private meeting to be silent.
Frankly, I think the county should consider taking over the fire houses since they have obviously paid for most of the houses and equipment with tax dollars, and instituting a mandatory fire coverage fee of $100 or less for each residence if they want coverage.
BCVD pick one, either your private and seek private funds or quite bitching about being questioned when you receive taxpayer money.
You seem to have forgotten Brock already tried the takeover move. He "signed up" for president and had the magistrates in on it. Only problem was - it wasn't legal. I know that's never stopped a clever politician. But haven't we had enough of clever politicians?
Pick One Boys

Versailles, KY

#9 Jan 12, 2012
Okay if it wasn't legal then I will ask this question, why are taxpayers being asked to subsidize a private entity? Perhaps the fiscal court should start from scratch in regards to fire protection.

The fiscal court has given money for citizens to have minimal fire protection and now the BCVD has arbitrarily decided some will receive protection and some won't and are just puzzled that the counties citizens and fiscal court are upset, who'd a thunk it.

As for being clever, how about being a private entity and getting $5 million in tax dollars, pretty clever as well don't you think.

Again they can't have it both ways either you are private or you are not, pick one.
Pick One Boys

Versailles, KY

#10 Jan 12, 2012
Another question which begs to be asked is did the BCVD ask the fiscal court for reimbursements all these years up to the present time with the with the understanding they would provide fire dept. coverage for citizens of the county.

If--if, indeed this was the understanding it would seem that some of these reimbursements were obtained under possibly false pretenses because now the BCVD has stated two areas of the county will no longer have coverage despite citizens in these areas paying for the coverage through taxes given to the BCVD.
Daily News

Knoxville, TN

#11 Jan 12, 2012
Pick One Boys wrote:
Okay if it wasn't legal then I will ask this question, why are taxpayers being asked to subsidize a private entity? Perhaps the fiscal court should start from scratch in regards to fire protection.
The fiscal court has given money for citizens to have minimal fire protection and now the BCVD has arbitrarily decided some will receive protection and some won't and are just puzzled that the counties citizens and fiscal court are upset, who'd a thunk it.
As for being clever, how about being a private entity and getting $5 million in tax dollars, pretty clever as well don't you think.
Again they can't have it both ways either you are private or you are not, pick one.
Here's where a question actually does answer the question. If it WAS legal, why wasn't Brock sitting in the chair presiding over the fire department meeting? He sure tried hard enough to take over. And that leads to another question. Why did Brock state on the radio (with no challenge from the host) that he WASN'T trying to take over the fire department? Kinda hard to believe when public record shows he already tried to do that. But maybe he's had a change of heart since then.
Just Waiting

Somerset, KY

#12 Jan 12, 2012
From what I have read in the papers the BCVFD is a "not for profit" organization and the board of the VFD thinks this means they are private. Just waiting on the next court date. I think the VFD will be surprised to find out that they are "not for profit,tax exempt" but NOT private. Like the poster above said "they took taxpayer money with the agreement to provide fire protection" Well they have breached that agreement meaning they should have to repay that money. I saw where fiscal court gave the Judge Executive the OK to buy fire trucks and property for new fire stations in the areas that were shut down. This BCVFD is a disgrace and soils the reputation of all REAL firefighters. County should implement a county wide fire dept and get rid of this useless lowlife lazy a$$ bunch or morons. Next time they are taking up money at the bridge should throw dog $hit in the basket.
Sue Simpson

Lexington, KY

#13 Jan 12, 2012
"with no challenge from the host" no dig there at all is there?

You have an agenda and it is obvious to me and most of the people on this forum. Judge Brock may have "tried hard enough to take over" on behalf of the Fiscal Court when the inability of those supposedly in charge were not running the FD correctly. BUT he did so with the support of those people who care about their county. Not like those who have time after time shown who they represent, which is themselves.
Sue Simpson

Lexington, KY

#14 Jan 12, 2012
One more thing Daily. I listened to the interview with Judge Brock and the host you speak of actually took him to task when he said "many people are saying you need to keep your nose out of it". Maybe you need to go back and actually listen to it instead of picking pieces out that suit your argument.
Daily News

Nashville, TN

#15 Jan 12, 2012
Sue Simpson wrote:
"with no challenge from the host" no dig there at all is there?
You have an agenda and it is obvious to me and most of the people on this forum. Judge Brock may have "tried hard enough to take over" on behalf of the Fiscal Court when the inability of those supposedly in charge were not running the FD correctly. BUT he did so with the support of those people who care about their county. Not like those who have time after time shown who they represent, which is themselves.
I'd be interested in hearing about this agenda. Is it anything like the one fiscal court uses?

Sorry, maybe I should let the host and the newspaper have free passes much like they did the JE. I don't suppose I should point out this supposedly tough question was just a lead-in to what Brock wanted to say. Maybe it was too much trouble to remind the JE he had a history of trying to take over right after he denied trying to take over. Or pointing out he said a mandatory subscription fee could be done by ordinance right after he said it took a public vote. Its not like the public needed to know which one was correct.

Now for the scarey part. You rationalize that it was really alright for him to file false information with the state and try an illegal takeover because he was supported by "people who care about their county"? I won't even ask your position on vote buying. So if I get three of the magistrates to back me, I can just walk in, announce a coup d'etat, and take over fiscal court? For the right money, I'm sure I could convince people I have their best interests at heart and be the people's champion.

Just to be sure we're talking about the same thing, what is the date of this takeover with so much support behind it?
Sue Simpson

Lexington, KY

#16 Jan 12, 2012
You have just the right amount of vernacular to make people think you know what you are talking about don't you? You use great syntax but have very little relevant content. The issues are black and white and you claim that Judge Brock filed false information. I'd say that would be a great case for slander. I have watched you post some of the most convincing yet false information of anyone on this forum. No one has had a free pass. Especially the Judge. Your precious BCVFD has yet to produce anything but their interpretation of the 2007 judgment which absolutley does NOT state that they can operate the way they are with taxpayer money. Try this line of garbage on someone who is not educated in what has been going on from day one. And don't try the condescending tone with me as you do others. I for one see through who and what you are.
Question

Madisonville, KY

#17 Jan 12, 2012
Does anyone have the names of the two magistrates which voted in favor of paying for the security system? Those seem to be only 2 that would have my vote. They seem to be the only ones with any knowledge of how to save taxpayer money and do the right thang. Thats just the way I see it boys.
Bone Digger

Somerset, KY

#18 Jan 12, 2012
Daily News wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd be interested in hearing about this agenda. Is it anything like the one fiscal court uses?
Sorry, maybe I should let the host and the newspaper have free passes much like they did the JE. I don't suppose I should point out this supposedly tough question was just a lead-in to what Brock wanted to say. Maybe it was too much trouble to remind the JE he had a history of trying to take over right after he denied trying to take over. Or pointing out he said a mandatory subscription fee could be done by ordinance right after he said it took a public vote. Its not like the public needed to know which one was correct.
Now for the scarey part. You rationalize that it was really alright for him to file false information with the state and try an illegal takeover because he was supported by "people who care about their county"? I won't even ask your position on vote buying. So if I get three of the magistrates to back me, I can just walk in, announce a coup d'etat, and take over fiscal court? For the right money, I'm sure I could convince people I have their best interests at heart and be the people's champion.
Just to be sure we're talking about the same thing, what is the date of this takeover with so much support behind it?
Daily news its good to see you have at least dropped the middle of the road game you have been playing and shown what anybody that reads these post knew long ago, that you hate Brock. You don't care about the VFD or the issues at hand you just want to pick out little sound bites or half quotes then twist them up to try and make Brock look bad. I watched fiscal court meeting tonight and what you don't realize is that all this stuff you try and twist up Brock is explaining in detail in front of a camara, so he's making you look stupid without even trying and in the end that only makes him look better. Your jealousy and hate is way to obvious.
Hal

Mayfield, KY

#19 Jan 12, 2012
JE has given them the solution to THIS problem of the closing of the stations, which is the real issue. He has said numerous times he would pay all expenses. THIS problem and most of the funding problems could be solved with the presenting of receipts. Is that really to much to ask? This is an easy fix and no one loses anything, the people who win are the taxpayer living in colmar and arjay. Its easy to see who is looking out for taxpayer
Daily News

Nashville, TN

#20 Jan 12, 2012
Hal wrote:
JE has given them the solution to THIS problem of the closing of the stations, which is the real issue. He has said numerous times he would pay all expenses. THIS problem and most of the funding problems could be solved with the presenting of receipts. Is that really to much to ask? This is an easy fix and no one loses anything, the people who win are the taxpayer living in colmar and arjay. Its easy to see who is looking out for taxpayer
And yet just recently - he didn't pay. Even with an invoice. For an expense I believe the IRS would find to be a valid business expenditure. Somebody claimed they've been producing invoices for four years now. True or not?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 11
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Pineville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Alcohol in Downtown Pineville (Sep '10) 15 min Vote Like It Matters 14
people at the bridge 19 min Vote Like It Matters 19
Hollywood liberals and Rap Music pushing the zo... 5 hr Sign of the times 2
how did steve cook die? 6 hr BROCK 1
welcome to the kmlf 7 hr Vote Like It Matters 4
Two love birds 7 hr Greyhound 4
Convicted drug dealers 11 hr gary 7

Pineville Jobs

Personal Finance

Pineville Mortgages