Friday, December 28, 2012

King Louie Appoints Himself Back on Beverly Council Plus New Updates

King Five Finger Discount Louie Bombshells Just keep on Coming for Beverly City

"City Council appointment draws controversy in Beverly

By Jeannie O'Sullivan Staff writer | Posted: Thursday, December 27, 2012 9:19 pm
BEVERLY — A City Council member who lost his next term in the contested Democratic primary election in June will still be on dais in January.
Council President Luis Crespo was appointed Thursday night to fill the seat vacated by Brian Perkins, who has resigned with three years left on his term.
The motion to appoint Crespo was made by Councilwoman Barbara Kelly, seconded by Councilman Hal Robertson and blasted by Councilman Robert Thibault.
“Outrageous” is how Thibault described the action.
“The voters of this town have made it clear. They’re asking for a clean break from the past and move it forward. This is simply a maneuvering tactic that’s just unconscionable,” he said.
Frequently challenged during meetings by Thibault, Crespo has also been a target of criticism from meeting attendees who decry the city's financial difficulties and employee lawsuits.
Crespo didn't comment about his reappointment during the meeting and didn't immediately return a phone call afterward.
The legality of Crespo voting during the roll call came into question. City attorney Albert Marmero said after the meeting that state law mandates that elected officials recuse themselves from voting on matters that would net them a financial benefit.
“In this case, there is no salary so it’s a bit of a gray area,” Marmero said.
Crespo, Kelly and Robertson are finishing terms after losing the primary Lawrence Carlbon, Robert Bancroft and Robert Lowden, a slate of former public officials and volunteers who ran as "The Original Beverly Democrats."
Crespo had waged an unsuccessful write-in campaign during the general election in November.
To fill Perkins' seat, the city’s Democratic Committee had submitted the names of Crespo, Robertson, and former council member Scott Williams for consideration. Appointed council members sit until the next election, when they must be voted in to continue service.
Perkins' letter was not read aloud during the meeting.
Before the vote to appoint Crespo, Robertson said he respectfully withdrew his name from consideration. “I’ve had enough,” he said.
Williams, who was also at the meeting, offered well wishes to the new and outgoing members."

It appears that the letter of resignation from Brian Perkins was discussed in Executive Session at last nights Council meeting as well as the letter from the Beverly Democratic Committee that recommended three names to replace Perkins. This needs to be looked into because if this action was not listed on the meeting agenda or in the resolution for holding a closed executive meeting, then the council is in violation of the OPRA law. 
This action by council needs to be verified by any of the council members that were part of the executive session held last night so that the violation of the law can be dealt with. This illegal action may even cancel the unconscionable act taken by the outgoing council last night.
King Louie's actions during the past as a public official and in his personal life, has brought numerous lawsuits and embarrassments to the residents of Beverly City. This is why he lost in the Democratic Primary as well as in the 2012 General Election as an Independent Candidate for Council. The Beverly Voters sent a message loud and clear that they want the King off of Council!

Stay tuned for more and Happy New Year,

The Edgewater Park Reporters

More King Louie Shoes Fall in Beverly
Story in 1/2/13 BCT

Beverly must pay $35,538 for overtime lawsuit

By Jeannie O'Sullivan Staff writer
 Sunday, December 30, 2012

BEVERLY — A Public Works Department employee has won a $35,538 judgment against the city in a lawsuit over overtime pay.
The City Council last week passed a resolution to pay $7,156 to Public Works Supervisor Daniel Schoen Sr. and $28,382 to his attorney, Thomas Barron of Moorestown. According to the payment schedule, Schoen was to have gotten his money by Monday. Barron was to receive $10,000 by Monday and the rest in monthly installments by March 31.
City Attorney Albert Marmero said that although Schoen, a current employee, is the department’s supervisor, much of his work is labor, which by law warrants overtime.
“There’s a federal law that requires overtime for all employees unless you’re an executive employee. Despite what your title is, if the bulk of your day is done doing labor, you’re considered a laborer. So he won the overtime he was claiming,” Marmero said.
The money took awhile in coming, according to Barron. When reached for comment, he said Superior Court Judge Susan Claypoole had heard the case in late July in Mount Holly.
"It was a struggle to get paid," he said.
Legal fees for the city's 2012 budget had risen by $100,000 since the previous year. At the time the $2.9 million budget was adopted in June, Council President Luis Crespo had said the Burlington County Joint Insurance Fund raised the city’s deductible as a penalty because the city’s previous fund commissioner failed to follow certain required directives.
In addition to retainer fees from attorneys and the overtime pay lawsuit, other legal costs included a $75,000 settlement for a former clerk-administrator who filed a harassment lawsuit against the municipality in January 2011, although it did not admit any liability in the case. City officials agreed to that settlement in April.


Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Our Mayor's (McElwee) Working Record and Legal Record

Well after reading Mayor McElwee's Letter to the BCT in today's edition (10/24/12) we just wanted to share his record with you so that you can weigh his comments with his record.

We also find it interesting that Mayor McElwee and his running mate's election sign is on Jim Daly's front lawn. Why haven't heard from Mayor McElwee concerning Jim Daly and the charges of  Theft ( Jim plead guilty to 3rd-degree theft by deception-see BCT front page 10/24/12). Didn't Mayor McElwee vote for Jim Daly to be Edgewater Park 2011 Citizen of the Year along with all 2011 members of township commettee including committee woman Amiee Belgard? How come Mayor McElwee and Committee Woman Belgard allowed Jim Daly to serve as a paid member of the Edgewater Sewer Authority and the Emergency Management Coordinator for Edgewater Park after he was charged with the crime he plead guilty to?

Just some questions and facts you need to be aware of before you vote this year.

Just one more thought; If you are honest with yourself and if you have been a resident of Edgewater Park for more then 10 years, you have to see that if you keep the same group running this town, we will end up in the same shape as Beverly and Willingboro.


John G. McELWEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOROUGH OF FIELDSBORO, Defendant-Respondent.
-- May 29, 2008
John G. McElwee, appellant pro se.Hulse & Germano, Burlington, for respondent (Denis C. Germano, on the brief).
The opinion of the court was delivered by
 Plaintiff John G. McElwee appeals from an order entered by the Law Division on September 25, 2006, which upheld a determination by defendant Borough of Fieldsboro to remove him from his position as a police officer.   We affirm.
In 2000, plaintiff began working for the Borough as a police lieutenant.   Initially, plaintiff was the Borough's only police officer and he remained so until April 2003, when the Borough hired another officer.   On February 12, 2002, the Borough adopted an ordinance that designated the police lieutenant as the senior operational officer in the department, subject to the administrative direction of the Borough's director of public safety.
The ordinance allowed the mayor to serve as director for up to six months in the event of an absence, disqualification or vacancy in that the position.   Sometime before the ordinance was passed, Mayor Edward Tyler appointed himself as director of public safety.   Thereafter, Tyler did not appoint another public safety director and he continued to serve in that position beyond the six months permitted by the ordinance.
In 2003, the Borough issued a complaint charging plaintiff with ten counts of misconduct.   A hearing officer conducted a hearing  on the charges on various dates from December 23, 2003, to April 20, 2004.   During the hearing, the Borough dismissed five of the counts.
The remaining counts charged plaintiff with:  failing to have the Borough's police vehicle repaired at Glenk's Auto Repair, as required by the Borough's policy (count one);  failing to report his absences to the Borough Clerk or his supervisor (count two);  refusing to comply with the Borough's directive that he work the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays (count five);  failing to comply with directives from the Council and Tyler that he devote “the bulk of his time” to patrol (count eight);  and failing to comply with a directive requiring that he prepare and submit patrol logs to document “the nature of his daily activities and the amount of time” that he devoted to patrol duties (count nine).
The hearing officer issued a report dated June 14, 2004, in which he found plaintiff guilty on the five remaining charges.   As a penalty, the hearing officer recommended plaintiff's removal.   The Mayor and Council accepted the hearing officer's findings and recommendation and, on July 14, 2004, terminated plaintiff.
On July 15, 2004, plaintiff commenced an action in the Law Division in which he sought review of the Borough's action.   The judge heard oral argument on September 14, 2006 and, on that date, rendered a decision from the bench.
The judge first addressed the charge in count one.   The judge found that the Borough had an unwritten policy to have its police vehicles serviced at Glenk's Auto Repair.   The judge also found that plaintiff was aware of the policy and knowingly failed to follow it.   The judge concluded, however, that plaintiff's failure to follow this policy did not rise to the level of misconduct and did not warrant the imposition of any sanction.   The judge stated that the charge had “nothing to do ․ with the safety or welfare of the people.”
 The judge found that plaintiff failed to report his sick and vacation days, as charged in count two.   The judge accepted Tyler's assertion that he had asked plaintiff to report his sick and vacation days.   The judge observed that this was “not an onerous request.”   The judge found that plaintiff's failure to report his absences also had little, if anything, to do with the safety, health or welfare of the Borough's residents.
The judge additionally found that plaintiff had refused to work the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift on Thursdays, Fridays, and Saturdays, as charged in count five.   The judge found that Tyler and the Council had specifically requested that plaintiff work those hours, and plaintiff had informed Tyler that he could not work the late shift because he had another job.   The judge noted that Tyler had endeavored to accommodate plaintiff by offering to give plaintiff Fridays and Saturdays off, but plaintiff had responded by asserting that the Council did not have any right to order a change in patrol.
The judge stated that plaintiff's refusal to work the late shift as directed by the Council “directly implicate[d] the safety and welfare of the” Borough's residents.   The judge found that the Council had the power to request the shift change and it was a legitimate request.   The judge concluded that plaintiff's refusal to work the shift was insubordination that required a sanction.
The judge also determined that the evidence established that plaintiff failed to devote a substantial amount of his time to patrol, as charged in count eight.   The judge noted that the Borough presented testimony from Donna Hornyak, a dispatcher for Burlington County, who had reviewed certain records that documented plaintiff's contacts with “Central Communication” in the period from January 2003 through September 2003.   Based on her review of the records, Hornyak concluded that plaintiff worked 129 days during that period and was on “active patrol” only 29 of those days.
The judge found that Hornyak was “an objective historian” and her testimony was credible.   The judge concluded that plaintiff  had received a written memorandum directing him to patrol six hours a day and plaintiff violated the Borough's directive.   The judge stated that, because police presence reduces crime, plaintiff's failure to follow the directive affected the safety and welfare of the Borough's residents.
In addition, the judge found that the evidence supported the charge in count nine that plaintiff had not submitted logs of his patrols as required by Tyler.   The judge rejected plaintiff's assertion that he had prepared the patrol logs because plaintiff never produced copies of the logs.   The judge stated that, if plaintiff had the patrol logs as he claimed, it would have been “a very simple” task to produce or copy the logs to rebut the charge.   Nevertheless, the judge found that the violation did not warrant “any real sanction.”
The judge concluded that plaintiff's refusal to work the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays, and his failure to devote a substantial amount of time to patrol, constituted serious misconduct that affected the public safety and warranted “severe sanctions.”   The judge stated that plaintiff had an attitude that “he was a law unto himself” and that no one was “going to tell him how to” do his job.
The judge observed that plaintiff's “failure to patrol in the face of unequivocally being told to patrol, ․ and [his] refus[al] to work 3:00 [p.m.] to 11:00 [p.m.]” were “individually enough to warrant dismissal[.]”  The judge commented that those two violations “were so pervasively unbecoming the duties of the only police officer of the town, as to merit [plaintiff's] discharge, even in the absence of prior discipline.”   The judge entered an order dated September 25, 2006, which memorialized his findings.   This appeal followed.
Plaintiff argues that the charges should have been dismissed because they were not brought within forty-five days of the date when the Borough had sufficient information to file the charges.   In support of this contention, plaintiff relies upon N.J.S.A. 40A:14-147, which states in pertinent part:
 Except as otherwise provided by law, no permanent member or officer of the police department or force shall be removed from his office, employment or position for political reasons or for any cause other than incapacity, misconduct, or disobedience of rules and regulations established for the government of the police department and force, nor shall such member or officer be suspended, removed, fined or reduced in rank from or in office, employment, or position therein, except for just cause as herein before provided and then only upon a written complaint setting forth the charge or charges against such member or officer.   The complaint shall be filed in the office of the body, officer or officers having charge of the department or force wherein the complaint is made and a copy shall be served upon the member or officer so charged, with notice of a designated hearing thereon by the proper authorities, which shall be not less than 10 nor more than 30 days from date of service of the complaint.
A complaint charging a violation of the internal rules and regulations established for the conduct of a law enforcement unit shall be filed no later than the 45th day after the date on which the person filing the complaint obtained sufficient information to file the matter upon which the complaint is based ․
A failure to comply with said provisions as to the service of the complaint and the time within which a complaint is to be filed shall require a dismissal of the complaint.
[Emphasis added.]
 As the statute provides, the requirement that a complaint be filed within forty-five days of the date when the complainant has sufficient information to make the complaint pertains to alleged violations of “internal rules and regulations established for the conduct of [the] law enforcement unit [.]”  However, a violation of “internal rules and regulations” is only one of the grounds upon which a police officer may be disciplined.   The statute also allows a police officer to be removed for incapacity or misconduct but imposes no time constraints on asserting a complaint seeking removal on those grounds.
Here, the Borough sought plaintiff's removal for misconduct, not for the violation of a specific internal rule or regulation governing the operations of the Borough's police department.   Therefore, the forty-five day requirement in N.J.S.A. 40A:14-147 did not apply and the statute did not require the dismissal of the charges.   We accordingly reject plaintiff's contention that the charges at issue were time-barred.
Plaintiff next argues that the charges should have been dismissed because the Borough failed to adopt and implement guidelines consistent with those promulgated by the Attorney General.   In support of this contention, plaintiff cites N.J.S.A. 40A:14-181, which states that:
[e]very law enforcement agency shall adopt and implement guidelines which shall be consistent with the guidelines governing the “Internal Affairs Policy and Procedures” of the Police Management Manual promulgated by the Police Bureau of the Division of Criminal Justice in the Department of Law and Public Safety, and shall be consistent with any tenure or civil service laws, and shall not supersede any existing contractual agreements.
 We reject defendant's contention that he may not be subject to removal for misconduct merely because the Borough has not adopted internal affairs guidelines in accordance with the Attorney General's “Internal Affairs Policy and Procedures,” as required by N.J.S.A. 40A:14-181.   Plaintiff correctly points out that the statute requires every law enforcement agency to adopt and implement guidelines consistent with the Attorney General's internal affairs policies and procedures.   However, the statute does not provide that, in the absence of such guidelines, a law enforcement agency may not discipline or remove an officer for misconduct.
Moreover, the Attorney General's guidelines state that they are intended to “assist the State's law enforcement agencies with the receipt, investigation and resolution of citizen complaints or police misconduct,” and that the goal of the Attorney General's guidelines “is to improve the delivery of police services to the citizens of New Jersey.”   See In re Carroll, 339 N.J.Super. 429, 443, 772 A.2d 45 (App.Div.) (noting that the purpose of the Attorney General's Guidelines is to establish procedures for investigating employee misconduct and determining whether criminal or disciplinary action is warranted), certif. denied, 170 N.J. 85, 784 A.2d 718 (2001).
By requiring law enforcement agencies to adopt guidelines consistent with those promulgated by the Attorney General, the Legislature obviously intended to protect the public from police misconduct.   It would be inconsistent with the Legislature's intention to read N.J.S.A. 40A:14-181 as barring a law enforcement  agency from removing an officer for misconduct simply because the agency has not adopted internal affairs guidelines.
 Plaintiff additionally argues that his removal was not brought about in accordance with the Borough's municipal code, which states in part that a member of the police force may not be “suspended, removed, fined, or reduced in rank for any cause except as provided for in the New Jersey statutes and the rules and regulations of the police force.”   Plaintiff contends that his removal is unlawful because the Borough failed to adhere to the policy of progressive discipline, which plaintiff says is required by the Attorney General's guidelines.
The Attorney General's guidelines provide that a law enforcement agency's rules and regulations “should set forth a schedule of possible penalties [a police] officer might receive when discipline is imposed” and that “[a] system of progressive discipline should be instituted within the agency's rules.”   Although the Attorney General's guidelines contemplate the establishment of a “system of progressive discipline,” this does not mean that progressive discipline must be imposed in every case regardless of the circumstances.
Our Supreme Court discussed the concept of progressive discipline in In re Carter, 191 N.J. 474, 483, 924 A.2d 525 (2007).   In that case, a police officer was charged with various offenses, including sleeping on duty.  Id. at 476, 924 A.2d 525.   The officer was discharged and the Merit System Board upheld the officer's termination but we reversed that decision, finding that the penalty was too severe and inconsistent with the concept of progressive discipline.   Id. at 482, 924 A.2d 525.
The Supreme Court reversed our judgment and reinstated the officer's termination, noting that “some disciplinary infractions are so serious that removal is appropriate notwithstanding a largely unblemished prior record.”   Id. at 484, 924 A.2d 525.   The Court added that this was especially so in matters involving the discipline of police officers where “public safety concerns may also  bear upon the propriety of the dismissal sanction.”   Id. at 485, 924 A.2d 525.
There is no indication that the Attorney General intended to depart from these general principles when promulgating the guidelines for law enforcement disciplinary matters.   The Attorney General's guidelines merely require that a law enforcement agency establish by rule a “system of progressive discipline.”   We are convinced that any such “system” must recognize that there are circumstances when a police officer's misconduct is so serious that progressive discipline need not be imposed.
 Plaintiff additionally argues that the record does not support the judge's factual findings regarding the disciplinary charges.   However, the scope of our review of the judge's findings of fact is strictly limited.   We will not disturb a trial judge's factual findings “ ‘unless we are convinced that they are so manifestly unsupported by or inconsistent with the competent, relevant and reasonably credible evidence as to offend the interests of justice [.]’ ”  Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484, 323 A.2d 495 (1974) (quoting Fagliarone v. Twp. of No. Bergen, 78 N.J.Super. 154, 155, 188 A.2d 43 (App.Div.1963)).
 Furthermore, deference to the findings of the trial judge is particularly appropriate where, as in this case, the findings are “substantially influenced by [the judge's] opportunity to hear and see the witnesses and to have the ‘feel’ of the case, which a reviewing court cannot enjoy.”  State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 161, 199 A.2d 809 (1964).   We are satisfied from our review of the record that the judge's findings of fact are supported by substantial credible evidence.

Hope this information helps you when considering who to vote for,

The Edgewater Park Reporters

Monday, July 2, 2012

King Five Finger Louie Makes Headlines Again and want's to know who dimed him out!!

"I find it odd that they're going to close the case"

From the Burlington County Times 7/2/12 On-line Edition

"Authorities close investigation of 2010 bomb scare in Beverly

By Jeannie O'Sullivan Staff writer | Posted: Monday, July 2, 2012 1:39 pm
BEVERLY — The Burlington County Prosecutor’s Office has closed its investigation of an alleged April 2010 bomb scare at City Council President Luis Crespo’s residence, citing insufficient probable cause to file criminal charges against anyone in connection with the matter.
In a letter obtained by the Burlington County Times, an assistant county prosecutor informs the city’s Police Department sergeant that “the investigation has yielded no evidence indicating that an identifiable third party placed this (inoperable improvised incendiary) device on Mr. Crespo’s vehicle.”
“On the contrary, there is some evidence to suggest that Mr. Crespo himself may have attached this device to his own truck for reasons that remain unknown,” wrote Thaddeus E. Drummond, the Prosecutor’s Office’s supervisor of the Special Investigations Unit, in a May 1 letter to city police Sgt. James Boettger.
The letter did not elaborate on the evidence. Joel Bewley, spokesman for the Prosecutor’s Office, said he could not comment on the letter.
When reached for comment, Crespo said he did not know about the letter and expressed disbelief at the outcome.
“I find it odd that they're going to close the case,” he said.
A message left for Boettger on Monday was not immediately returned.
Authorities on April 21, 2010, had shut down a stretch of Broad Street and evacuated nearby homes after someone called at 10:30 a.m. to report an “unknown device” connected to a vehicle at the residence where Crespo lives with his wife, school board member Karen Crespo. Karen Crespo had been elected to a three-year Board of Education term the night before and said at the time that she had walked home about 10 p.m.
The incident drew the New Jersey State Police’s bomb squad; the Prosecutor's Office's Major Crimes Unit; more than a dozen officers from several towns, including K-9 units; and at least one official from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
The area was declared safe about 2 p.m. that day, and police took away the vehicle as part of the investigation. At the time, Bewley declined to say if any explosives were found or if the vehicle was in danger of exploding."

Just another day in the City of Beverly, run by The King, Five Finger Louie. 
Well King Louie, you dodged another bullet or should we say a bomb of your own making. Those "Snitch Connections" from the Mt. Holly Gardens must still be working for you. To bad for Kate that you are such a GOOD FRIEND with connections.
By the way does the City of Beverly have a property maintenance ordinance? If so is the Kings House on Broad Street an example for the Home Owners of Beverly to follow? Inquiring minds would like to know.

Reprint from the April 21, 2010 BCT Front Page Story

"Bomb scare in Beverly"

April 21 2010
Burlington County Times

"BEVERLY - Authorities shut down a block of Broad Street near Railroad Avenue for about four hours Wednesday morning because of an apparent bomb scare at a city councilman's residence.

The scare occurred at the home of City Council President Luis Crespo and his wife, Karen, who is a member of the school board, according to an informed source.

A resident of the 600 block of Broad Street phoned authorities about 10:30 a.m. to report an "unknown device" connected to a vehicle, authorities said.

Responding officers blocked off the street and evacuated residents from some nearby homes, said Joel Bewley, spokesman for the Burlington County Prosecutor's Office.

The New Jersey State Police's bomb squad and the Prosecutor's Office's Major Crimes Unit responded and secured the vehicle with more than a dozen officers from several towns, including K-9 units and at least one officer from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives patrolling the area.

The area was declared safe about 2 p.m. and police took away the vehicle as part of the investigation, Bewley said.

He declined to say if any explosives were found or if the vehicle was in danger of exploding. He also declined to say who owns the vehicle.

"We have the vehicle and will analyze it as part of a continuing investigation," Bewley said.

Barbara Ptaszenski, who works at the Athletic Club of Beverly on Broad Street, said authorities told her to leave the area and wait at the end of the block.

 "They didn't tell me why, but I had already had a phone call from one of the girls that's on the scanner and they said that Crespo had a bomb scare (at his house)," said Ptaszenski, who added that she arrived at work at 10:45 and found the road already closed.

Luis and Karen Crespo, who were with officers near the scene, said they could not comment on the incident just after authorities disbanded about 2:15.

Crespo would only say that he didn't know if they would be allowed back into their home.

Karen Crespo was elected to a three-year term on the school board the night before and said she walked home about 10 p.m.

At the scene, Public Safety Director Kenneth Gerber said only that the incident has been referred to the Prosecutor's Office.

Mayor Gail Cook said the incident is unfortunate, no matter the circumstances.

"I haven't heard any scuttlebutt about if it's politically motivated at all," Cook said. "However it has come to be, it's unfortunate. It's unfortunate for any family who is targeted and for the neighbors and for the entire city."


The Edgewater Park Reporters


Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Former Burlco EMS chief arrested for allegedly using squad funds for personal use

Jim Daly
Edgewater Park Township Committee's Man of the Year 2011

Well it looks like the E. P. Reporters got it right again. 

Is the King Next?

Will Kate spill the beans?

Stay Tuned because more shoes are sure to fall!

The Edgewater Park Reporters

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

The King Five Finger Louie Issues An Edict In Beverly

Dear Reporter:

            I am a member of the Washington Fire Co. #1 in Delanco.  Last night, March 19, we had one of our monthly drills.  We took our ladder truck and our pumper to the riverfront in Beverly to practice hooking up the pumper to feed the ladder and flowing water into the river.  As we pulled up to the river front, your illustrious Mr. Louis Crespo was parked on the side of the road with one of your police officers.  They sat there and watched us as we positioned the trucks, pulled a couple sections of 5” diameter hose out and connected the trucks, pulled out more hose and connected the pumper to the hydrant, ran the ladder up and out over the river, pulled a handline off the ladder truck and took it to the riverbank, and flowed water out into the river.  After we had gotten everything running smoothly, Mr. Crespo THEN decided to send the police officer over to tell us that he didn’t want us doing this training because once, a few years ago, a different company had accidentally damaged the street.  Mr. Crespo of course couldn’t tell us BEFORE we set everything up, he was probably paralyzed with terror at the prospect of repeated damage to a street we didn’t harm the first time.  We of course immediately shut down operations and left.  The thought that a fire company which helps his town might want to practice in his town so we can be of better assistance if called upon apparently never crossed his mind.  The fact that we had of course cleared our actions with the Beverly Fire Dept. probably never occurred to this rocket scientist either.  I would hope that the people of Beverly and Edgewater Park would let Mr. Crespo know that they WANT other Fire Departments to feel welcome in their town.  I do not live in Beverly or Edgewater Park , but if I did I would do everything I could to make sure Mr. Crespo couldn’t get a job as a crossing guard from now on.  We here at the Washington Fire Co. value our working relationship with all our mutual aid companies, and we are sure that our brother firefighters understand we will always be there for them no matter what cretins get elected in their towns.


Dear BT,

Perhaps you  were interfering with the Kings business operations! His customers would be scared off with you guys practicing your drill during business hours.

The Edgewater Park Reporters    

Monday, March 5, 2012

Are the day's numbered for the Beverly-Edgewater Park Emergency Squad?

Is the end near for the Beverly-Edgewater Park Emergency Squad? 

The Edgewater ParkTownship Committee has published a Request For Proposals due 3/13/12, 10 am for; 

Can the Beverly-Edgewater Park Emergency Squad survive without the financial support it now receives from Edgewater Park? 
If you check with the County 911 Central, the majority of the Squads calls are from Edgewater Park. 

How can the Emergency Squad survive only being supported by Beverly City?

The answer is that it can't.

Now ask yourself why is the Edgewater Park Township Committee looking for someone else to provide the town with BASIC LIFE SUPPORT and EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ?

Is this payback for a political friend who got caned when the was undergoing an internal investigation late last year? This political friend was the only person not rehired after the review was completed and the Squad started back in operations. 

So what is the reason Edgewater Park Committee?

The Beverly-Edgewater Park Squad has been a important part of this community and has provided excellent service to the residences of Beverly and Edgewater Park. It's reputation only suffered during the tenure of the politically connected former head of the squad who was the only paid employee not rehired after the internal review was conducted. 

If you care about the Squad and want to see who the bidders are, attend the public bid opening to be held at the Municipal Building, Tuesday March 13th at 10 AM. It is open to the public and the bid documents must be made available for the public to see.

It will be real interesting to see if the "politically connected" ex-paid member is bidding or has someone fronting for him.

Some interesting background, check the amount of money that Edgewater Park contributed to the squad before the "politically connected" ex-employee started working as head of the squad and how much was contributed after he took over running the squad. This information is available from the Township CFO or Township Clerk. 

Lets see what happens now and in the future with Edgewater Park Township Budget Squad contribution.

The Edgewater Park Reporters