Total confusion plagued the freeholders at their public meeting on Sept. 12 when county administrators tried to explain the exorbitant prices they paid for cell phone use.
In an article the previous week, the Reporter had confused two contracts totaling $65,000 in charges, claiming they both were for the month of August. The freeholders, on the other hand, mistakenly believed the $65,000 covered a four-month period.
Apparently even the representatives from the county administrator’s office did not know that one bill for $15,000 was for cell phone use in August, and that $50,000 was to cover a cellular phone contract until the end of the year.
In what amounted to a comedy of errors, the freeholders sought to cut costs by reducing the two contracts from $65,000 to $10,000. After a series of questions and answers as Freeholders Bill O’Dea and Barry Dugan grilled the administration, the truth emerged, and the $10,000 restriction Freeholder Chairman Sal Vega proposed fell to dust.
Out of the confusion emerged the truth: freeholders learned that cellular phone costs were out of control, and that in fact, the county already exceeded the $15,000 bill for August, and averaged over $15,000 per month in cell phone calls. Freeholders – to their dismay – also learned that they would have to wait until the end of the year to rectify the situation since the service had been acquired under the state’s contracting program, and that it would have to be bid out if the county wanted to change it.
Under the state program, counties and municipalities do not have to bid for services if they choose from a list of vendors and programs pre-qualified by the state.
The freeholders, however, said the county administration would have to cut costs in the meantime, and demanded an accounting of cellular telephone use by county employees. Vega said the county would approve the payment of past bills, but allocated only $12,000 to cover costs for the next month.
“We’re going to approve payment on a month-by-month basis,” Vega said. “I want this administration to cut costs. That means you’re going to have to shut off cellular phones that are not absolutely required.”
O’Dea, in reviewing a list of county employees authorized to use cellular phones, took particular note that the county’s purchasing agent, Richard Green, not only had one county cellular phone, but also had a spare.
Freeholders distinguished between critical use of cell phones such as use by the prosecutors’ office or other public safety agencies, and those services provided for the convenience of the county staff. O’Dea said indiscriminate use of cellular phones must stop, noting that in some cases county employees might have been in their offices – side by side with ground telephones – when using the cellular phones.
The total average cost of each person’s phone use was $140 per month.
Vega said the freeholders would review the bill list each month and if non-essential cellular phones were not shut off, the freeholders would reduce funding until the administration did.
“If Verizon shuts off phone services to the prosecutor’s office or the sheriff’s office, then it will be on your heads, not ours,” Vega said.
The report on telephone use showed that the prosecutor’s office has 76 cellular telephones and that county staff has 33 cellular phones.
County staff with phones includes County Counsel Joseph Sherman, Public Resources Director Marriano Vega, Road Department Division Chief Michael Ross, County Engineer Bob Jasek, County Registrar Barbara Donnelly, Health and Human Services Director Carol Ann Wilson, County Executive’s Chief of Staff Joe Cardwell, County Administrator Mark Morchel, and others.
O’Dea also sharply criticized the administration for maintaining an extremely “uneconomical” cellular phone package that did not reflect the needs of the county. To be fair to the administration, many of the people currently seeking to pay the bills were not in place when the system was set, but O’Dea said the county needs to review the plan and find one that better suits its needs.