If You Still Want to Serve........

Journal story....

Mayor, councilmen say farewell to Fairfield

FAIRFIELD —
Mayor Ron D’Epifanio and three outgoing city council members said farewell to their posts at their final council meeting Monday, thanking the city and congratulating staff for being fiscally prudent, weathering the 2008 recession, and helping the city to grow.

Departing with the mayor are three at-large council members: Tim Abbott, Tim Meyers and Mike Oler, all of whom reached their term limits, taking with them more than 50 years of experience. However, each of them expressed confidence that Fairfield would continue to prosper.

D’Epifanio, known for his joking manner and blunt honesty, said he prided himself on never once using the city-issued credit card, or for taking travel expenses on the taxpayers’ dime, paying for expenses out of his own pocket at all times.

PAYING FOR THINGS OUT OF POCKET? WHAT IS THIS NEW THINKING?

Addressing the incoming council, the mayor said, “You’re not in it for yourself. You do whatever is right for the citizens we’re serving.”

THE MAYOR SAID, "YOU'RE NOT IN IT FOR YOURSELF. YOU DO WHATEVER IS RIGHT FOR THE CITIZENS WE'RE SERVING"

HMMM, WHAT A CONCEPT....SERVING THE CITIZENS. HAVEN'T SEEN THAT IN THIS CITY FOR MANY YEARS. HAVE SEEN THE "IN IT FOR YOURSELF" VERSION THOUGH.

Meyers said he went by the creed “Do the right thing and do it all the time,” adding that he was proudest of helping the city achieve new property maintenance standards and helping make the city “work more like a business than a municipality.”

WOW,, "DO THE RIGHT THING AND DO IT ALL THE TIME". WHAT IS THIS NEW JARGON YOU SPEAK OF MEYERS?

IF ALL OF THIS IS TRUE FROM THESE PEOPLE, IS THERE A CHANCE WE COULD GET THEM ALL TO MOVE TO MIDDLETOWN AND RUN FOR OFFICE, HOPEFULLY REPLACING THE PEOPLE WE HAVE NOW? IS THERE A CITY MANAGER THERE IN FAIRFIELD THAT HAS YOUR SAME THINKING, AND IF SO, COULD THEY BE PERSUADED TO RE-LOCATE HERE?

AGAIN, IF TRUE, WHAT REFRESHING VIEWPOINTS. DUNNO, HAVE TO ASK THE PEOPLE OF FAIRFIELD IF THEY ARE BLOWING SMOKE OR NOT.

over the hill wrote: Vet: "Do the right thing and do it all the time" Our group can't do the right thing half the time let alone "all the time" They are so entrenched in their lying and deceiving ways they don't even know the right thing if it's in front of them. JMO

Yep. That's why I'm invitin' the folks in Fairfield leaving council and asking them to move here to run for office. According to this article, we just might get some decent folks to run the affairs of the city.....after cleaning out the deadwood in the city building of course. Need some good old-fashion competency back in this town to fix the town's direction. The way it is now, we "ain't got none".

I just wish our own police dept would investigate the antics going on on the floors just above them. If there is a complaint are they obligated to investigate? Ofcourse Miss Judy would just tell them "nothing going on here" move on.

wow!!and here I thought I was the crude one here....I can see alot of bad karma heading your way over that...

im betting you, along with every body else that takes the time to cast their vote does it for the very same reason...

Neil Barille wrote: Vet's voting record and opinion on any sort of public sector expenditure speaks for itself.  Anything that doesn't directly benefit his household is an unconscionable waste of money.

Barille, how in the he-- did you arrive at the conclusion that if "anything doesn't directly benefit my household, it is a waste of money?" And how do you know my voting record in detail? Other than the Seniors Levy, which I have stated numerous times, was a yes vote, based solely on the transportation service, and the school levies, which will always be a no vote due to lack of improvement with the money already given to them, and will change when they change things, I doubt that you know any more detail with regard to my voting record.

Public expenditures? Let's see.....any real money spent on the roads or infrastructure lately? Nope. Have the millions spent on the downtown area benefited me (or the MAJORITY of this city)? Not really. Major public sector taxpayer expenditures on the Thatcher estate buildings helped me (or the MAJORITY of this city) in any way? Nope. How about the $325,000 taxpayer money given to Jim Verdin and the PAC people? Benefited me (or the MAJORITY of this city) in any way? Nope. How about the loan to the MMF or the Moorman's. Helped me (or the MAJORITY of this city) in any way? Nope. All of these examples have met the definition of being "unconscionable wastes of money". Not only my household Barille......the other 48,000+ people in this city are outside looking in on personal benefits as well. Less than 3% of this city has benefited from public sector expenditures under the current regime. The theme in this city is to exclude the majority and cater to the friends of city hall. It has been proven time and time again. One needs only look at the arts community comprising less than 3% of this city. They are interested in the arts and the remaining 97% could care less and wouldn't walk across the street to see an arts exhibit. Blue collar people don't sip wine, eat cheese and talk about the arts.

No, I think the public expenditures demonstrated by this city government are a waste of money, regardless if it benefits my household or not. You bring up a non-issue.