Enfield Fire Purchase Proposal Passes In Controversial Vote

ENFIELD, CT — A proposal by the Enfield Fire District No. 1 to purchase a pair of expensive fire apparatus to replace aging units passed overwhelmingly Thursday night, but some residents of the district are saying the protocol under which the voting took place contained misinformation that may have swayed the outcome.

A public information session held Jan. 10 outlined district officials' desire to replace a 1991 Pierce Arrow pumper and a 1988 Pierce Arrow 110-foot tower ladder. The projected cost to purchase the pumper is $825,000, while the cost of the aerial ladder truck would be $1.4 million.

According to a legal notice published on three consecutive days last week in an area daily newspaper, "The legal voters and those entitled to vote in the Enfield Fire District No. 1 are hereby warned and notified that a Special Meeting of the District has been scheduled for Thursday, January 17, 2019, at 7:30 p.m. at the District's Headquarters Fire Station located at 200 Phoenix Avenue to see what action, if any, the District's voters will take toward the purchase of two new fire apparatus to replace an aging District Aerial Platform and Engine."

Lisa Ellis, whose family has dedicated years of service to the fire departments of Enfield, complained to Board of Fire Commissioners president Scott Prentiss that, based on the legal notice, residents were under the impression they had to be present at Thursday night's meeting in order to vote on the proposal. Instead, district residents could vote all day, and firefighters even went to solicit votes from some people, all without notification, she claims.

"Did you know that you could have stopped during the day to vote at any time?" she posted on her Facebook page. "Did you see that published anywhere? Apparently 103 people were told about it because they came down and voted. I'm also hearing they drove to people's houses to allow them to vote if they couldn't make it to the firehouse. My understanding is the majority of these votes were in favor of the purchase of the apparatus. When I questioned the president of the commission, he said the decision was made on Monday to allow people to vote all day because they have done it in the past. He had no answer for me as to why it was not published in the paper or on social media. Whether you were for the purchase or against the purchase it is not right that the majority of the taxpayers and the Enfield fire district were not given the opportunity to vote as others were."

"There was a huge turnout at the meeting, and the vote was overwhelmingly in favor, so we're going ahead with the purchase agreement on that," Prentiss said. He did add he was confronted following the vote by some people who were upset about the apparent lack of communication.

Ellis said her issue is not with the results of the vote, but the process by which the voting protocol was handled.

"The concern was that they decided on Monday to open voting all day long but didn't notify anyone about it," she wrote. "That's the issue at hand, has nothing to do with the apparatus, has nothing to do with what the vote was about. It was the fact that they allowed people to vote during the day when everyone else was under the understanding according to the published information that you needed to be at the meeting at 7:30 in order to vote. They did not even send an email to the membership to let them know that."

Several people were demanding through social media posts that the vote be declared null and void, stating they did not vote because they were under the impression they had to be present at the meeting.

"We are aware some people have complaints, and we're looking into it," Prentiss said. "I am not aware of any legal requirements for absentee ballots."

File photo credit: Tim Jensen

To register for free Enfield news alerts and more, click here.