"If people think I'm a dirty guy for using the public phone for calling family in the Midwest, I'll say 'Whatever,' " said Brock, who represents District 1 in the southeast Valley.And these other statements from the article it looks like Fulton Brock is better at milking the taxpayers for his phone bills then being a public servant looking out for the interests of the taxpayers.
Brock's bills included repeated calls to relatives in Kentucky and Tennessee.County policy, however, requires regular reimbursement for personal calls. Brock had not paid the county for personal calls until two weeks ago, when he wrote a $100 check after The Republic requested records of his bills.
Brock, who had two cellphones when he was board chairman last year, spent the equivalent of about nine straight days on his cellphone during the time period.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0117cellphones.html (at this point in time the orginal article has been deleted)
Officials ring up cell minutes
3 supervisors fail to properly reimburse county
Christina Leonard
The Arizona Republic
Jan. 17, 2004 12:00 AM
The three Maricopa County supervisors who use taxpayer-funded cellphones have failed to properly reimburse the county for personal calls.
The county has paid monthly bills that exceed $300 for Supervisors Fulton Brock, Don Stapley and Mary Rose Wilcox after they ran over allotted minutes and racked up long-distance and roaming charges. Supervisors Max Wilson and Andy Kunasek do not use county-issued cellphones.
The Republic reviewed cellphone bills for November 2002 through October 2003. During that period, the county spent more than $7,500 on the supervisors' cellphone bills, including $1,476 in total extra charges.
"If people think I'm a dirty guy for using the public phone for calling family in the Midwest, I'll say 'Whatever,' " said Brock, who represents District 1 in the southeast Valley.
"Most people that know me know that I'm fair and do everything I can to do efficient government. . . . If they think I should have a personal cell to make private calls, I'll go out and get a private phone. But I think it's just silly in a way."
Brock's bills included repeated calls to relatives in Kentucky and Tennessee. He assumed the calls were covered under his plan. Many times, they weren't.
County policy, however, requires regular reimbursement for personal calls. Brock had not paid the county for personal calls until two weeks ago, when he wrote a $100 check after The Republic requested records of his bills.
Stapley routinely reimbursed the county $50 a month, but he never itemized the personal calls in his bills.
And Wilcox in December decided to pay the county for 10 months of personal calls but didn't follow the policy when calculating the cost.
All three supervisors say the county should negotiate for cheaper service plans, and they think their bills are too high.
Stapley said the county is locked into a contract but could probably get cheaper rates in the open market at a mall kiosk.
"You think we'd get a heck of a deal," Stapley said. "Technology has improved so fast and competition has become so fierce in the wireless arena. Our contract isn't a good contract."
County's plan, policy
Since the mid-1990s, the county has joined the state to form a large buying block for service plans. Brock said he has asked county Administrator David Smith to get out of the contract because he believes it is "far above current market pricing."
However, county administrators say they have a good plan and prices keep dropping. Plan costs went from 21 cents a minute in 2000 to about 8 cents a minute in 2003. In fact, the county's telecommunications department won a national award in 2001 for its rate plan analysis system.
"Contractually speaking, there are those who benefit more than others," Telecommunications Director Jim Price said. "The contract the county is using is a good one. It could be better."
The county shelled out more than $1.3 million in fiscal 2003 for about 2,200 county-owned cellphones. The number of cellphones issued to county employees has more than doubled during the past five years.
Smith said the cellphones often improve safety and efficiency. In fact, most of the county's probation department is now wireless.
Even though the supervisors' cellphone bills are a tiny fraction of the county's $2.4 billion budget, Smith said the county must scrutinize every dollar: "We watch cellphones as closely as we watch everything else. . . .
"We expect to have tight controls on all those resources. There's a responsibility for everyone in the county to follow the policy."
The county pays for all calls pertaining to county business, but the policy requires that employees review their monthly bills, highlight personal calls and submit a check to the county. As for the reimbursement rate, they're supposed to divide the monthly cost of the plan by the number of included minutes, then apply that rate to the total minutes for personal calls.
Smith said that the policy is designed to encourage employees to use their own calling cards and cellphones but that the county cannot prohibit private use.
"There is a reasonableness test here," he wrote in an e-mail to The Republic. "County phones are not for routine private business."
Public reaction
Political expert John Hall, a professor in the School of Public Affairs at Arizona State University, said most people probably don't care whether the elected officials used their cellphones for personal calls, especially because rates are so cheap these days.
"People want them to be efficient and effective and want them to do their jobs," he said. "Cellphones are a way of doing business these days."
Others disagree.
"It's just pure abuse," said taxpayer John Chloupek, 60, of Phoenix. He's He has been a critic of government spending and says the government dollar "is the least efficient dollar there is." "It's uncalled for and should be exposed."
Tim Delaney, founder of the Center for Leadership, Ethics & Public Service in Phoenix, teaches public officials across the country. He said personal use of cellphones isn't a huge topic in his discussions, but he does tell officials they must play by the rules.
"When I'm out doing training sessions, I point out that it's very embarrassing to the individuals holding office, their families, public body and community if they're violating laws (policies)," he said. "Having said that, this isn't like someone went into Fort Knox to rip off millions of dollars. It's not like the mutual funds or some of the other scandals we've been reading."
Breaking it down
The bills for Supervisors Brock, Stapley and Wilcox averaged $211 a month. Extra charges averaged $41 a month.
Shortly after The Republic's inquiries, the County Attorney's Office forwarded copies of the county policy to the supervisors, who earn about $54,000 a year in their elected capacity.
• Brock, who had two cellphones when he was board chairman last year, spent the equivalent of about nine straight days on his cellphone during the time period. He has since given back one of the phones.
Brock said he likes the older cellphones with larger keys, but he had dropped the original one so much it didn't work as well. And because he's constantly on the phone, he wanted a second one to back him up.
He said he never received detailed bills, so he never reviewed them. And he figured his long-distance calls back home were covered because he erroneously thought he never went over his minutes.
"There's no intent to cheat anybody, and I'm glad we're giving this subject emphasis," he said.
Why not carry a personal phone?
"I don't carry a laptop. I don't carry a Blackberry. I don't like electronic devices," he said.
• Stapley, who represents District 2 in the northeast Valley, purchased a personal cellphone earlier this month and said he plans to hand back his county phone.
"My bills have been ridiculously high compared to what I can negotiate on my own," said Stapley, who spent 42 hours on his phone one month.
Every month, Stapley submits a $50 check to the county to cover any personal calls. He does not itemize because he said it's too difficult and he figures the money more than covers his use.
"County employees aren't supposed to use their cellphones for personal use unless they reimburse, but how does one determine that? That's a logistical nightmare," he said.
"Is the system broke? What can we do to fix it? I don't know. . . . For me it's simple, I should have done what I did two weeks ago a long time ago."
• AlthoughWilcox, who represents District 5 in the southwest Valley, said she tracks her bills and pays for personal calls, she wrote a check only after The Republic began its inquiries.
In mid-December, she submitted a check for $46.74 to cover 10 months' worth of bills. But she said she paid only for personal calls that went over her minute allotment. That doesn't follow county policy.
Kunasek, recently elected the board's chairman, gave up his county phone years ago.
"It is too difficult for me to go through line-by-line calls that are made and figure out what was in my official capacity and what was personal use," he said. "I have a good plan, and I pay for it myself and I don't have to worry about not reimbursing properly.
"It's my donation to the taxpayers of Maricopa County."