With new cell phone policy in place, county’s bill down $1K

Published 12:01am Sunday, October 7, 2012

From May until the end of his term in December, the phone assigned to Watts had a bill of $942.83, while Campbell’s phone had a bill of $760.64.

Jones, who retired in September, had a bill of $443.95.

Supervisors Calvin Butler, David Carter and Angela Hutchins said they do not use a county cell phone in their capacity as supervisors.

Butler said the phone he uses is from his job as operations manager at WTYJ/WMIS. Carter said he does have a county-owned cell phone assigned to him as the director of the Adams County Extension Service.

Between January — when he took office — and May, Carter’s extension service phone bill did not exceed $27.18 a month. Carter’s highest extension service bill was in July 2011 at $56.57; in all other months for the 12-month period, his bill was less than $28.

Supervisor Mike Lazarus uses a county-owned cell phone, but has his monthly bill drafted out of his supervisor’s pay.

Supervisor Darryl Grennell had his county phone turned off in May 2011, citing difficulty in keeping up with two phones. Grennell uses a personal phone to take county-related calls.

Phones that were eliminated included:

•The Cspire account assigned to Patricia Scott in the Adams County tax assessors’ office.

Tax Assessor Reynolds Atkins said Scott had used the phone when doing outside work, but the office had decided to have it turned off when Scott retired.

•The phone assigned to Justice Court Judge Patricia Dunmore.

Dunmore could not be reached for comment. Justice Clerk Audrey Bailey said she did not know the exact reason why Dunmore turned her phone in, but she knew the cell phone assigned to Dunmore was not used much.

“I don’t use mine a whole lot either,” Bailey said. “I was thinking about turning in my phone because I use my personal phone for most calls.”

• Two phones assigned to former Juvenile Justice Detention Center Administrator Glenn Arnold, who retired in June.

The detention center still has two phones assigned to it.

• A phone assigned to road crew worker Warren Gaines, who was only given the phone for one month, in March.

• A phone funded by a federal grant for the youth court program Alternatives to Detention registered to Martin Kemp. Kemp’s phone was paid for by a grant, and was turned off in October 2011.

 

 

Pages: Previous page 1 2
Print Article
  • Anonymous

    when i go to work i carry the cellphone i pay for why can,t they?

  • Anonymous

    Give them a monthly allowance of around $40 to upgrade their personal phones to unlimited. Cancel all other costs.

  • Anonymous

    Most people have a cell phone these days anyway. Why do the taxpayers have to fund this when in most all cases people will abuse it by using work phones for personal business? would it not be easier to just add them extra money to they checks to cover the cost? If they are going to issue workers phones why not find a plan that is cheaper ? I use pre paid from wal mart…. $45 a month unlimited everything have excellent reception, let’s face it that is just one of the downfalls of cell phones, and with the 66 people listed on the old bill it would only come to $2,970 a month. They also have a 3 month plan for $130 and a year plan for $495 they may could talk to customer service and get an even better deal who knows. but there will be no penalties for overages which with contract phones they will eat your lunch on. over all it would be cheaper than the current one. Even with having to buy new phones as long as they keep them within reason they are still saving a lot more money by at least over half of what it was depending on the plan. I would think that one of these options would be way less cheaper and convenient to everyone by not having to keep up with two phones.

  • Anonymous

    This is really a non-issue. The city saves less than $90 a month on cell phones and it is the lead story in the paper with an accompanying editorial? Much ado about nothing. Ultimately these are operational decisions that very much depend on the needs of the operation in question. One size does not fit all.

  • Anonymous

    Wouldn’t one size fit all under my thought of giving a monthly allowance and they add unlimited to their personal phones if not already there (or suffer the difference if they don’t)? I understand the data upload non-phone issues may require a separate approach.

  • Anonymous

    If they only use voice and texting, yes, that would be the way to go. Smart phone operating systems, much like those of PCs, can have security vulnerabilities that may be exploited to gain access to organizational mail servers, networks, etc. We don’t allow Android phones in our organization simply because of the open nature of the OS and the inherent risks that accompany that. We deal in sensitive data, though. I suspect the same could be said of law enforcement and judicial departments..

Editor's Picks