The following e-mail was forwarded on from one of the town board members and the writer of this correspondence certainly did their research in making the claim that the town board is engaging in corrupt practices. For those who may be in need of a good municipal lawyer: DO NOT HIRE the attorney retained by the current town board because he apparently is not familiar with municipal law, nor would I suggest seeking the services of Joe Petito either.
Do note that individuals that are employed part-time and are laid off from employment are entitled to Unemployment benefits providing that they meet certain criteria per the Claimant Handbook available on http://labor.state.ny.us/unemploymentassistance.shtm. This translates to the supervisor signing a chek on a weekly basis to pay dollar for dollar the employee's unemployment pay. This could be equivalent to an additional hundreds, if not thousands of dollars depending on the base rate and length of the claim.
Dear Town Board Members:
I am writing to you with respect to Resolution 1:23 – 3 OF 2012 that is on this evening’s agenda. While I recognize the importance of keeping the Town’s fiscal house in order, I wonder why distributing the work of the Senior Account Clerk to existing Town Hall employees was not first considered rather than adding another full time position. I would think that there might be existing qualified individuals in Town Hall to pitch in to help. This would certainly be less costly than adding a full time employee with full benefits. Was this even considered?
If you have not evaluated the existing staffing levels it is certainly fiscally irresponsible to be adding new full time
employees. With less than one month in office, I would think that the Board did not have time to effectively evaluate the existing staffing levels.
It is also my understanding that by expanding the position from part-time to full time you are laying off the current occupant of the part-time position. Is this person entitled to unemployment benefits which must be paid by the Town in the future? As you may or may not
know, the Town is self-insured for unemployment benefits. Is this cost considered in your budgeting?
It is more cost effective forthe Town to add a second part-time position rather than a full time employee as part-time employees are not paid benefits. Was this considered, because it certainly should have been?
I am puzzled by the resolution because it fails to mention how much is being appropriated for the full benefits for Ms. Lown. Former Town Councilman Bob Kampf raised this issue at a prior board meeting and he
was not given an answer. Rather than being transparent the Town Board is obfuscating the true cost of this employee hire by leaving out the amount of benefits to be paid.
I am very concerned because the resolution says, “WHEREAS, Joanne Lown’s time on the Preferred Eligible List does not constitute a break in service, . . .” Does this mean that Ms. Lown will be paid a salary for
the nearly two years that she was on the eligible list? If she is being paid a salary will her employment benefits be deducted from that salary?
Why is Ms. Lown being paid for not working for the Town? This is an illegal gift of Town funds to a private individual for no work.
The statement that time on a preferred eligible list is not a break in service does not comport with the definition of continuous service found in the Town of Hyde Park Employee Handbook.
Continuous Service - Continuous Service shall mean uninterrupted service. An authorized leave of absence without pay, or a resignation followed by reinstatement within one year following such resignation, shall not constitute an interruption of continuous service. Vacation is earned only for monthly pay periods during which an employee is in full pay status for at least fifteen working days during such monthly pay period.
Even if Ms. Lown is not being paid a salary, the implication from the above quoted language is that she is getting credit for the time she spent on the Preferred Eligible List. As the Town of Hyde Park gives
employees credit for “Longevity” the resolution impliesthat Ms. Lown is again being paid for doing nothing. The resolution that is before the board seems to be at odds with the plain language of the Town of Hyde
Park Employee Handbook. The Employee Handbook provides that Longevity is given for CONSECUTIVE SERVICE, nothing is mentioned about being on a Preferred Eligible List. Is this Town Board saying that all former Town Employees that are on eligible lists are entitled to Longevity benefits for the time they are on those lists? This can be very costly to the Town in the future. I suggest that the resolution be amended to be crystal clear that for Longevity purposes, Ms. Lown’s service was not consecutive and the calculation should begin anew. To hold otherwise would set an expensive precedent for the Town and there appears to be no reason to find otherwise except to show favoritism to Ms. Lown. This is an illegal gift of Town funds to a private individual for no work.
The resolution should make clear that Ms. Lown is NOT
being reinstated to her former position, she is being hired to fill a different position. As such Ms. Lown should be considered to be a new hire.
Again, under the employee handbook “Employees hired on or after 1/1/10 shall pay 15% of the health insurance premium (individual or family). If such employee selects a plan more expensive than the “base plan”, which is defined as the least expensive plan offered by the Town, the employee shall pay the difference between the base plan and the plan selected, in addition to the premium contribution specified above.” Ms. Lown is required to pay 15% of the health insurance premium if she Is hired as the Senior Account Clerk.
In conclusion, Resolution 1:23 – 3 OF 2012 should not be adopted. The Town of Hyde Park does NOT need to hire another full time employee. The Town Board needs to look at existing staffing levels to see if some of the duties of the Senior Account Clerk can be distributed to existing personnel at no additional cost to the taxpayer. If this investigation wasn’t done it should be. If another person is required, the addition of a part-time employee rather than a full time employee would be more cost effective because part time employees don’t receive benefits.
I am quite dismayed that this Town Board is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the taxpayers by not disclosing how much the benefits will cost. I also thinkhat the Town Board is attempting to show favoritism to Ms. Lown by rejecting the Town of Hyde Park Employee Handbook definition of continuous service and paying her a salary and benefits for nearly two years when she was not working for the Town. This is an illegal gift of Town funds to a private individual for no work. Should the Board adopt this resolution I will pursue all remedies available to me, including but not limited to a tax-payer lawsuit, to have the Court overturn what I believe is an improper use of Town monies.
For all this Board's talk about "fiscal responsibility" I find this action to be most fiscally irresponsible.
Do note that individuals that are employed part-time and are laid off from employment are entitled to Unemployment benefits providing that they meet certain criteria per the Claimant Handbook available on http://labor.state.ny.us/unemploymentassistance.shtm. This translates to the supervisor signing a chek on a weekly basis to pay dollar for dollar the employee's unemployment pay. This could be equivalent to an additional hundreds, if not thousands of dollars depending on the base rate and length of the claim.
Dear Town Board Members:
I am writing to you with respect to Resolution 1:23 – 3 OF 2012 that is on this evening’s agenda. While I recognize the importance of keeping the Town’s fiscal house in order, I wonder why distributing the work of the Senior Account Clerk to existing Town Hall employees was not first considered rather than adding another full time position. I would think that there might be existing qualified individuals in Town Hall to pitch in to help. This would certainly be less costly than adding a full time employee with full benefits. Was this even considered?
If you have not evaluated the existing staffing levels it is certainly fiscally irresponsible to be adding new full time
employees. With less than one month in office, I would think that the Board did not have time to effectively evaluate the existing staffing levels.
It is also my understanding that by expanding the position from part-time to full time you are laying off the current occupant of the part-time position. Is this person entitled to unemployment benefits which must be paid by the Town in the future? As you may or may not
know, the Town is self-insured for unemployment benefits. Is this cost considered in your budgeting?
It is more cost effective forthe Town to add a second part-time position rather than a full time employee as part-time employees are not paid benefits. Was this considered, because it certainly should have been?
I am puzzled by the resolution because it fails to mention how much is being appropriated for the full benefits for Ms. Lown. Former Town Councilman Bob Kampf raised this issue at a prior board meeting and he
was not given an answer. Rather than being transparent the Town Board is obfuscating the true cost of this employee hire by leaving out the amount of benefits to be paid.
I am very concerned because the resolution says, “WHEREAS, Joanne Lown’s time on the Preferred Eligible List does not constitute a break in service, . . .” Does this mean that Ms. Lown will be paid a salary for
the nearly two years that she was on the eligible list? If she is being paid a salary will her employment benefits be deducted from that salary?
Why is Ms. Lown being paid for not working for the Town? This is an illegal gift of Town funds to a private individual for no work.
The statement that time on a preferred eligible list is not a break in service does not comport with the definition of continuous service found in the Town of Hyde Park Employee Handbook.
Continuous Service - Continuous Service shall mean uninterrupted service. An authorized leave of absence without pay, or a resignation followed by reinstatement within one year following such resignation, shall not constitute an interruption of continuous service. Vacation is earned only for monthly pay periods during which an employee is in full pay status for at least fifteen working days during such monthly pay period.
Even if Ms. Lown is not being paid a salary, the implication from the above quoted language is that she is getting credit for the time she spent on the Preferred Eligible List. As the Town of Hyde Park gives
employees credit for “Longevity” the resolution impliesthat Ms. Lown is again being paid for doing nothing. The resolution that is before the board seems to be at odds with the plain language of the Town of Hyde
Park Employee Handbook. The Employee Handbook provides that Longevity is given for CONSECUTIVE SERVICE, nothing is mentioned about being on a Preferred Eligible List. Is this Town Board saying that all former Town Employees that are on eligible lists are entitled to Longevity benefits for the time they are on those lists? This can be very costly to the Town in the future. I suggest that the resolution be amended to be crystal clear that for Longevity purposes, Ms. Lown’s service was not consecutive and the calculation should begin anew. To hold otherwise would set an expensive precedent for the Town and there appears to be no reason to find otherwise except to show favoritism to Ms. Lown. This is an illegal gift of Town funds to a private individual for no work.
The resolution should make clear that Ms. Lown is NOT
being reinstated to her former position, she is being hired to fill a different position. As such Ms. Lown should be considered to be a new hire.
Again, under the employee handbook “Employees hired on or after 1/1/10 shall pay 15% of the health insurance premium (individual or family). If such employee selects a plan more expensive than the “base plan”, which is defined as the least expensive plan offered by the Town, the employee shall pay the difference between the base plan and the plan selected, in addition to the premium contribution specified above.” Ms. Lown is required to pay 15% of the health insurance premium if she Is hired as the Senior Account Clerk.
In conclusion, Resolution 1:23 – 3 OF 2012 should not be adopted. The Town of Hyde Park does NOT need to hire another full time employee. The Town Board needs to look at existing staffing levels to see if some of the duties of the Senior Account Clerk can be distributed to existing personnel at no additional cost to the taxpayer. If this investigation wasn’t done it should be. If another person is required, the addition of a part-time employee rather than a full time employee would be more cost effective because part time employees don’t receive benefits.
I am quite dismayed that this Town Board is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the taxpayers by not disclosing how much the benefits will cost. I also thinkhat the Town Board is attempting to show favoritism to Ms. Lown by rejecting the Town of Hyde Park Employee Handbook definition of continuous service and paying her a salary and benefits for nearly two years when she was not working for the Town. This is an illegal gift of Town funds to a private individual for no work. Should the Board adopt this resolution I will pursue all remedies available to me, including but not limited to a tax-payer lawsuit, to have the Court overturn what I believe is an improper use of Town monies.
For all this Board's talk about "fiscal responsibility" I find this action to be most fiscally irresponsible.
RSS Feed