Letter to Editor: Evaluation for City Employees Looked at.

Dear Insider.

I thoroughly enjoyed your insightful rumblings; however, I think that you missed one.  The City is currently going through a job evaluation for City employees.  The report has been posted on the City's website although you have to somewhat search for it. This is the link:http://www.cityofmiddletown.com/content/117/121/161/9831/default.aspx

It's going to be interesting to see what the City does with this study and how will it effect this budget - can you say appropriations.  Maybe we shouldn't worry about it too much - there have been previous studies that the results of weren't implemented such as the one of the Water and Sewer Department.  And others such as the consolidation task force that were implemented immediately such as the combining of personnel duties into the Office of General Counsel.

This is about the third job study done by the City; the first being the Thompson study and then the Maximus Study with various outcomes.  The Maximus Study (btw, the company behind the study is no longer in business, I believe) generated some sort of scoring system which is not shared with the employees.  One of the studies resulted in the Teamster (or whatever union they now are) union negotiating changing the hours the members were paid from 35 hours per week to 40 hours in exchange for accepting the suggested hourly payscale.  In essence: we think that your hourly pay is too high so we'll pay you more hours.

Going to be interesting to say the least.

Signed

Anonymous

BOE Boogey: A Brief Summary of the Meeting

Brief summary of last night's Board of Education regular meeting.

 There was a presentation regarding reducing the number of special education students who are out placed. The gentlemen said that the average across the state is 5% whereas in Middletown the average number of special education students of the total special education population is 12%.  There was discussion of goals; the BOE would to send a consistent message throughout the system with a unified set of goals in 4 key areas.  These goals will appear in every classroom, the website and correspondence and presented at the teacher orientation in August.  

An item on the agenda caused a bit of discussion and that was the Memorandum of Understanding between the BOE/City and the Teamsters' Union.  There was confusion about how this MOU came about with Dt. Nocera first saying it was a result of the global settlement agreement between the City and the Teamsters; however, Dr. Charles did correct that and say it was result of negotiations with the Teamsters regarding their loss of a position by the outsourcing of the cafeteria services.  Dr. Charles stated that this MOU which basically trades the Director of Transportation position for the Manager of Food Services position (the Director of Transportation position has been vacant for several years and the previous administration had claimed that it was no longer necessary with the duties given to the Director of Facilities.  The Director of Facilities has retired and the duties now are being handled by BOE Administrators).  The thought is that by hiring a new director it will free up the administrators to do more education related duties.Board members Ryan Kennedy and Ted Razcka both disagreed with this saying that now was not the time to hire another person at that level of pay, may be with benefits 6 figures, when they are laying off teachers.  Kennedy expressed concern that the contract with the outside company for cafe services may not work out and be terminated in a year or so but once you hire a director you'll have them conceivably for 25 years or so.  The Administrators now handling the transportation duties stated that it was no longer working well, they were being taken from truly educational duties; that by dividing the duties all over the place was not a good plan, not a safe plan.  BOE member Sheila Daniels stated that being able to go forward with the hiring of the outside company for cafe services would enable them to hire a company with nutritional background so that now the children with have " healthy" meals.

At the end of the meeting, Board member Ed McKeon made a statement directed to the Common Council members regarding the upcoming vote on the city's budget.  He stated that no one can call themselves a supporter of education if they make those kinds of cuts that he is hearing.  He said that the BOE has worked diligently to get out of the hole; worked hard to give the city has asked for.  Even though they had done what was asked of them they don't seem to be getting anything from the other side.  He stated that we are on the brink of very hard times.  Layoff could be as many as 25 or 30; these are not scare tactics but the budget proposed by the BOE was cut to the bone already.  He felt that it would be unconscionable and unfair it the BOE funding is cut.

After that, the meeting was to move onto communications but it appeared that the recording got stuck and meeting must have ended soon after.

John Milardo: City Officials & Mayor Drew Rehearsed Statements

Also appearing on Middletown Patch  here: http://middletown-ct.patch.com/articles/milardo-letter & and as part of John Milardo's latest edition of his newsletter "And Justice for All." Milardo's previous edition touching on a variety of problematic topics is featured here: http://www.middletowninsider.com/2013/01/guest-blog-his-town.html.  We previously covered the story of Mayor Drew loosing his cool at PRC here: http://www.middletowninsider.com/2013/01/mayor-drew-losses-his-cool-at-prc.html
-----------------------------------------------

"Which is it?"
by John Milardo

About three years ago, when I was the union president of the Middletown Managers & Professionals Association, someone called to inform me that the city of Middletown was getting ready to privatize the sanitation district trash and recycling collections performed by employees of the public works department.

This was the first time anyone I knew had heard this news. It would have affected MMPA members, so I began to investigate and ask some questions of the finance department.
The finance department informed me that the sanitation division was $250,000 in the red, and it was only going to get worse. When asked how long the deficit had been going on, the finance department could only say they were just made aware of the situation.

Upon further investigation, I was told that a local private trash collection company was ready to sign a contract with the city and take over the sanitation division's collection routes. Employees would then be either transferred or laid off from work. I set up a meeting with the finance director to look into the matter, to find out how this could have happened.

When the meeting took place, I was told it was a false alarm! Someone had made some accounting errors, and not only was there $500,000 in the fund balance, but the division also had plenty of funding in the capitol account for the purchase of new trash and recycling trucks for the next five years. That’s a $750,000 mistake. No contract to privatize was signed.

Why am I bringing this up now? I’ll tell you why. On Jan. 22, at the monthly Personnel Review Commission meeting, the public works director was requesting to have the Teamsters Local 671 manager position in the sanitation division changed to add truck driving route duties, and eliminate the AFSCME, Local 466, truck driver who now performs the work.

Tony Lepore, business agent for Teamsters, Local 671, objected to the change. When the assistant superintendent of sanitation job was created, the intent of the driving duties listed in the job description were strictly for supervisory purposes (a pickup truck), as had always been the case with all the past supervisors who held this position in one form or another. The position manages employees, complaints, problems, and the district.

The public works director stated he was performing his due diligence in looking to save money in the sanitation division, because the division is having financial problems, and it could not handle the increase in wages to fill a vacancy. At one point, the director stated if he knew the existing job description contained driving duties in it, he would have had the retiring assistant superintendent of sanitation drive a trash route all along.

Mayor Daniel Drew was in attendance at the meeting, and he concurred with the director. They needed to save money or pass the increase onto the sanitation district taxpayers. The director also stated if the Teamsters did not agree with the proposed language change in job duties, he would have to inform sanitation users that an increase was coming and it was due to the Teamsters. Mayor Drew nodded in agreement with the statement. Is that a responsible action by local leaders?

Teamsters Business Agent Lepore began to speak regarding the issue, when for no reason the mayor laughed at him. Lepore called the mayor on it, and didn’t let him get away with it. A lively one-way discussion ensued. The mayor's behavior only leads me to believe he probably did behave improperly at the last PRC meeting to Commissioner Deborah Kleckowski.

The mayor called for a recess to meet with his new city attorney and the deputy city attorney. They came back in the room and the mayor withdrew the assistant superintendent of sanitation job description change from the agenda.

He stated the existing language gives him the authority to order the employee to do the work, and he did not care about what the intent was regarding driving duties for the job when it was originally approved. Both the Teamsters and AFSCME labor organizations stated they will file charges.
You could tell the mayor and public works director had practiced their testimony together. Statements that stood out at the meeting to me; the director stating he did not know what duties were entailed within a job description in his own department. This is the most basic knowledge any supervisor/manager needs to know. The statement made by the director that the sanitation division could not absorb the increase in their salary account to hire a vacant driver position is not correct.

First of all, both the assistant superintendent of sanitation and the truck driver position are 100-percent funded with the existing budget. There was no additional cost to the sanitation district taxpayers, the money is already there.
Secondly, because of my past experience with the sanitation divisions accounting practices, I later checked with the finance department, and the sanitation division is in great financial shape, and has been for the past few years.

John Milardo
“And Justice For All” is a newsletter involving the opinions, views, and commentary as a lifelong Middletown resident. In my capacity as a former employee of Middletown (retired) for more than 41 years, I have a different perspective regarding how and why public figures do what they do.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/1RDeTx8hfRH2p18W7M9yN4wKJU0Byal-VkKJo1nfT5Yim1Orvk0kClxZx7YLq/edit?usp=sharing 

Your Daily Spin by the Middletown Mess:When the Numbers Don't Add Up

Daily Spin: Response to City & BOE Consolidation of Legal Services

http://www.middletownpress.com/articles/2013/01/19/news/doc50f9defb8c1b4595879930.txt

There has been an article in some of the news outlets regarding a memorandum of understanding between the City and the BOE regarding the BOE using the City's legal staff rather than hire outside attorneys.

The article stated that the administration wanted to go back to pre-2008 staffing levels.  For this year, 2012, the City is increasing it's current staffing levels from an Acting City Attorney, vacant Deputy City Attorney position and a secretary to a City Attorney (already hired), two Deputy City Attorneys (one already hired and one scheduled to be hired in the spring) plus the secretary.  The Risk Manager's part of the department currently has three full time employees.  This is leading us to believe that the City previously had

that level of staffing.  However, in the approved budget for the year ending 6/30/2009, there was a City Attorney, one Deputy City Attorney and a Legal Secretary as had been budgeted for the year ending

6/30/2008.  A second Deputy City Attorney was requested but not funded.  At one time, for a short time, the office was staffed with a paralegal who first started as a part-time employee and then becamefulltime; after that employee received her law license, she was appointed as an additional Deputy City Attorney.  She subsequently left the City for other employment.  Should be noted that this former employee was one of the original applicants for the City Attorney position and not chosen.  The article is misleading in that except for a short period of time, the office has only had ONE Deputy City Attorney.

Also, the article claimed that the City has been able to settle some 30 some odd pieces of litigation stating further that numerous grievances and suits were settled by working with the Mayor, BOE and the union.  It should be noted however that the majority of the "30" legal issues were union grievances that did not necessarily require legal representation on the part of the City or the BOE.  These were grievances filed the employee through the union and were to be heard by a panel at the state labor board; the fee to do so is approximately $25.00 per party and did not necessarily rise to the level of requiring the attendance of an attorney at several hundreds of dollars per hour.  As part of the agreement the BOE insisted on keeping the illegal hire , Councilwoman Hope Kasper's son inlaw, whom she had a direct hand in hiring. Hmm. The hearing of grievances by the Labor Board is a matter of stating the facts and the specific part of the union contract violated to the panel and then waiting for their response; sometimes, the panel will request that the positons of both sides be submitted in writing

but generally it's straightforward: how did the employer violate the contract??  BTW, there is still a grievance out there to be heard and also an outstanding law suit not settled as of yet.

According to the paperwork handed out by the BOE at the workshop regarding their budget for object code 392 Legal Services for 2011-2012 the actual expenditure was $147,177.48; $100,000 was

appropriated bor the 2012-2013 budget and for the 2013-2014 budget $154,220 is being requested, an additional $54,220.00 over the current budgeted amount.  In the overall budget for the BOE, $147,177 doesn't seem extreme but it should be noted that much of what was paid for the outside attorneys for services rendered for the issues between the BOE and the City were paid for from the City's Insurance and Claims Fund and not the above referenced object code in the BOE's budget.  Monies in the Insurance and Claims Fund are reserved generally for payment for pending claims and suits against the City plus claims resulting from storms etc. and deductibles, and should the fund be insufficient after the payment of funds not planned for, an appropriation from the General Fund will be necessary to meet those obligations when and if

they arise.  If the BOE is expecting to have to pay less for legal expenses, one would assume that we will see the request for $154,220 be reduced.  Right??

Early Retirement Pay Outs Costly to Taxpayers & Other City Pensioners

Click to download & view

    The following is a draft of a memorandum of understanding proposed between the City and the Teamsters Local #571 offering certain employees an incentive to retire prior to their normal eligibility.  The following is a draft and has not been formalized or accepted by the Council and could change.  We understand that the employees have until November 7th to indicate their interest in the package and until that point the actual cost to the City has not been determined.  

     However, this is going to be an expensive package if implemented:  there are between 40 and 50 members of the union and of course it's unknown how many will take the offer so there are no numbers regarding the impact on the general fund as of now.  For those directors that are not part of the union, it is rumored that the City is offering up to 5 years of service;  so say you've 18 years of service, that could be now 23 years of service which at 2.5% would be 57.5% of the average of the highest 3 years of salary.  If the average salary is $90,000, the annual pension would be $51,750 or $4,312.50 per month.  Now they would be able to start collecting this pension 5 years earlier than they normally could have.

     Pensions from the City are capped at 70% of a set average salary, however this union's contract has adjusted that cap to 80% based on the retiree paying a higher percentage for their health insurance.  This draft offers some employees who have been with the city for 35 years or more a cap at 85%.  If their average salary were $100,000 (which is possible since overtime is included in their base salaries for the calculation), an additional 5% is $5,000.00 per year.

     However, the general rule of thumb has been that a golden handshake only saves money if you don't replace the retiring members; that doesn't seem to be the case here. If the building official retires, are you not going to replace him?  From the council agenda, it appears that the intent is to replace the Director and or Deputy Director of Personnel with Deputy City Attorneys, savings?? 

     Also, during the budget process this year, the pension funds was not funded to the extent that the actuaries had indicated and a special committe was to be formed to review the pension funding.   By giving the highest paid employees effectively a minimum of an additional 5% to their pension for their lifetime is going to be a tremendous hit to the pension fund.  These numbers of course are not available as of yet.  Remember, this union just won at the state labor board a case against the City and BOE where a union member retired and was replaced by a non-union worker, so they've a history of protecting their positions.

     Health insurance should be mentioned here also cause it's not mentioned in the offer at all; so not paying any more or less as a result of getting a higher pension.

     These seems to be an expensive way to get people to retire.  Offering 5 additional years to those employees who are not members of the union just to get them to retire is very generous!  Seems that it would be less expensive to negotiate with those employees who you wish to have leave on an individual basis rather than give away the farm to the whole management tier.

     Drew is cleaning house of directors who did not support him under the "guise" of saving money, however; the fact is that this will over in-flat city government departments and cost more.One can only speculate whom Drew and the Democratic majority/Serracrats have in mind to place in possible new director positions....
Lisa Santangelo? Another unqualified relative of Councilwoman Hope Kasper?