Selectmen Ask Town Counsel to Review Employee Contracts
By JIM HICKEY
Following a series of reports concerning questionable employment practices in Oak Bluffs including generous severance packages and bonuses paid to select department heads, town officials this week agreed to seek the advice of town counsel Ronald H. Rappaport.
Town administrator Michael Dutton said he was putting together a package of town records, including payroll warrants and all the town's personal service contracts, that will be given to Mr. Rappaport and town labor counsel Michael C. Gilman for a formal review.
Mr. Dutton said he decided to seek the legal review at the urging of at least two selectmen, Kerry Scott and Ronald DiOrio, adding that he felt the move was in the best interest of the town.
"We are trying to promote trust in this town, and we don't want there to be lingering questions about these topics that have surfaced lately," Mr. Dutton said.
Mr. Dutton's decision came the same week Ms. Scott received a letter from the state Department of Revenue about the town's use of personal service contracts.
Last May, Ms. Scott wrote to the department of revenue asking which town employees were eligible to receive such contracts.
Oak Bluffs has 16 employees with personal service contracts, multi-year agreements that usually reward the worker with additional perks and a higher level of pay than other municipal and union employees. In Oak Bluffs there are far more personal service contracts than in any other town on the Vineyard, and possibly in the state.
In a Jan. 30 letter of reply to Ms. Scott, Kathleen Colleary, the chief of the state's bureau of municipal finance law for the department of revenue, said as a rule individual employment contracts are limited to one year and should not include any special fringe benefits not otherwise granted to other employees.
"The reason is that appropriations for these operation expenses are made annually and no binding contracts can be made in excess of available appropriations," Ms. Colleary wrote.
Most of the personal service contracts in Oak Bluffs are multi-year agreements that automatically renew unless the town or the employee gives notice. Six of the contracts obtained by the Gazette stipulate that the town will pay 100 per cent of the employees' health premiums.
Union employees and those covered by the town personnel bylaws are required to pay 25 per cent of their health insurance premiums.
In her letter Ms. Colleary noted that state law does allow special contracts for certain municipal employees, but they are usually limited to the town administrator or town manager, town accountants or finance directors, police chief and fire chief.
"As a general rule, unless one of these exceptions applies, or special legislation has been provided authorizing them, municipal employment contracts purporting to be for more than one year would be subject to appropriation in subsequent years of the contract," she wrote.
Ms. Colleary concluded by suggesting that the town seek the advice of its attorney.
Yesterday, Mr. Rappaport confirmed he had received a package of information from Oak Bluffs, but he had no further comment.
News of the personal service contracts first surfaced last year after town administrator Casey Sharpe left her post. At first selectmen said Ms. Sharpe had resigned, but later they confirmed that she had been terminated without cause by the selectmen - at her own request - triggering a clause in her contract that paid her a severance package of $76,000 in salary and benefits.
Last month the news surfaced that bonuses ranging from $4,400 to $10,000 had been paid to four department heads between July 2005 and June 2006. The bonuses were awarded by Ms. Sharpe and authorized by the town accountant and selectmen. Several selectmen have since said they were unaware of the payments when they signed the town payroll warrants.
This week, the Gazette learned that building inspector Jerry Wiener received a payment of $13,000 in September 2005 to cover the town's share of his health insurance premiums, despite the fact he was already covered under his wife's health insurance plan.
A memorandum from Ms. Sharpe to town accountant Karen Gomez in November of 2005 confirmed the payment.Mr. Dutton said the payment was made to Mr. Wiener to bring his salary in line with what was promised when he first interviewed for the job with Ms. Sharpe in 2005. Mr. Wiener was hired at an annual salary of $67,500 but was unable to receive that amount because the building inspector was part of the union for town department heads, Mr. Dutton said.
Mr. Dutton said he has heard of other towns paying an employee a lump sum in lieu of health insurance, although he was unaware of any other Oak Bluffs employees who had received such payments.
Town finance director Paul Manzi said he too was unaware of any other employees receiving such payments, but he said he had no reason to think the payment violated any state or town laws.
The building inspector position was the subject of another controversy last month when news surfaced that Mr. Dutton had changed Mr. Wiener's salary to $67,500 and taken him out of the union in October without the selectmen's knowledge.
Mr. Dutton said he was trying to bring Mr. Wiener's salary in line with what was negotiated back in 2005. After learning of Mr. Wiener's change in pay and job classification, town health agent Shirley Fauteux - also the union steward for town department heads - filed a grievance claiming that Mr. Dutton violated the collective bargaining agreement by removing the building inspector position from the union.
Mr. Dutton said his decision to remove the position was a mistake, and he then put the position back in the union.
As of this week, Mr. Wiener's salary had not been changed back to his previous rate of pay. On Monday, Ms. Fauteux filed another grievance against the town on behalf of the union asking that Mr. Wiener's salary be changed back immediately.
Ms. Scott, a vocal advocate for change in town employment practices, said she is relieved that town counsel will now review the issues.
"I think as a general rule of thumb we should use the town attorney whenever we have questions. I think the taxpayers would prefer to use town counsel to avoid problems or embarrassments instead of seeking a legal opinion after the fact," Ms. Scott said.
 Print
|
 Email link
|
 More from this issue
|
 Back to top
|
