FONT SIZE
Email this
Print this
POST A COMMENT
OSPD
From the Jan. 11, 2010 meeting minutes, Mayor’s Report: “Council approved the 2010 budget with 9.5% of salaries removed for public safety personnel; a 10.39% reduction will be placed for clerical and public works personnel with the ordinance implementing furloughs and non-paid holidays.
“Mediation will continue on January 22 based on the bargaining units’ rejection of concessions. Because concessions were not received, a police officer was laid off. Sergeant Paul Luck submitted a retirement letter hoping to save the layoff position but his accrued benefit cost is $88,000.00. If funding cannot be found to pa the accrued benefit cost, another layoff may occur or that position will not be filled until the $88,000.00 is paid.“
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, January 27th, 2010 at 12:08 pm and is filed under North Coast News.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Well, I think if they are going to lay people off, and they have adequate time to make that decision then they should have the money ready to pay them. I agree on Luck’s retirement, that was unforseen (because he’s only been there 30 years and no one had any idea he would retire in the next millenium), but if you’re going to lay people off, make sure you have enough to pay them out, otherwise it just comes as a bigger slap in the face to the person who just lost their job and makes the city look like they couldn’t care less about the people who served this city for the last (fill in the blank).
I recently retired from a much larger public agency in this state, and they suffered the same problem coming up with my cashout. Ocean Shores should not feel alone in this problem, it happens in many agencies.
Some create special funds for this purpose, making moderate contributions each year to help offset layoffs, resignations and retirements in the future. Obviously it’s difficult to fund these rainy day funds when times are tight, let alone start a new one. I can guarantee you through experience that if you try to fund 100% of these “unfunded liabilities” at once you will be shocked at the total potential. Obviously you don’t need to fund 100% due to the probability you won’t be losing 100% of your staff. Also, you can predict retirements and try to fund accordingly, but obviously you can’t predict most terminations or resignations so you are forced to gamble that your contribution are adequate. It’s not easy anywhere, so again, Ocean Shores shouldn’t feel alone.
Well Tom, it is time to investigate. If the information in these statements are correct and varifiable from the named sources, then there should be some news here. The city should be willing to provide the information if all of this is public record. Maybe Karlie, the Masters in Criminal Law party would be willing to assist you. They could provide the specific places to look. Ask the specific questions so there is no room to wiggle out of it. This should be an interesting story next week.
I’ve read the posts the last few days, some of them before they were edited/deleted. Hopefully I can de-mystify this topic without being deleted. My husband worked for the police department for three years and he accumulated nearly all of his leave. To date, he has NOT even been paid for his final hours on the job, let alone his accrued leave, or other monies due. His last day was two weeks ago.
Well, if it’s that easy to get, then go get it. It’s there. No one would believe me if I gave it to you and Tom would edit me any way. All I will say is this… it is about to hit, and when it does you will see how corrupt your government is. And if, at that time, they manage to hide it, I will make sure it makes it to Tom’s desk. You all deserve to know what is really going on there.
If any citizen has proof the city is not in “crisis”, then state that facts. Show where in the budget or city bank accounts the money exists. If this is retaliatory termination, state why. Is the mayor attacking the police department and laying them off left and right? In light of Tom wanting positive imput here where do the citizens suggest he cuts? Give the mayor some real solutions. Do it department by department. Let’s hear some solutions.
Reilly, that CAC reference was a little more “general”; it was borderline, but I just deleted that portion.
Note to all: Salaries and such are public information. Please refrain from speculative comments and “I heard so-and-so is going to . . .”
Tom,
Why the selective editing? Citizens is speaking about the same matter making false assumptions and you allow those to stay on here. I don’t think he is the person he is referencing, so why don’t you edit his comments??? At least what I was saying was fact. Or do we not want the citizens to know the truth?
Karlie,
Concerning your logic determining “wrongful termination”,
can you disclose where the money is that you claim the city has and refuses to use that makes the layoff “wrongful”?
Wouldn’t that make all terminations and layoffs other than for cause “wrongful”?
I wish I coiuld use that logic with my mortgage or car payment.
“I have the money, but I don’t feel like paying it, and there’s nothing they can do about it because it would be “wrongful”".
Citizens Against Crime: I’m sorry you didn’t really read what I wrote…. Let me help you by explaining it again. I wasn’t talking about Sgt Luck. I never talked about an officer resigning and holding the city liable. I was talking about the officer that they already laid off and the officer they are planning to lay off. Neither of those are resignations. I wasn’t talking about resignations. Please read it again. So, to clarify for you, they have already laid off ONE officer. They are talking about laying off ANOTHER officer because they can’t pay for Sgt. Luck’s accrued leave. Because they don’t have the money. So…. if they laid off one officer (which they did)…. and lay off another officer (still not talking about Luck here….) then that is TWO officers that they will have laid off. That means that if they lay off two officers that they didn’t HAVE to lay off because the city is not in the crisis it claims to be in (I’m sorry, the crisis BUNKERS claims it to be in) then those two officers (still not talking about Luck here) will be entitled to BENEFITS at the CITY’S expense because they were WRONGFULLY terminated. It’s in the union contract AND state LAW. Please carefully READ what you are responding to BEFORE you respond, as it has careful CLUES as to what the conversation is ABOUT and you miss KEY points when you make ASSumptions about things you obviously haven’t READ.
And thank you Reilly. See? (ED. NOTE: PORTION OF COMMENT DELETED) So they don’t have Luck’s money, but they canned High. Where is his money? You think they didn’t know they owed him, what, two months of pay, when they gave him his papers? They had time to think this through but still can’t come up with the cash. We are so ripe for a lawsuit over this it’s not even funny. We haven’t even begun to see the stuff roll downhill…
“Citizens”, I wouldn’t be so quick to be “sure” about anything. I know for a fact that (Ed. note: Rest of comment DELETED. Please DO NOT POST COMMENTS CLAIMING TO KNOW PERSONAL INFORMATION, UNLESS YOU ARE THAT PERSON).
You can’t have a wrongful termination when you resign. That is what Sgt. Luck did. He also is not scheduled to leave until Feb. per previous articles. So, aren’t you going off half cocked a little early?
As to the potential layoffs in the future, that all depends on revenue. If it does not come in, we can not pay anyone. So, that too means layoffs. The only money missing is the money from sales tax, B&O tax, and permits and fees.
The money is not missing. The city realizes expenses when they happen. They are not require to accrue the money for sick leave or vacation in a separate account. Although it might make sense to, there is not requirement. They just have a duty to pay when the person is sick or leaves. I am sure the city could also make a payment agreement if the person is agreeable to it too.
(ED. NOTE: PORTION DELETED)
The mayor is controled by federal law as to the number of firemen they have in that department because of grant terms. the only other department that has a large payroll that comes from the General Fund is the police department. Not much choice there. Every other department is down to only a handful of people.
Utilities are protected because they are not funded by the general fund.
Maybe you should go over and walk into those doors at city hall and ask some questions. They will answer them. Ask for the Organizational Chart. Count the heads that the general fund supports.
(Ed. note: Portion deleted as inappropriate, PLEASE DO NOT MAKE STATEMENTS REGARDING OTHER PEOPLE’S PRIVATE CONCERNS, ESPECIALLY BASED ON SECOND-HAND KNOWLEDGE). Does anyone else find it odd that Bunkers is attacking the police department and laying them off left and right? Now they are saying that they won’t fill Sgt Luck’s position and will lay off ANOTHER officer as well because they don’t have the money? If all of this is true, then the city is headed straight for a lawsuit, or at least some legal issues with both Sgt Luck and the guy that got canned. Guess who will foot the bill for that? We, the tax payers. This money is due to them upon discontinuing employment. I may be incorrect but I thought it was state law that if they laid someone off, they had to be “free and clear” on their last day of employment. If either one of these guys hires a lawyer to get their money, the city will have to pay for that, plus interest on the money owed, and even possibly another penalty for making them fight for it in the first place. And if there IS money missing, and they lay off another officer, both he and the other guy that was laid off can go after the city for some form of wrongful termination and the taxpayers could be left with an even bigger debt if it is found that the city was not in such a financial crisis that they couldn’t have worked something else out. Sorry folks, I think I smell a rat in the city hall. I think we are on the fringe of something big if any of this is true, let’s hope we don’t have to find out what happens if it’s ALL true. If Bunkers keeps going at this rate there will be no police department by the end of the year and we will all find ourselves a little worse for the wear. Someone needs to hold the city accountable now before it gets any worse, but I think there is some seriously shady business going on behind those doors.
1320 Hours was the cap in the Exempt Employee Contract. It was similar in the other contracts.
CAC Thanks for clearing that up. I would have thought that there would be a “cap” on accrued time off.
There is some confusion here as to what the money represents. The money paid out, $88,000, is for vacation and sick leave not used. This is not retirement. That is a whole different thing. The problem is that the city does not accrue these on the books. They are separately recorded and realized when the person leaves. So, we are left not knowing, when you look at the budget, at the accrued liability for all the payments to employees when they leave. They do not even figure out the current year’s obligation out of the budgeted FTE cost. So, as the year moves on, we do not put away any money to reflect the accrued sick leave, vacation or other payment. We just pay as we go.
If you ask the mayor, he will say we do not have the money to do the accrual. We just mark it on paper. It would be interesting to see how much has accrued for all the employees in a line item on the budget.
I wonder how many employees are nearing retirement. Maybe some timeline would be a good thing to report. That would show the cashflow out over say the next 5 years if all stay that long. We would then know what else will have to be cut to pay this obligation.
I wonder what other liabilities loom out there that we have not recognized.
I hear the footsteps of another LID LIFT or EMS Levy in the near future. I love how Hoquiam has a 50 cent EMS Levy that generates $190K. We ask for 50 cents and generate $680K. Will they lower the General Fund rate when we say yes to the levy? Compartmentalizing the money does not make it a revenue neutral tax. It is still a tax increase. Maybe we should support the city on what the property tax creates and start saving the other revenue for rainy days and special needs. Then we are not surprised when the economy around us takes a nose dive.
the city “caretakers” sure blew that one. why hasn’t there been a “retirement fund” for all these years. that should be one of the largest “no touch” bank of reserves passed on from the past leaders of our city. now the mayor has another problem,not of his making, to deal with.
When I left my job with the state and moved out here, I chose to cash out my retirement. All of which had to be done through the union, the state was “out of the loop” at that point. Was he not union? Being a supervisor perhaps not. Did that money just disappear or was it used to buy new lamposts?
I don’t think the city understands the concept of “reserves”.
Either that or they have been raided already.
If it was known that Sgt luck was potentially going to need that pay out why was that money not put aside? What happens when other city employees close to retirement retire and need their pay out. It sounds like poor planning that this hasnt been put away for when it was needed. Now the people of the city will have to suffer less services
This one should get interesting……