|
October 30, 2009
An audit released today by Nassau County Comptroller Howard Weitzman found that a father and son succeeded one another as Sanitary District No. 7’s General Sanitation Supervisor (GSS), immediately granting the son “excessive benefits” that included 15 years of post-employment payments with a present value of nearly $300,000, two $300,000 life insurance policies, bonuses, a district vehicle and a shoe allowance, while at the same time the retired father was rehired as a part-time consultant for the garbage district. The son was also able to “buy back” over $131,000 worth of comp time over a three year period (242 days), with no evidence of Board approval or review. Compensatory time, or “comp time” refers to extra hours worked beyond an employee’s normal work week. Sanitary District No. 7 permits employees to “cash in” or “buy back” this time.
The audit described the GSS as “…often uncooperative…and at times verbally hostile and abusive to the auditors.”
“The only thing missing from this tale of nepotism is a moat around their kingdom,” said Weitzman. “This sanitary district operated by its own rules, wasting taxpayer dollars by granting a huge disparity in benefits to favored employees, despite the fact that all employees were members of one of two unions represented in the district.”
Town of Hempstead Sanitary District No. 7 serves the community of Oceanside and provides three-day-a-week garbage collection for 10,025 residential and 925 commercial properties. In 2008 residential and commercial property owners paid an average of $676 in taxes to pay for garbage collection. Average taxes for garbage collection by the Town of Hempstead in 2008 were $420. The limited audit of the District covered compensation and fringe benefits for the years 2006, 2007 and 2008. The District is governed by a Board of five Commissioners, each of whom is elected for a five year term.
The audit found eight District employees with apparent family relationships. In four instances, two employees had the same last names and two live at the same address. According to Comptroller Weitzman, the District responded “No” to the question “Are any of the District’s board members, management and /or staff directly or indirectly related to one another…?”
The most egregious case of nepotism, according to Comptroller Weitzman, was the February 1998 hiring of the District’s General Sanitation Supervisor’s (GSS) son as a Sanitation Supervisor. Benefits for the Sanitation Supervisor’s position fall under the District’s Civil Service Employees Association agreement, however, immediately upon being hired; the son was given a slew of “unusual benefits” including five weeks vacation time, which under CSEA contract required 16 years of employment. In July 1998 the District purchased two $300,000 life insurance policies for the son. The District paid for one policy and paid the GSS $15,000 annually for the second, to cover the $9,548 premium, plus the taxes for this benefit.
He also was promised to be paid $25,000 a year for 15 years after leaving the District. In 2006 and 2008 the son received Board-approved bonuses of $10,000, for “a job well done” and “superior performance of duties,” according to the District’s commissioners and consultant (the GSS’ father). The GSS was the only District employee who received a bonus during this time. The son also received personal use of one of the two District vehicles.
For the year’s 2006, 2007 and 2008, the GSS’s annual salary was $135,212, $140,620 and $146,245, respectively. The GSS also received the largest buy back payments of any employee in the District for those same years, with 75, 75 and 92 days of comp time “bought back” in each year. The bulk of his “comp days” were earned by working almost every Saturday throughout the year. The buy backs totaled an additional $131,315 in the GSS’s pocket for that three year period, approximately equal to one year’s salary.
"The Board should re-consider whether these buy back payments provide any benefit for taxpayers when negotiating future contracts,” Weitzman said.
With the lucrative extras added to the GSS’s base salary during the years 2006, 2007 and 2008, his gross salary was pushed to $199,665, $197,175 and $224,569, respectively.
The father, the former GSS, retired in December 1998. He was rehired as a consultant on January 1, 1999. The former GSS received an annual pension of approximately $75,000 from the New York State Retirement System, full health benefits and additional payments from the District: a $36,000 annual payment as a consultant, and $26,218 annual post-employment pay. The District declined the auditors’ request for a written summary of the consultant’s duties and responsibilities and no written contract existed for the consultant position.
"Taxpayers have financed a ‘Million Dollar Family,’” said Weitzman. The son’s compensation, benefits and entitlements over the three-year audit period and post employment deal, bumped up his compensation to nearly $1 million. The father cost taxpayers $350,000 during the same period. Is it any wonder why homeowners in this district pay more for garbage collection than most?”
The audit also found that payment for unused leave was inequitable, depending on which union a District employee belonged to. Supervisors and office workers (including the GSS) are represented by the CSEA Local 880, while drivers, helpers and laborers are members of the Teamsters Local 854. While CSEA employees can accumulate and buy back up to 800 days, Teamsters are allowed only 250.
In addition, there was no minimum time requirement for CSEA employees to become vested for lifetime health coverage, while Teamsters members have to work 20 years before earning retiree health benefits.
The District’s buy back policy was also sloppy and inconsistent and no written policy existed, Weitzman said. Auditors found no evidence that a buy back form was used to request a buy back; that written approvals were required; or that a supervisor reviewed leave records after an employee took a buy back; or that a timely adjustment was made to leave usage records.
Elections for the District’s five commissioners are governed by Town law, but operate more like a “private clubhouse” than a taxpayer-supported entity, Weitzman said.
The District has no written election policies. Voter turnout for the 2007 and 2008 elections was 175 and 109 votes respectively. As of 2009, there were 10,025 residential properties in the District. For both the 2007 and 2008 elections, District employees acted as election workers and certified the voting machines, among other duties.
"Election workers should be impartial and independent of the District,” said Weitzman. “Residents of the District would also be better served if notice of upcoming elections were mailed to their homes, so that all residents could partake in the process.”
 Limited Review of Compensation and Fringe Benefits for Sanitary District No. 7- Town of Hempstead
|
|
