Updated at 4:3o pm - The blog, Right Side of Lake, published an email from County Manager Cindy Hall which seems to indicate this issue was discussed by her in a memo about 10 days ago. It is at the link below the article. vj
Lake County, FL - Lauren Ritchie dropped another cannonball on the backs of the Lake County Commissioners in her Sunday, Sept. 27 column where she outed another personnel blunder committed by County Management. It seems when the County HR Manager and County Manager encouraged certain staff to resign while getting some severance, they also encouraged to resignees to also illegally file for unemployment compensation, saying the County would not contest any such filings. The County Manager Cindy Hall did this without informing the Board, and as Ritchie points out, the extra unemployment comp costs to the taxpayer could have exceeded $160,000, and would have been buried in other accounts and not approved by the Board.
Ritchie says it all below, but how much of this must continue while the Commissioners still retain the County Manager and personnel Director after a continuous series of questionable human resources decisions (covered in earlier postings)?
At what point does this indicate that the County Commissioners need to go by ignoring these types of practices. This one was most likely illegal.
At what point do we call these practices fraudulent instead of "improper"?
VJ
orlandosentinel.com/news/local/lake/orl-lklauren-ritchie-unemployment-092709sep27,0,3366603.column
OrlandoSentinel.com
County bungles staff reduction
Lauren Ritchie
COMMENTARY
September 27, 2009
The
goal was worthy: Reduce Lake County's payroll by offering longtime
employees the chance to leave with three months of severance pay and a
year's paid health insurance.
The result? A bungled mess in which Lake County government staffers
nudged employees to go after unemployment compensation most weren't
entitled to. Staffers also didn't tell county commissioners that they'd
be "encouraging" the departing workers to apply for jobless benefits, a
$91,126 omission of information that three commissioners now say would
have caused them to turn down the package.
"It's double-dipping," Commissioner Linda Stewart said.
"It's wrong," Commissioner Elaine Renick said. "It never crossed my mind this could go on."
Commissioner Jimmy Conner said the failure to tell commissioners that
unemployment was part of the plan is yet another example of how
staffers have too much power.
"I would never have approved that," Conner said.
County Manager Cindy Hall told commissioners in a memo of explanation
last week that $650,000 net savings to the county by the departure of
the 12 employees included the possible cost of paying unemployment
benefits, which the employee-services director estimated at $91,126 for
the year. (Unemployment is administered through the state, but each
employer contributes to an individual account from which the benefits
are paid.)
Hall said in the memo that the county "needed to sweeten the pot" to persuade employees to leave voluntarily.
Employees were not told that they could get the unemployment payments — only that they were eligible to apply and that the county would not contest the award if they were successful, said Sharon Wall, employee-services director.
Two of the 12 who left didn't seek unemployment benefits. Five others
were approved; five denied. Currently, only three are getting payments:
two who were initially granted the benefits, and one who was initially
denied. One of those still collecting said she has been notified that
the state is investigating and may take away her benefits. Several
others have flip-flopped a couple of times.
'Never taken a dime'
The confusion, sadly, has pitted the employees against one another. A woman who was denied got on the phone, polled the others and then turned in the names of those in the same situation — but who were getting payments. The approvals of at least three employees were reversed after that.Most of those who took the county's deal are befuddled and frustrated. They said they counted on the money because county staffers made it plain that they were entitled (wink, wink) to unemployment — all they had to do was to apply to get the benefits.
However, the state's Web site on unemployment clearly states that workers must have lost their job "through no fault of their own." An employee can't leave on his or her own and still be eligible for the payments. All of the 12 employees who opted into the "early out" program did so voluntarily.
Gerald Langsdorf, a 63-year-old traffic-data technician, said he was surprised when staffers urged him to seek unemployment, and he talked with different employees several times to make sure that he understood. Langsdorf said he was "very honest with the state." That may explain why he was turned down, though state unemployment officials would not confirm it — they said they cannot discuss any specific case.
"I've never taken a dime in my life I didn't work for," Langsdorf said. "I would never have thought to apply for this if I hadn't been guided to it."
Only one of the employees had been told before being offered the "early out" that her job would be ending anyway, and she is one of the three continuing to receive unemployment benefits.
'Couldn't believe it'
Wall said the county didn't instruct employees what to write on the application for unemployment. And the county, she said, does not decide who is entitled to benefits and who isn't. That was made plain to workers signing onto the "early-out" program, she said.But the county did "encourage" people to apply by telling them they were "eligible to apply" and that the county wouldn't protest, Wall said. Why do that when the state clearly says that those leaving employment voluntarily are not eligible? That's a lousy way of doing public business. After all, the Jolly Green Giant could apply after all the beanstalks in the county had been decimated. That doesn't mean he'll collect unemployment. The county unquestionably left the impression that benefits were there for the taking, setting in motion a scenario that is causing trouble to those folks now and has left commissioners wondering why they weren't better informed.
"When they told me I was eligible to apply, I couldn't believe it," said Carla Mitchell, 66, who worked for the county for 21 years. "They did lead me to feel confident that I would get unemployment."
And, for two weeks, Mitchell did. She collected about $100 before the state sent her a letter reversing the decision and demanding $100 back.
"I'm not paying it back. The county can pay it. I'll jump all over Cindy Hall ... . She can't fire me now. They led us on, and they better take care of this," Mitchell said.
Wall said the employees were never promised benefits.
"Sometimes it surprises us what people can get," she said. "It's always interesting what the state will approve."
Donna Thielhart, 72, said she called the county's employee-services department last week to complain because her benefits initially were approved but now are under scrutiny and might be taken away.
She said a county worker was unhappy to hear that her claim might be reversed and told her that "I definitely am eligible."
"She was upset — she insisted we get it," Thielhart said. "It was part of the package that talked me into taking this early-out program."
'Honey of a deal'
So there you have it.The county went too far. Staffers can protest innocence all they want, but the truth is that they left employees believing that unemployment benefits were part of the deal. That was a bad choice, considering the "early-out" program was voluntary from its inception, and unemployment is not for those who decide to leave a job on his or her own. Now, unfortunately, this "sweetening" of the pot has left workers with a sour taste in their mouth and a far lighter pocketbook than expected.
Equally bad is that Hall failed to disclose to commissioners that the county was urging employees to apply for unemployment — a move that some found morally repugnant — and that it could cost the county $91,126 — for the first year.
At the moment, people who are unemployed can get benefits for up to 79 weeks, and a bill is traveling through Congress to extend that for an additional 13 weeks. That means the real cost of unemployment, if all 12 had been OK'd for it, would have been more like $161,222 of taxpayer dollars. Would commissioners have been told then?
"Wow. That bothers me. They did get a honey of a deal," Commissioner Jennifer Hill said of the employees who left.
Stewart said she had no idea that the county encouraged the employees to apply for benefits.
"When you lay somebody off, they have a right to unemployment," she said. "These employees had been compensated."
Renick said she was disappointed and couldn't understand how "things got muddled along the way" when the program always was intended to be voluntary.
"We shouldn't have been telling employees to apply," Renick fumed. "Call me old-fashioned, but these folks know that's wrong."
Cadwell stays mum
Conner and Renick both said they were dismayed that neither Hall nor other key staffers considered the tangle much of a problem. Conner has been pushing staffers, Hall in particular, to provide more-detailed information to commissioners on a variety of public business. He called this situation an example of what happens when they aren't fully informed."The culture of county government has to change," he said.
What the powerful chairman of the commission thinks is a mystery. Welton Cadwell didn't return a call asking for his opinion on the matter.
Downsizing any organization is difficult, expensive and heartbreaking in the best of circumstances. When government is the employer, the highest of standards should be applied. Everything should be spelled out openly and should be aboveboard. No "careful" language, no implied promises, no concealing the real costs and deals.
Lauren Ritchie can be reached at [email protected]. You may leave her a message at 352-742-5918 . Her blog is at OrlandoSentinel.com/
laurenonlake
Copyright © 2009, Orlando Sentinel
=================================================
Here is a link to a blog posting by Right Side of Lake which takes an opposite stand than we did, but they have a memo from Cindy Hall HERE. We still think the practice of allowing employees to file for unemployment even though they actually resigned to receive severance is not ethical and would expect the State to deny the benefits. It seems the County told long time, departing employees they could apply, but maybe knew the employees would not get the unemployment benefits. To get the severance, they most likely signed a letter saying they were resigning, not being fired. By resigning, they would usually not get any unemployment benefits (but who knows in this climate...).
vj
