Travel and Vacation Abuses
David Lanman made an interesting comment during the last meeting when he said he is "not an advocate of selling vacation time" and "does not think it is good policy."
My understanding is that Sauceda sold one week of vacation back to the city in December of 2005 and another week in December of 2006. He gets two weeks vacation each year. At $65,000 a year, that translates to a boost of $1,250 in income before deductions plus additional payroll expenses for the city. "Selling" vacation is a euphemism for giving yourself a year-end bonus. This is a real cost for citizens because he gets double pay for that week; money that was never budgeted.
Does Marfa have checks and balances? Who approves the administrator cashing in like this? It turns out that there is an approval process for selling vacation. The mayor signs the request forms! He speaks against it publicly because he wants to look responsible. In private, he gives away city money to his buddy Flo. Which is it mayor, bad policy or good policy? Help us understand how you advocate for it in secret in December and advocate against it in public in January. If you thought it was bad policy, why did you authorize it, twice? If you are not an advocate of this, why not bring it up to council to let them authorize it? I doubt the mayor would have ever gone on record against the policy if someone had not raised the issue.
This brings me to the other payroll irregularity with the administrator: his charging the city for his travel time. I described this in an earlier blog, but I want to return to the subject. It is important because Sauceda's supporters on council (Martinez, Petrosky, Rivera and half of Williams) are about to give him another contract.
Sauceda's original contract gave him seven paid travel days a year. It also gave him discretionary time because he works nights and weekends sometimes. Well, he does work one night every two weeks, but he is home in Robstown almost every weekend. His use of discretionary time is hardly justified.
Start with 52 weeks. Let's say that he stays in Marfa 9 weekends a year and takes 1 week of paid vacation. He would travel for 42 weekends. On average, he takes off Friday afternoon and Monday morning for his commute. This is 42 days of travel on the clock. Now take away the 7 days given to him in his contract. This leaves 35 unauthorized travel days. By the way, his contract also offered to pay his moving expenses for his family. Sauceda has no plans to move here. I wonder if that original contract was written with the expectation that he would never move here.
As I said earlier, Sauceda makes $65,000 a year and has benefits worth about $11,000 a year averaging payroll expenses in the budget. That comes out to $76,000 a year and $292 a day in cost to the city. Thirty-five days is worth $10,230!
This raises several issues: 1) By my estimates, Sauceda is cheating us out of more than $10,000 by collecting pay for not working. 2) Council has been fully aware of this and has not taken any public action on this. What message does this send to other employees? What message does this send to taxpayers? That amount of money is equivalent to two cents of property taxes. 3) What could an administrator do with 35 days? Work on more grants, pay attention to EMS problems, read the Local Government Code and save attorney fees, organize his office... My point is that we lose two ways, first by paying for services not rendered and second by not getting the benefits of a full-time administrator. 4) Council appears ready to give him another contract. Will they continue to overlook this misuse of taxpayer money? Will they give him ANY travel days? Why should citizens pay for his decision to not live here?
It is difficult to understand why some members of council support Sauceda and overlook his abuses. Council members have no business talking about financial responsibility if they are unwilling to do anything about this payroll and vacation abuse. Council and the mayor should talk straight and do something.
My understanding is that Sauceda sold one week of vacation back to the city in December of 2005 and another week in December of 2006. He gets two weeks vacation each year. At $65,000 a year, that translates to a boost of $1,250 in income before deductions plus additional payroll expenses for the city. "Selling" vacation is a euphemism for giving yourself a year-end bonus. This is a real cost for citizens because he gets double pay for that week; money that was never budgeted.
Does Marfa have checks and balances? Who approves the administrator cashing in like this? It turns out that there is an approval process for selling vacation. The mayor signs the request forms! He speaks against it publicly because he wants to look responsible. In private, he gives away city money to his buddy Flo. Which is it mayor, bad policy or good policy? Help us understand how you advocate for it in secret in December and advocate against it in public in January. If you thought it was bad policy, why did you authorize it, twice? If you are not an advocate of this, why not bring it up to council to let them authorize it? I doubt the mayor would have ever gone on record against the policy if someone had not raised the issue.
This brings me to the other payroll irregularity with the administrator: his charging the city for his travel time. I described this in an earlier blog, but I want to return to the subject. It is important because Sauceda's supporters on council (Martinez, Petrosky, Rivera and half of Williams) are about to give him another contract.
Sauceda's original contract gave him seven paid travel days a year. It also gave him discretionary time because he works nights and weekends sometimes. Well, he does work one night every two weeks, but he is home in Robstown almost every weekend. His use of discretionary time is hardly justified.
Start with 52 weeks. Let's say that he stays in Marfa 9 weekends a year and takes 1 week of paid vacation. He would travel for 42 weekends. On average, he takes off Friday afternoon and Monday morning for his commute. This is 42 days of travel on the clock. Now take away the 7 days given to him in his contract. This leaves 35 unauthorized travel days. By the way, his contract also offered to pay his moving expenses for his family. Sauceda has no plans to move here. I wonder if that original contract was written with the expectation that he would never move here.
As I said earlier, Sauceda makes $65,000 a year and has benefits worth about $11,000 a year averaging payroll expenses in the budget. That comes out to $76,000 a year and $292 a day in cost to the city. Thirty-five days is worth $10,230!
This raises several issues: 1) By my estimates, Sauceda is cheating us out of more than $10,000 by collecting pay for not working. 2) Council has been fully aware of this and has not taken any public action on this. What message does this send to other employees? What message does this send to taxpayers? That amount of money is equivalent to two cents of property taxes. 3) What could an administrator do with 35 days? Work on more grants, pay attention to EMS problems, read the Local Government Code and save attorney fees, organize his office... My point is that we lose two ways, first by paying for services not rendered and second by not getting the benefits of a full-time administrator. 4) Council appears ready to give him another contract. Will they continue to overlook this misuse of taxpayer money? Will they give him ANY travel days? Why should citizens pay for his decision to not live here?
It is difficult to understand why some members of council support Sauceda and overlook his abuses. Council members have no business talking about financial responsibility if they are unwilling to do anything about this payroll and vacation abuse. Council and the mayor should talk straight and do something.
posted by RobC at 7:31 PM
28 Comments:
What is happening is..... that employees are also taking lessons from Flo and putting in alot of overtime and selling vacation time,etc.,etc. If Flo can do it why can't the rest of the employees. What can happen is... the auditor and the audit if done properlly will bring all of this to light. S___ will hit the fan after the audit (hopefully). The council is not about to do anything about it. Oscar might have known Flo from Yuma, AZ who knows what Flo has over Oscar!!!Petrosky will sell whatever to the city for his profit. Maybe cater a party of drumsticks for the employees. And Gloria is getting back at Marfa for not electing and she is thumbing her nose at the people and problably not realize she is been used by the masters, Martinez and Petrosky...
The City of Marfa has 2005 Community Development Block Grants written by Curtis Schroeder for the Library and the Pool. Flo went to a CD Block Grant workshop in July. He is having enough trouble just staying on board with the schedule for the Library (because the Library Board stays on him and the Mayor) on a grant that was already written. Come to find out, a continuation "gravy" grant for 2007 was easily available to the City of Marfa had Flo written an application which was due September 29, 2006. He did not write an application. Lost money for the city.
City of Marfa take note.
BBS Thursday Jan. 18 "Special rights" for Alpine water users end with judge's ruling.
"...Judge Kenneth DeHart issued a summary judgment that ended a long-running City of Alpine practice of offering city water at a reduced rate, or no cost, to property owners with water easements."
DEHART BASED HIS RULING: THE CONSTITUTION PREVENTS CITIES FROM TAKING ON DEBT UNLESS THE CITY ARRANGES TO COLLECT ENOUGH REVENUE TO COVER AT LEAST TWO PERCENT AND INTEREST ON THE DEBT.
If you read the city personnel policies, which I seriously doubt Lanman and Sauceda have done, it states that "the supervisor" of an employee must approve selling vacation back. Who is Flo's supervisor, the Mayor or the City Council? Rhetorical question. Flo is Flo's supervisor.
Do you think that Larry Skiles and the City of Marfa government would actually buck the constitution in regard to paying back all these loans Lanman floats around?
Flip Flop Lanman wouldn't know policy if it jumped up and bit him "in the seat of his pants"
Oscar Martinez, the Huey Long of Marfa. He resigned from being Mayor to have more power as a council member. Little did we know that would be the beginning of the Martinez Reign of Error.
Speaking of the BBS, what are those pictured "two new dwellings on Marfa's southeast side." What permit has the Mayor signed now???
To anon at 10:10 AM:
>>If you read the city personnel policies, which I seriously doubt Lanman and Sauceda have done, it states that "the supervisor" of an employee must approve selling vacation back.
Nice observation. Ignorance is no excuse for breaking a rule or a law. My guess is that Sauceda knew exactly what he was doing by having Lanman sign off. Flo reports to council. There is no question about that in anybody's mind.
He goes to David "Killer and Protector" Lanman to get an approval that he knows Lanman is not authorized to give because he knows council will shoot it down.
Guess what? Any vacation sales approved by David Lanman are unauthorized and therefore illegal. Any money that Sauceda gave himself in this way is unauthorized. This is no different than Sauceda writing himself a city check for $1250 and having Lanman sign it. It is nothing short of theft of public money.
I want council to take action on this. Lanman and Sauceda have violated written policy to give taxpayer money to the administrator without proper approval. This is nothing less than a crime.
Your move council. How do you respond to misappropriation of our public funds? How much are you going to protect Flo on this?
Oscar spoke publicly against selling vacation time at city council. It is unlikely that Salgado would have voted for it. Lanman is against it except when he is doing it. Rivera might be for it. Williams might go with the prevailing sentiment. Petrosky?
So what will happen? If council ignores this, they are guilty of overlooking a theft of public money. If they vote to give him a retroactive vacation sale year-end bonus, they contradict their stated positions.
This stinks just like the time that Lanman and Dobay gave Sauceda a 25% raise without council approval. Council just rubberstamped it after the fact.
I suggest that City Council demand a full report of all vacation sales during the last two years. If any sales were made without the proper approval process, council should demand that the money be paid back and those guilty of breaking the rules should be punished.
If they are unable to take a leadership position based on published rules and ethical behavior, they should simply resign. We don't need this kind of leadership.
Four more months!!!!!!!
There are some council members who are guilty of being willing pawns, there are some members who cannot and will not ready ANYTHING, much less the TML handbook, the personnel policies, the Local Govt Code, for godsakes their own cereal boxes, there are some members who can read but won't, and three of the members (guess who) are shameless self serving self aggrandizing power mongers who refuse to believe that they can be dethroned by force of law.
Let's have a show of force at the next meeting!
When I read your message, I thought, out of town, 42 three day weekends a year, that couldn’t be legal. The designated Emergency Management person is out of town 80% of the weekends? But I arrived at nearly the same numbers and conclusions that you did. I’ll spare you my figuring. Using the vacation, holidays, travel and discretionary time (meetings after office hours and weekend days worked) I can also account for Flo being out of town for 43 weekends and in town for 9 weekends a year. You came up with 35 unauthorized travel days and I come up with 29 questionable days off. I believe the difference of 6 days can be attributed to the discretionary days, you must have allowed 8 hours a month, I used 12 hours a month. I apologize in advance for the length of this rant.
I agree, the Administrators contract deserves to be looked at closely before it is offered again, and for the same reasons. The discretionary hours do represent a considerable amount of money. Assuming Flo could account for 12 hours of meetings outside of office hours a month and if he works 2, two day weekends he could accrue up to 22 days of discretionary time in a year, at least a month of extra time off, paid, the way it is being used.
Council needs to made a definite decision, is the Administrator position is a contract management employee working for a salary or is he an hourly employee? Most management contract employees are not held to a 40 hour work week, nor are paid overtime, but are considered to be professionals and are expected to do/ finish their jobs/ projects/ assignments in exchange for a set salary that is commonly more generous than an hourly pay schedule would be. I would expect that hours of work, attending various meetings, working a couple of weekends a year and compensation for them would be covered in the contract. It seems that the pay is stated in the contract as a yearly sum, as you would expect for a contract management employee. If the administrator is a management contract employee the discretionary hours should be considered as part of the job for the yearly salary. If this is the case the city is paying for those hours in the yearly salary but losing those hours of work by allowing those hours to be taken as paid time off. Or is the administrator is to be considered an hourly employee? I believe that the accumulation of vacation and sick leave are stated as so many hours accrued per pay period, as you would expect an hourly employee to be treated. How are the discretionary hours accounted for? How many hours can be accumulated? Is the city obligated to buy/ pay for these days if they are not used?
If Council gave the 7 travel days in the contract as time to pack and move to Marfa, maybe they should take those days away. I don’t believe any company or government pays for an employee move to the same city year after year. Is/ will the city obligated to buy/ pay for these days if they are not used? If Council means those 7 days to be used in the same manner as vacation time hours then they should just go ahead and add those 56 hours to the 80 hours of vacation time and quit playing games, trying to give the impression that the Administrator doesn’t get more paid time off than other city employees. If this contract was reviewed by the City Attorney, how did this issue get so convoluted?
Two weeks of vacation and 10 holidays (4 weeks) are given to all city employees. Flo has been getting and additional 7 (travel) days and somewhere between 12 and 22 (discretionary) days off, for a minimum total of 7 weeks, and possibly up to 10 weeks off, paid, per year. Don’t think anyone knows the true number of days, don’t believe anyone is checking.
Oscar should be able to straighten out the issue of selling vacation time with one eye closed and one arm tied behind his back in less than 10 minutes.
This is the way I think this should work. Leave accruals (sick and vacation) are established, there should be a limit or maximum amount of vacation time that can be carried over from Dec 31 to Jan 1 each year. If that limit is exceeded, the leave should be lost, can't take that time off, can't be paid for it, subtracted, gone. One of two exceptions to this should be that the excess leave was scheduled to be used, but due to city needs, the employee couldn't take it. As an example, a utility worker let's call him Fred, has a balance of 96 hours, the limit is 80 hours, and he has a week of leave scheduled for the 2nd week of Dec. A co-worker becomes ill and can't work that week. That city dept cannot let 2 people off at the same time and provide essential services. The week of leave is cancelled due to city needs. Two other employees have already been approved for the 3rd and 4th weeks of Dec. Fred cannot reschedule his leave. Fred should be able to sell 16hrs of leave back to the city and carry 80 hours to the next year. In order for this to happen, his supervisor should document the above circumstances in a memo to be reviewed and signed by the Administrator. Because these hours are not in the budget, the Administrator should take the issue and memo to Council, Council should amend the budget so the employee can be paid. The same procedure should be followed for the second of 2 exceptions, for those employees who have leave balances and are terminating employment.
If the Administrator wants to sell vacation time back to the city, he should write a memo describing why the leave cannot be taken, have the Mayor concur with his signature, and then be presented to Council like in the previous example. If this procedure were followed city hall wouldn't look like it was trying to hide unbudgeted expenses.
I do not believe that there is a limit on sick leave. I believe the city pays for all unused sick leave hours when an employee quits or retires. I don't believe there is a circumstance that would allow the city to not pay accrued sick leave. The city really should have a separate budget line that covers each employees sick balance in excess of 80 hours. If it is a liability, treat it as a liability and adjust it every year.
Consider the possibility of a 15 year, $10 per hour employee who for some reason on Sept 1st decides to retire on Sept 15th. He has a sick leave balance of 1,440 hours, 180 days.
80 hours are worth $800, the remaining 1360 hours are worth $13,600 for a total of $14,400 owed. There are 29 days of the fiscal year left. If the city has not funded the unused sick leave, does anyone think this employee will be paid within a month after his retirement date? If the leave were funded, Council would only have to find and move $800 in order to make good on its obligation to the employee.
Also, consider if Tom, a 15 year, $10 an hour employee with a sick leave balance of 1440 hours becomes ill on Oct 15th and must remain off work for 10 weeks, to Dec 30th. His department, although fully staffed, will be very hard pressed to cover his duties. Also, 3 of his co-workers have 2 weeks each of over-the-limit vacation time scheduled through the end of the year. Two people in this department cannot be off at the same time. Will the city hire a temporary worker for 10 weeks at $4,000 or will the city cancel the leave of the 3 other, very tired and unhappy employees, but only have to find $2,400 to pay for their unused vacation time? If Tom's sick leave were funded as described above, don't you think the city would be in a better position to make this choice?
One other thing, if the sick leave balances were funded in an interest bearing account, CD's or something, it would help cover the problem of employees accruing leave while earning $6/hr and using it after getting raised to $8/hr.
worth 2 cents?
A City Administrator doing his job would be following the policies described in the last two comments. That is, after all, one of the major responsibilities of the city administrator--personnel policies and payroll matters. Including policing his own payroll. And here's the major reason this council and mayor won't let go of Flo. They cannot and will not address such matters. It doesn't matter if Flo is not capably managing policies and procedures, he is playing the role and that is all that counts to this council. Look at the budget. Not a one of them demanded to see a proper budget until the process was totally derailed and a matter of public urgency. Not a one of them insisted he follow the election calendar or the budget/tax rate calendar. In fact, Oscar called this a "frivolous" matter. They are willing to browbeat a parent over chairs but not take on this train wreck that is Marfa city government. It is too much work! It is too unpleasant! And above all, Oscar and Petrosky would have to admit they were wrong to have hired Flo.
Really! Can you see Florencio expending the mental energy to calculate the figures Rob and the last commenters have provided??? I hear Oscar talking about how "smart" Sauceda is. He started out in the Finance Department in Del Rio and ended up getting fired twice as City Manager. What does this tell you about how smart he is?
I received some information from a Del Rio source that says Flo is Mary Lou Martinez's cousin. Mary Lou is from Marfa. I believe her maiden name is Franco. So this explains the fierce determination on Oscar's part to preserve the comadre/primo and family honor (in this case, dishonor).
The Mayor has done it again, approved an illegal permit. The two story cribs on Galveston/Aparejo streets are too close to the street, too close to the neighbor, too close to each other. Who signed it? Well, the Mayor got so burned about being accused of favoritism by signing his name, now he has one of the staff sign the permit "City of Marfa Administration."
Rob, I would like for you to explain the status of the Visionaries in Preservation. It started out in November 2005 as a very promising and ambitious effort. A lot of community effort went into the initial phases.
But repeatedly, at city council meetings, there is a contentious issue involving the funding. I gather that much of it centers around Flo and his mismanagement of the budget and inability to live up to a commitment of $5,000 but I will stop there before I get it all wrong.
I pulled the action plan off the internet. It is interesting that in July 2005 Flo was responsible for writing a grant application to the Texas Preservation Trust Fund. Which according to my sources, he never did. So here we are, down to basically nickels and dimes in a dispute with the City over what it originally agreed to match for the program, and Flo didn't bother to access grant funds.
He is responsible for the overall goal of, get this, coordinating the city-wide clean up effort. I'm going to wait for Rob to clear up the status on this project, but I will point out that Flo's record concerning city-wide clean up is dismal.
He misexpended solid waste grant funds and has as yet to hire a code-enforcement officer.
He almost demolished the wrong property.
The demolition that HAS finally been done has never been cleaned up.
He never follows through on the necessary paper work to conduct clean up.
And last, but not least, he got a volunteer to write a grant application for an approximately 60K recycling project and has no place to put it.
Seeing the street name "Aparejo" jogged my memory. Remember when the monsoon season was upon us and Alamito Creek flooded, cutting off many residents in the Aparejo/Galveston area? Anybody seen any evidence that the City of Marfa is doing anything about fixing this problem?
The auditors are here. An agenda for Thursday's meeting should be posted by six today. If Oscar is going to be here, Flo's contract will be on the agenda.
Regarding the Alamito Creek flooding cutting some off. I heard that the problem has been pushed off on to the county and Judge Agan. Something about a pipe to be used as a culvert and putting a new road bed on top of it.
Hasn't been any flooding for awhile, but now we have snow and ice. Wonder, if the streets are icy, could a heavy vehicle, ambulance or fire truck, drive up those steep sides of the creek. Of course Bobby's sand pile isn't very far away.
Re Alamito: Flo tried to blame the county initially but that backfired. He and Lanman asked the Judge's advice. The Judge told them...I stress "them"...they needed to contact the Border Patrol to acquire the culverts and the County could "help" with dirt work.
Using this as a general forum, I continue to marvel at the patience of the Parks and Rec Board. It committed 60K matching to the City (Flo the Grantwriter) to finish out the pool grant with improvements to the ball park and environs. A year has passed. What is holding this up? Flo. He is supposed to provide facts and figures to Tom Greenwood, the architect for this grant. Chances are the grant may be expired now. Greenwood and the Parks and Rec can't get off the nickel until Florencio gets off his duff and does some work for that 65K a year. What are the chances of that happening? No hurry, Flo. You are stranded here until your personal vehicle is repaired.
No wonder Oscar dragged his Mom to the council meeting about 2 years ago to testify that he was not related to Flo. Reckon Mary Lou can do the same. Maybe Flo does know of the Yuma incident to retain the hold on Oscar....
See agenda for Operation Wrangler:
From DMN
Perry announces expansion of border security
05:15 AM CST on Tuesday, January 23, 2007
AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry announced Monday a statewide expansion of Texas' border security operation that will use a surge of law enforcement to disrupt crime. Operation Wrangler will involve more than 6,800 people from federal, state and local agencies, including 604 National Guard troops in 12 platoons, and will use vehicles, helicopters, aircraft and watercraft against drug and human trafficking, he said.
Using Rob's running commentary on the last meeting, I make the following observations:
1. It is laughable that Martinez actually said "It all ties into the budget as far as I am concerned." This for table and chair rental. Where was he when THE BUDGET crashed and burned???
2. This rental matter was already discussed, what, in September? Didn't they agree at that time to charge $1.00 a chair? How many times do we have to vote on chair rental? There was no voice vote on this.
3.Again it has to be pointed out on what proper procedure is re: executive session. Can't take action, did not put reconvene on agenda.
4. After executive session on Flo, "Lanman states that no action will be taken by council....no action on the contract and that Sauceda remains month to month." Martinez says that they will negotiate his contract as soon as possible." It is my understanding this is not on the current agenda because Oscar planned to be out of town. Do citizens get to see contract or just the all powerful City Council?
5. No voice vote on auditor.
6. Martinez "makes a motion to accept with the stipulation of some guarantee or indemnification from Greenwood." Oscar should know what a standard AIA (American Institute of Architects)contract that complies with state regs looks like and Flo the grantwriter really should be able to have explained this. We don't need a stipulation. The contract dovetails with the ORCA guidelines. Martinez asks "What would happen if Greenwood does not live up to his end of the contract." Greenwood makes his living doing projects for grant agencies like ORCA. If he doesn't live up to an AIA contract he loses his license and fries hell out of himself with the state funding agency. Martinez pontificating again about the budget trying to portray fiscal responsibility.
7. Wastewater and garbage. No action. "Sauceda says they need to re-evaluate the fees and costs and need to take care of those that cannot afford to pay." No action. Is anybody going to formulate a policy here??? Anything about deferred payment, attempts to pay, time to pay. Martinez says all rates need to be reviewed. Is anybody reviewing them? Petrosky says he sees two issues: garbage rates and people that cannot pay their bills. AND????? SO????? And by the way, why did Petrosky resign in the first place, something to do with his illegal sale of weapons to the Marfa PD??? Big conflict of interest.
8. VIP contract Rob, hasn't this been hashed over before? Didn't they muddle through all this financial mumbo jumbo before? Sauceda recommends that they enter into the contract up to the amount of $17,350 with more contingent on fund raising and in the meantime pay the invoice. Wonder if this got taken care of.
9. I had somebody ask me why the junk lots weren't being taken care of. For example, the demo of the mobile home. According to the citizen, the debris is still not cleaned up. "Sauceda wants authority to pursue this under the public nuisance law." I love that--Sauceda states they want to use the public nuisance law because it has timelines (and we paid Monte for this pearl of wisdom). Flo never follows up on stuff. The PD starts the ball rolling and then Flo drops it. We still don't have a code enforcement officer.
10. Rudy asks when budget will be available for review, Flo says end of month. Well, will it be ready???
11. Ah, yes, vacation time. INCOMING!!!! Lanman is publicly against it but has signed all of Flo's requests. Martinez says he is against it. "the city should also look at the policy manual and should look at some of the financial matters." HAVE THEY???
WILL THEY????
12. Skateboard ramp. Leo says take it to compost area. Lanman has asked the police to take a look at it, that being considering an ordinance against skateboarding. The PD has never heard a word about this.
13. Martinez and his oath saying. Wants the order of the agenda to be on the next agenda for discussion? Is it???? No, but then Oscar isn't here. Quien manda?
Flo should not have travel time and all the other perks in his contract cause that went out the window when the contract expire a year ago and he is still screwing the city. Does anybody get it?? Flo is like any otheremployee working for the city should be monthly basis 8-5 five days a week and when needed. . Get it!!!!!!!!!!!!! At will employee....
This is a tricky issue. I have seen Flo state in public that the terms of his contract continue on a month to month basis after the contract expires. Except that his severance pay is only valid during the contract as specifically stated there. I see your point. I see Flo's. I imagine an employment attorney would have a better opinion.
It seems reasonable that his pay and responsibilities would continue as outlined in his contract. Does he continue to get 7 days travel time a year? What difference does it make when he takes 42 days a year!?!?
Council has neglected their responsibilities to review, direct and manage this most expensive city employee. He works part-time and seems incompetent at most tasks but takes full-time pay home to Robstown. Go figure.
3.5 votes of confidence!
Post a Comment
<< Home