|
|
Post by clarencebunsen on Jun 7, 2011 7:46:36 GMT -5
My memory may be faulty but I thought in the Rome case the officer applied for & received a waiver for the first year. Someone dropped the ball on the waiver renewal & it wasn't noticed for several years. I don't think he made any attempt to conceal anything.
It seemed to me at the time that the DA went overboard on the charges & that the matter could have been handled administratively.
|
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Jun 7, 2011 9:23:06 GMT -5
My memory may be faulty but I thought in the Rome case the officer applied for & received a waiver for the first year. Someone dropped the ball on the waiver renewal & it wasn't noticed for several years. I don't think he made any attempt to conceal anything. It seemed to me at the time that the DA went overboard on the charges & that the matter could have been handled administratively. No I don't recall a waiver had ever been applied for, nor granted, in the Rome case. To be honest, it seems like a simple administrative step they needed to do to keep them on the job but did not. Even if the matter seems trivial, its still the rule they need to follow. And since they see it as a trivial matter, it leads one to wonder what other things they feel are trivial and don't bother with. It calls their judgement in question now. |
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Jun 7, 2011 9:27:51 GMT -5
Actually, my memory agrees with Clarence's recollection. He applied for a waiver, but his employer(s) never filed it as they were supposed to, or something or other, which formed the basis of his defense.
|
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Jun 7, 2011 11:14:11 GMT -5
If his employer dropped the ball how the hell did he plead guilty? Edit, Clarence was right, it was a one year temporary that he never reapplied for: www.uticaod.com/news/x1240512931/Ex-Rome-school-security-head-admits-stealing-pension-fundsDuring his plea, Hubal acknowledged that he continued to collect thousands of dollars in retirement benefits between 1997 and 2005 while also earning a full-time salary from the Rome school district without first obtaining the proper state waiver. Hubal had retired from the Rome Police Department in the mid-1990s after serving more than 25 years on the force, at which time he began collecting an annual pension of $23,810. Hubal had received a temporary waiver for one school year, but never re-applied with the state once that waiver expired, prosecutors said. But, Lewis explained, the Rome school district never returned an additional form on Hubal’s behalf to the state, so his waiver expired after one school year. |
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Jun 7, 2011 12:12:43 GMT -5
I believe that Hubal's case was strictly a political witch hunt, but then again, probably his obtaining the position was political also. The price you pay for a politically influenced appointment or hire.
|
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Jun 7, 2011 12:31:22 GMT -5
Hubal prosecuted and convicted for his employer's blooper.
Fairbrother NOT prosecuted for her intentional failure to comply with the law.
The difference... Hubal obviously did not contribute to the DA's campaign funds. Had he paid then, he'd still have a double dipping job and no criminal convictions! He should have followed fairbrother's lead!
|
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Jun 7, 2011 12:55:56 GMT -5
I guess those who get used to sucking on the public teat have a hard time living without it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Jun 7, 2011 22:32:29 GMT -5
Unfortunately. And when someone tries to intervene and put the law at the forefront, they are ridiculed, e.g. Ed Wiatr and Cathy Lawrence.
|
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Jun 8, 2011 8:00:09 GMT -5
Unfortunately. And when someone tries to intervene and put the law at the forefront, they are ridiculed, e.g. Ed Wiatr and Cathy Lawrence. Those two are cast as heretics in medevil times, when in all actuality, they are trying to keep government honest, open and transparent. |
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Jun 8, 2011 8:10:39 GMT -5
If it weren't for their efforts, the people would still be in the dark and the disgrace of a paper would still turn a blind eye!
|
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Jun 8, 2011 8:27:11 GMT -5
If it weren't for their efforts, the people would still be in the dark and the disgrace of a paper would still turn a blind eye! The sad reality is, if more people actually took the time to scrutinize government like they do, much of the fraud and waste would be minimized.  |
|
|
|
Post by clarencebunsen on Jun 8, 2011 8:55:42 GMT -5
Just as a point of interest, how much was Ms. Fairbrother's campaign contribution?
|
|
|
|
Post by longtimer on Jun 8, 2011 9:48:37 GMT -5
As stupid as it was my recollection of the Fairbrother overtime issue is that it was not as cut and dry as many would have liked. I am not positive but I also seem to recall they got an outside law firm to look at the case and they were advised to settle it as they were likely to lose. The biggest problem with her case was that her supervisor and even a couple of people of the board were well aware she was putting in extra hours.
I have been involved in several hearings with the NYS Department of Labor regarding wages owed and in all of those the issue came down to the fact that if the employer knew the person was regularly working extra and did not take steps to stop it they had to pay them . If they worked extra and if the hours met the overtime rules for that position the pay is at time and a half. One of those hearings was for a salaried position and the individual won and got some of the pay at time and a half.
In one case the Labor Department elaborated that "doing something about it" did not just mean telling them not to do it. If you did not follow up, council, suspend or terminate them you were liable because you allowed the situation to continue. Sounds crazy to many people but true.
I also don't recall if Fairbrothers position was salaried/exempt but I think it unlikely that it would have met those criteria under labor department review even if it was. They get pretty picky and usually side with the employee in these types of things. I was told by a labor attorney from Bond, Schoeneck & King that the NYS Labor Departments general rule is if you allowed them to put in the time you have to pay them and seem to rarely deviate from that. He also said it is almost always cheaper to pay them and change your policies than it is to fight it and lose.
|
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Jun 8, 2011 10:18:13 GMT -5
I believe Fairbrothers salary was raised many years ago with the stipulation there would be no overtime pay. Her raise was in lieu of overtime.
I have a hard time believing she worked overtime all those years knowing she was exempt.
|
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Jun 8, 2011 10:20:46 GMT -5
Her FOIL-ed time sheets indicated she worked less than a full work week every week during the time period she allegedly worked overtime. And her position was created as exempt. When she requested overtime, she was denied, time and time again. Instead, because they gave her more job duties, they gave her a raise, but reiterated that her position was exempt from overtime. The legal opinion provided by the outside law firm was legally deficient to support the overtime being paid. Additionally, she was stated as saying that she was cashing in rather than publicizing the financial illegalities being allowed at town-official direction. Then there is the issue of the actual bill. The firm originally charged about 2200, but then reduced it to just under 2000 to avoid having a public disclosure on it and have a town board resolution to allow the payment of this bill since it was not already budgeted for and town law required it if it was above 2000.
The lawsuit over this is still pending against the town and fairbrother.
|
|
