There are times I feel like Paul Harvey..getting to provide the readers/citizens of Lowell with the rest of the story from what appears in the Sun.
AFter following the story of what I perceived has a disgruntled city employee in the Sun , it seemed to me that the Sun was viewing this sealer of weights and measures inspector controversy has another opportunity to attack the City Manager and make it a Cox Vs. Lynch thing.
First off I have always thought this whole Cox vs. Lynch was a stupid, time wasting endeavor. Aside from being the guy who followed Cox, Bernie Lynch had absolutely NOTHING to do with Cox getting shown the door. Cox’s financial ineptitude is what drove him out has City Manager just like his greed for free trips/dinners drove him out of the Legislature.
I don’t always agree with the Manager’s actions on some issues and when I write about them, I respect the fact he takes the time and makes the effort to respond to state his view. I also appreciate the fact he is willing to respond to emails I send. We agree to disagree on some things (I think he needs to get rid of the person in charge of the Library and to put trash barrels back for FREE in the neighborhood business districts) but I Thank him for writing and allowing me to post his responses.
The fact that Cox is/was an alleged Saratoga racetrack buddy with the Editor of the Sun explains the Editor’s disdain for the current Manager. The Editor seems to want to use a new young reporter has his pit bull to express his biased view and constantly attack the Manager instead of a seasoned, objective and award winning reporter who didn’t write the slant the Editor wanted. (That is just my opinion)
Anyway I emailed the Manager yesterday and ask him if he would care to take the time to explain the whole Sealer of Weights and Measures controversy and any information about Mr. Hynes he could share.
I was unaware the Sun was writing a story and in today’s Sun Lyle Moran has a story titled “ Inspector: Lynch ‘insane’ for paying him unemployment
The Manager just responded to my request, along with some reference to the article in today’s Sun.
Hi Gerry,
I wrote a long e-mail to you last night but decided to wait until today to see the story that Lyle Moran was writing regarding the Sealer of Weights and Measures position. As you know the individual, Mr. John Hynes, who had/has held that position and function was placed on paid administrative leave as we complete an investigation of his work.
Unfortunately, and as I had feared, the Sun article on this issue is less than an accurate account of the situation. I’ve forwarded a copy of my last e-mail with Lyle on this matter which makes a number of points very clear but are ignored in the story. Let me hit upon a number of these points that are distorted within the story.
The story indicates that we didn’t have a plan in place for someone else to conduct the required inspections and that I said I had “made a mistake in not having an immediate back-up.” Both of these statements are untrue. First, we were prepared in January to have the Northern Middlesex Council of Governments (NMCOG) come in to perform the service but there clearly wasn’t a need since we already had Mr. Hynes in place.
Perhaps a description of the entire matter would be helpful.
• In June of 2010 we included a Sealer of Weights and Measures position within the budget but only for 25 hours per week instead of the 35 that had previously been paid. This determination of the hours was based upon a review of the work output of Mr. Hynes and the time necessary to conduct an inspection. Interestingly, NMCOG has recently indicated that 25 hours per week is about right for the City based upon their services to other communities across the region. I should note that this change in hours saved the City about $10,000 per year.
• Upon passage of the budget Mr. Hynes and his union were notified of the reduction in hours and given the opportunity to discuss. These matters can be drawn out and grieved so we were certainly willing to look at options. Despite Mr. Hynes claim to the contrary we were advised that he planned to retire in December and asked that he be able to retain his full time schedule until that time in order to retain current earning levels and increase his pension. We consented in order to avoid further dispute and determined that he could be used for other functions. The agreement was not documented as there hadn’t been any settlement per se and it is questionable to how binding it could be. And, frankly, we trusted that the employee would act appropriately and we could accommodate his wishes with little negative impact to the City.
• In December, when approached about retiring, we were advised that “he had changed his mind.” We responded to this in a letter by reducing his hours to eight per week based upon the funds left in the budget for this position (6 months at 35 hours per week and 6 months at 8 hours per week). Additionally, based upon Mr. Hynes output it was clear that the same level of work could be handled with 17 less hours per week. And, in fact there has been little difference in output with the reduction.
• At that time Mr. Hynes filed for unemployment. He is eligible. However, for the period in question the cost of 8 hours per week plus unemployment is still $11K less than 25 hours per week plus benefits. So, less cost and same productivity.
I was asked about the issue of unemployment on WCAP in the context of terminating the current Sealer. I responded hypothetically that under the circumstances it was unclear if there would be any termination and that I didn’t see unemployment as being made available if a termination for caused occurred. Mr. Hynes called in soon after and noted that he was already receiving unemployment a fact that I did not know. So, subsequently in the following week I verified all this information and noted that my comment were on the hypothetical not the current situation of which I was clearly unaware.
• In April we were notified by the state agency that works with the Sealers that they did not believe Lowell’s work could be handled by an 8 hour week employee. I don’t disagree however, we were caught in this collective bargaining/personnel/financial situation that we wanted to change with the new fiscal year. We think there are more devices that should be checked but that requires aggressive work that was clearly not being done and needed to be changed.
• In addition, the state noted that they could begin providing inspections and bill the City for the service. This is actually the preferred option in many communities so, in our letter of response and rebuttal we asked for information on making such a move. To my knowledge we have not yet received a response.
• In the FY12 budget we were quite clear that we were moving to a regional solution by joining with neighboring communities via NMCOG for the Sealer service. The cost comparisons are as follows:
•NMCOG $40,000
•25 hours $45,000 est
•35 hours $55,000 est
In addition, to being the least expensive option NMCOG offers what we believe to be superior service which should result in increased revenue. By way of example, it appears that the former Sealer, who was part-time collected more fees than the current Sealer. If NMCOG could duplicate that performance we should have positive results.
• In making the final decision regarding utilizing NMCOG we again reviewed Mr. Hynes output and job performance. As a result we became more clear of the proper direction and also determined that paid administrative leave was warranted as we wrap up our review based upon some of our findings.
• Had our findings been different Mr. Hynes would have been assigned other responsibilities in accordance with the union contract but in our opinion at the 8 hours per week.
I trust that this gives a bit more detail to the situation. In short we anticipate less cost and more revenue and improved service to the consumers. Unfortunately, personnel issues in the public sector are never simple nor easy. I can assure you that there are no “personal” reasons for my decisions. The manner in which Mr Hynes was retained during tough fiscal times and accommodated when asking to maintain a full time schedule should be proof of this.
Additionally, the notion that I select personnel to affect by who appointed them is truly absurd. There are numerous examples of personnel hired by my successor and other CM’s that I have retained and count among my closest advisors.
As always thanks for the opportunity to get this information out.
Bernard Lynch
City Manager
Not to come off as overly critical and offend Jack Mitchell, Mr. Manager, but shouldn’t a manager of any business or organization know that when someone goes from a 40 hour a week employee to an 8 hour a week employee, that employee is eligible for unemployment benefits on lost wages? Any owner of a mom and pop business could have told you that. I believe you when you say you didn’t know he was receiving it. However as a manager, you should have known you made him eligible for it by your actions.
To make it worse, we now have to pay the guy unemployment AND pay someone to do the job. Not exactly an efficient use of city funds, is it?
RIN you missed the manager’s point that even *with* unemployment benefits, the city saved ~$11,000 over the cost of the former Sealer’s salary.
Really? Here’s the City’s budget, Fiscal Year 2010:
http://www.lowellma.gov/newsitems/City%20of%20Lowell%20FY2010%20Budget.pdf
Page 80, John Hynes approved salary of $43,768.
I searched the 2011 budget but could not find a name by name salary. Perhaps its there and I just missed it. If someone el stumbles across it, please post the exact number, but I doubt it’s much more than what the 2010 salary was.
Someone please explain to me the fuzzy math showing how paying the new folks either $45,000 or $55,000 plus the unemployment benefits for Mr. Hynes is going to save the city $11,000. Unless the guy’s health insurance and pension cost the city about $20,000 a year, I don’t see it.
Explanation please, Mr. Manager?
My apology, I was looking at the wrong numbers. I stand corrected on the NMCOG cost. However, the question remains. Why is the Manager stating Hynes’ cost to the city as either $45k or $55k depending on the number of hours worked, when his budgeted number was less then $44k before the reduction in hours? Is his cost being overstated to come up with this $11k savings we’re being told about now?
You misinterpreted the data listed – NMCOG is noted as $40,000 (not $45,000 or $55,000).
The $45K and $55K are probably the cost of salary and benefits, the lower number for the 25 hr week, and the higher one for the original 35 hr week. The $11K “savings” is apparently based on the 8 hr week plus unemployment costs.
Eventually, the $40K paid to NMCOG should be $5K less than the cost of the 25 hr employee cost, but there could be additional revenue collected to increase the cost benefit.
But I have to agree, all the comparisons are pretty small potatoes and not enough to justify the upset this is all producing.
The budget cost is salary only, benefits are grouped under medical and pension costs.
“First, we were prepared in January to have the Northern Middlesex Council of Governments (NMCOG) come in to perform the service but there clearly wasn’t a need since we already had Mr. Hynes in place”. Really Mr. Manager? There “clearly” wasn’t a need? Then please explain why the state of MA sent you a letter telling you that the city is not in compliance based upon its size and the fact that you allegedly “had a plan in place”. And you state later “In April we were notified by the state agency that works with the Sealers that they did not believe Lowell’s work could be handled by an 8 hour week employee. I don’t disagree” You either agree we need more hours or you don’t. You cannot have it both ways.
“Additionally, based upon Mr. Hynes output it was clear that the same level of work could be handled with 17 less hours per week.” Really, then why are you later in this letter stating you need 25 hours? And If there was a part time sealer before Mr. Hynes was a full time sealer wasn’t it obvious that his productivity was marginal? You’ve been the Manager for quite some time. Wasn’t this obvious? You hired a data analyst for just this type of work didn’t you?
“I was asked about the issue of unemployment on WCAP in the context of terminating the current Sealer. I responded hypothetically”. Well that one got by me and many others. I thought it was pretty clear you were answering about the current situation when you stated he would not be entitled to unemployment. Which I thought odd since my husband had his hours reduced and was able to collect unemployment. I didn’t know if it was because he was a municipal worker the rules were different. But apparently not. You or someone on your staff, most likely your personnel director, should have been aware of this important piece of information before you reduced his hours?
I don’t think the Manager didn this because this was a Cox guy. I think he knew this guy wasn’t performing and tried to let the guy retire. But trying to spin it is just not working for you. Your drowning yourself. Honestly Mr. Manager just admit to sufficient facts and move on.
You can’t convince me that the Manager did not knoiw that x was going to lead to Y and then z. Gve me a bloomin’ break, I guess denial is 9 points of the “law” and if he didn’t know, then I am sure that the data analyst previously mentioned could have told him. In the end it will cost the taxpayer more.
As for the Library situation- If the Manager had listened to the Library Assistants instead of blowing them off in favor of “denials”by the Professional Librarians., then there would not be ongoing problems there now. And by the way , Library assistants have to have to a Bachelor’s Degree while the professionals have to have an MLS requiring only a year or 2 more of education..
Let me respond briefly to the variety of questions raised:
NMCOG will cost us $40K per year. Retaining a FT Sealer at an annual salary of $45K, plus $3,600 in contractual vehicle allowance, plus health insurance, pension costs, etc. costs $55K to $62K per year. Savings of $15-$22K per year. We believe the output of the Sealer as employee versus a contracted Sealer should produce another $15-$20K per year based on data of the former PT Lowell Sealer in 2002 and data from other communities. So total gain for the City is $30-$42K per year. Not a major number perhaps but certainly money that could be used differently. Additionally, improved productivity means better protection for consumers.
The Sun reporter fails to identify in his story that the source of my statements on unemployment was WCAP but that is where he got my statements. I took a call from a caller asking about possible termination of the Sealer as we moved to a contracted service and the unemployment costs versus the savings. My mindset in responding was on that topic not on whether he was currently receiving benefits. Perhaps I should have considered that aspect and perhaps I should have known off the top of my head whether he was receiving benefits. My appearances on that show each Wednesday morning from 7-8 (a plug for the show) are not scripted to respond to specific topics so I go on without all information in front of me. As a result, I provided the correct information admitting all that I just described. In any event, the savings are still larger than the costs.
A number of other comments go down the hole of discussing personnel issues. Legally,ethically and because of union issues I cannot discuss those matters despite Mr. Hynes going public with his arguments.
To Joe S. comment that “all the comparisons are pretty small potatoes and not enough to justify the upset this is all producing” I would point to my comments regarding savings and productivity. And, the City isn’t looking to play this drama out in the media causing “upset”. We’re simply doing what takes place in every business organization in terms of getting bang for the buck and managing personnel.
Thank you for the clarification. When you look at those savings, it makes me wonder why cities don’t push harder for regionalized services. If a $45k a year employee costs that much in other benefitsto keep on the books, one can only imagine what some of the higher paid city workers are costing us.
Since we’re on the topic, where else might you be able to regionalize services at a significant savings to the city, without upsetting the union applecart too much, naturally.
RIN,
We do some regionalization already on purchasing, certain public safety, some health, library resources, to name a few but much more can be done. We are looking at regional dispatch and have explored assessing, animal control and equipment sharing.
…another question for the manager
At one of the visioning sessions I had asked how do we reduce our car insurance. I live in Lowell and I plan to stay here . When I suggest to friends and clients to move here they always mention the taxes and the car insurance, Example Dracut taxes are $2 less on a thousand and the car insurance about 1/3 in some cases more less. You can see that a resident in that Town could save $200 a month by moving there instead of here…..and of course they come to Lowell to enjoy all our events..so the question is how do we reduce car insurance
…and I agree with Gerry on changing the Director of the Library
I also agree the Library Director must go.
There’s a thread in progress on the subject at http://www.leftinlowell.com/2011/07/23/sun-censors-cm/
Also, see Lyle Morans article on the subject: http://www.lowellsun.com/todaysheadlines/ci_18495584
including the comments.
The manager made a mistake in not terminating those library employees. In ANY private organization, missuse of company property is an immediately terminable offense. He’s not even following his own city policy in not terminating those offenders. Why aren’t the police involved when even talk of threats is harassment…again, a terminable offense. This mistake will come back to bite him in the ass.
Misuse of company property does NOT automatically lead to termination. It is a question of scale. Companies are not going to lose a valuable asset, a trained and productive employee, over small potatoes.
.
Folks, the Henny Penny schtick is tedious. Things usually dwell in an amorphous gray area, between black and white. Stark lines drawn, not to be crossed, are for illustrative purposes, not decision making.
Threatening the well being of another employee, whether humorous or not, is most certainly an offense leading to firing, if not a court of law. Or would you have us believe Jack that you thought Regina was just joking around with the former Superintendent?