In this years proposed
budget, there are approximately 18 town employees receiving longevity stipend
for continuous service in increments of five years. However, there are a few employees abusing the
program. I will provide some examples:
Scenario 1: Two individuals retired and were rehired the
next day. The first one retired on
February 28, 2003 and the second one retired March 31, 2005. Both employees were paid longevity stipend
for the continued service up to the date of retirement. Both terminated their service to the town in
order to retire and were closed out as of their retirement date of all benefits
and money owed. Yet, they are trying to collect their longevity stipend based on
this period of prior service in which they have already been paid for upon
retirement. Since that chapter
of their lives has been closed out; they should not be allowed to use that
period of service in the computations of continuous service. The start date for the first employee should
be March 1, 2003 and the second employee should be April 1, 2005.
Scenario 2: There is an employee whose salary is divided
by four departments because he is the head of three departments and works in a
third. However, the longevity stipend is
recorded as Town Engineer as $1560.00; Public Works Director $1560.00; Solid
Waste $1560.00 and Treatment Plant $2600.00 for a total of $7,280.00. The longevity stipend is to be paid to an employee
and not to position or salary. This individual’s salary has been
prorated between the four departments but yet the longevity stipend is not
prorated and the employee will receive approximately $5,720.00 more that he
should. This employee should have
his longevity stipend prorated between all four departments. This will save the taxpayers $5,720.00 tax dollars.
In this financial crisis,
every penny that the town can save will help the taxpayers. I do not know if all employees’ longevity
stipend is computed accurately. These
two scenarios are the only ones I was able to find that in my eyes are
incorrect.
Larry Fillmore
No comments:
Post a Comment