After posting this, we found some of the reported information to be incorrect; however if we were to edit this to reflect the errors, it would skewer the responses below. So for good or bad we have decided to leave the original post unedited to avoid any confusion editing could create.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Questionable Conduct and more Payouts
We have been informed by reliable sources that at the Oct. 7th Budget Committee meeting a question in regards to a line item expenditure out of the A.C. Lawrence Account came up. The answer provided was that the BOS have approved paying John Gomarlo some $15,000.00 or more he is demanding for 520 day hours of accumulated sick time he never took. At the rate of 10 days/80 hours per year, this goes back some six years that he never took a day off. Though this practice of paying employees for unused sick time was disallowed several years ago, John is demanding he get paid. With no way to replace this money, once again the taxpayers will be forced to foot the bill. It was also reported that John has used up all of his pay allowance under the Land Use Dept. and wants to be paid out of the Highway Dept. budget. Dale Gray objected to this and reminded the board that Gomarlo doesn't even work for he Highway Dept. Despite this fact, the Selectman overruled Gray and approved the payments anyways. This is just plain wrong and outrageous conduct by our BOS. What do you think, should he be paid for this unused sick time or should the Selectman have stood firm and refused under the town's rules on not continuing this practice and should the Selectmen have taken the money from other accounts to cover this leaving us to foot the bill once again?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
33 comments:
You talking about honest john? NO
Just to clarify, it is not unused "sick" time that John Gomarlo was paid for. He had unused "comp" time that was accumulated in 2001-2 when he was working on the A.C. Lawrence project.That "comp" time was approved by the BOS at that time. A few months ago the current BOS was trying clean up any outstanding "comp' time that employees may have. At that time it came to our attention that John G. had accumulated 529.5 hours over the years. Since the state labor laws only allow a total of 250 hours of "comp" time accumulation, we were required to pay him outright for half of his accumulated hours. He received $5214.88 in June. Since then, John has been taking days off to use up his "comp" time and as of now has 108.25 hours left to use. I am not sure where the confusion lies over it being "sick" time, since you were at the budget committee meeting , Bob, when this expenditure and the reason for it was discussed.
Also,John's landfill salary has not been "used up", nor did Dale ever come to the BOS complaining about paying for John Gomarlo. Please,I do wish that the correct facts are obtained before putting it out on the WWW. You do not have to agree with what we do, but at least write the truth. Any one is welcome at any time to ask questions or seek information.
-Roberta Fraser
We thank you for your comments Roberta and your explanation of this situation. We will contact the source of this topic and request a response to your post and if warranted, we'll issue an apology to both the Selectmen and John.
Do I stand to be corrected?... At the Budget Committee meeting Oct. 7th, BOS member, Roberta Fraser, explained a question on the line item expenditure of $5214.88, which came out of the A C Lawrence Trust Account. Roberta referred to this expenditure as being used to pay John Gomarlo for 520 hours of comp time. As you spoke I wrote down 520 hours, so I stand to be corrected, OK its 529.5 hours. I then asked, “don't you mean sick time instead of comp time“? Your answer was “yes“! I asked, “do you mean we owe John Gomarlo over $15,000.00 for sick pay“. (quick math)? Your answer was, “yes, comp time“! You stated John Gomarlo is taking days off to use up this so called comp time. Since we have no line item in our budget called comp time, we must assume it is sick time, of which each employee gets 10 days each a year. The BOS authorized a $5214.88 payment for half of this so called comp time, so then we must assume the town is paying John to stay home three days a week, because Friday is a no work day; or you want us to believe, John is being a nice guy and taking a big cut in pay to use up his so called comp time. The facts are just not logical. Why would someone want to stay home and not get paid for it? I know I wouldn't.
On the subject of Dale Gray and the Land Use Dept.. We use only sources we find to be creditable, we just do not report facts for the sake of reporting, without long discussions who the sources are, who the tipsters is, or the e-mailer and/or a direct phone caller to one of the members of the group responsible for these sites. I have found this person to be creditable. I'm sure we will find some facts to be questionable and we probably shouldn’t use the tips till it they can be fully substantiated. The report on John was e-mailed to the web master from me and was posted before we did the usual screening process. We apologize for any error or omissions of the facts, but I must stand behind this post as what I understood to be the truth until you Roberta Fraser or Sherm Tedford can tell the web site what the difference is between comp days and sick days and where the line item is in the budget that refers to comp days. We can find sick days in the budget; but if the selectmen are giving out comp days also, you can be sure there will be an investigation.
Roberta, your explanation sounds like double talk. If this goes back to 2001-2002, anyone with common sense would realize that John would have been aware and sure as hell would have been asked to be paid a long time ago, he may be many things; but he's not stupid and neither are the rest of us. And to quote your own explanation; "Since the state labor laws only allow a total of 250 hours of "comp" time
accumulation", he should have been paid long ago. To suddenly come across this now after all these years is really hard to fathom if the people we have put in charge are actually doing their jobs. I also have a question as I am sure many in town do too, just what is John's actual position and just what department does he work under?
If there is no line item in the towns budget for compensation ( I guess that is what comp time means )then under what heading do you pay money out? Is this not the same as sick time, seeing as he is taking time off and with pay I would assume? As Mr.Davis has said, Mr. Gomarlo surely isn't taking the time off unless he's being paid for it, doesn't this also go against the rule or whatever it is of only 10 paid sick days a year? How come no one there had discovered this error before? Just who is responsible for this oversight?
How in hell does payroll or who ever was responsible miss paying someone over 500 hours for over 6 to 7 years? This makes no sense whatsoever that this guy would allow this to go unresolved for so long. Hell if I'm not paid for the time I put in at work I'm in the payroll office the minute after they hand me my check. I for one do not believe this owed comp line one bit.
Just more of the same by the good old boy country club circle at town hall. Take care of each other and screw the rest of the town. Mark my words people are watching, listening and getting ready to send a very loud and clear message real soon.
Glad I logged on here at lunch time or I would have missed this, one of our selectmen ( woman ) posting on this blog, who would have thought? I too don't buy this story of comp one bit, it's the same old crock that comes out of town hall everytime someone catches them doing something they try to do on the sly. Nothing changes in this town; but these web sites have woken up a lot of people and angry people are going to line up and do what needs to be done come election time.
WE have a couple questions for the town in order to get the facts straight. IF the law states that no more than 250 hours can be accrued in one years time, Then; (a) was not Mr Gomarlo responsible for notifying the town and working out a schedule to "spend" these days during the year he actually accrued this time? And (b) Like all other businesses should not he have lost this time if not taken during the allotted time span ( one year ) instead of banking it for a future time when he is not only being paid a higher salary; but circumstances dictate that the town needs to cut back on expenditures. One last question; would you please explain to everyone here, posting and reading exactly what this AC Lawrence Fund is and why the BOS is paying him out of that budget instead on making him take all of the accrued time off as stipulated by law. Thanks Roberta, we are trying to be fair to both sides here.
They dont call him honest john for nothing.
To clear up the confusion of is it comp time, or sick pay? Roberta Fraser is a new selectmen and isn’t part of the good ole boys club, she is a good, smart person and may have not known the correct definition of the term which has caused all of the confusion. So to get a straight answer as a budget committee member I called the NH Government Center (LGC) and the comp time question was explained to me like this. To save paying overtime, about 10 or 15 years ago a system of compensatory time rules were set up to keep the cost of doing business within their (town's ) respective budget constraints. For every hour a person worked over time they would get 1 ½ hours of time off. The time can be carried over for years and the only time this should be paid in cash is when employment is severed. The following is copied from the Town of Winchester's own Personnel Policy Manual.
G. Compensatory Time ...
On occasion, employees may be offered the option of taking compensatory (“comp”) time in lieu of overtime. One hour of overtime worked yields one and one-half (1-1/2) hours of paid comp time to be taken during regular working hours. Comp time must be used before other types of leave.
The town policy clearly stated in lieu of overtime.
John Gomarlo shouldn’t have been paid in cash for the comp time. We must remember there wasn't really any oversight or errors. Yes, John knew this time was coming to him he's no fool. The LGC told me that employees sometimes accrue this time to retire early. Like a lot of state workers and that is why the 250 hours limit was implemented
The informer asked a question here on the blog so I will try to answer the question, so others might know. A C Lawrence is the old tannery property across the river on N. Main. It was John Gomarlo's job working with EPA and other state agencies, to get grant money to clean up this hazardous waste site. The A C Lawrence account was set up under the legal line items of the budget. If legal advise was needed pertaining to the A C Lawrence land, money came from this account. It wasn't set up to be a fund for any other types of expenditures.. The voters appropriated money for it every year. In June 2006, John Stetser used money out of this legal fund to pave the town garage parking lot. So that is where your money goes. "When you see the tip of an iceberg only 1/3 shows"!
When this all shakes out i think you will find that payroll is part of the problem, they think they run the town out of that office. They may , but thats about to change.
Thanks for providing us more insight on this matter Mr. Davis. It would seem that though some reported information was wrong, the facts do support there was questionable conduct on behalf of the BOS in the manner they handled this situation.
We wonder why money was taken from the Judicial and Legal Budget fund to pay Mr Gomarlo?
Is Mr. Gomarlo still an employee for the town and if so, why did he get paid when the law clearly states otherwise?
We also wonder at what rate of pay did he receive this money?
Perhaps BOS member Roberta Fraser will come back and provide us with answers.
Just more of the same that has been going on for years take money from here take money from there and hide what your really doing so no one knows the truth. This is a practice that needs to stop; but that would mean accountability and there is none at city hall. Thanks to all of your efforts the voters will send a message next year that will show these people that we do hold them accountable for the decisions they make despite what they think, we demand better.
Why buy the Sentinel all the real news is here. Keep up the good work you're all doing, we are all watching.
caught with their hands in the cookie jar once again. nothing new for this bunch, same old story different day.
I really do not think the finance office is at fault, they wouldn't do anything without it being authorized.
The town policy on compensatory time is somewhat vague, it is clear John Gomarlo must use his comp time before any vacation time or sick days and shouldn't have been paid in cash.
"The town policy on compensatory time is somewhat vague, it is clear John Gomarlo must use his comp time before any vacation time or sick days and shouldn't have been paid in cash."
This opens another subject in regards to this matter; Is John being allowed to accrue his sick time and vacation time too in hopes of cashing in when he finally does retire; or is the town requiring employees to "use it or lose it" as most employers do in the real world? This is beginning to look like an endless flow of money from the town coffers into John Gomarlo's pockets. Nothing personal against John; but the more we learn, the more questions we have.
Just the inner circle taking care of one of it's own again. This has been going on for years I suspect but until now no one has had the guts to stand up and inform the town what these people have been doing. I'm so glad to see the citizens of our town finally waking up and taking notice, it's past time we regain control of out town.
As it seems that no matter what is said you all have your opinions, I will not bother to take the time to try give the correct information ever again. Enjoy your blog.I have no use for it.
-Roberta
We did expect more from you Roberta and were hoping you'd take the time to explain to people who had questions; but it seems despite encouraging open discussion from both sides you have decided to take the easy way out and disappoint those who had faith in you.
I have no problem answering any questions anyone has, but I refuse to participate in negativity. I cannot answer as to why John's comp time was never paid before now, when it came to this board's attention (I don't know who knew about it, I know I didn't), we dealt with it. John is not on a four day work week. That is all there is to it. No "good ole boy" system working. Please, I encourage anyone at any time to come to a BOS meeting and ask any questions.
-Roberta
Thank you for answering my questions,Roberta. I am unable to attend meetings at night unless I was able to find a ride to and from and being able to have questions answered here allows me to participate a little. The reasons I believe for all the negativity as you say, you see posted here ( not all comments are ),is because of the way the townspeople of Winchester have been ignored for so long. I know many people who have gone before the Selectman to voice complaints only to not receive answers or even be contacted later. People are really fed up with how they perceive this divide between themselves and those who work at town hall is growing. While we struggle to make ends meet, employees are being rewarded for jobs well done and given raises and a bonus on top. That is just not fair to the rest of us, especially when in the same breath you talk about cutting off street lights and other ways to save money. Perhaps you all don't really see the big picture, our town is way over budgeted and salaries for those employed in town government are way too high to be supported by this region and us townsfolk. Perhaps by your coming here and showing a willingness to discuss issues things will change people's attitudes over time; but don't expect us to hide our feelings or to change how we feel until there's change downtown.
I have a question I hope you will be able to answer for me and anyone else interested, just where did the funds to pay Mr. Gomarlo come from? I see looking at the line for this AC Lawrence Fund, $1.00 was budgeted, where did the $5,214.88 come from? Was it taken from another department to cover the cost and if so is this standard practice when budgets come up short? Please explain as best as you can, we know you haven't been on the board for very long and probably don't have all the facts yet. Sure would be nice if one of the other members would come here and offer a few words.
maxedout, Good catch on the fact where did the money come from. In 2006 to 2007 budget under Judicial and Legal Expense line there was $14,00.00 in the account. John Stetser used the whole sum of $14,000.00 most going for paving the town highway garage and he never did explain where the rest of the money went. I confronted Stetser about the use of the money at a budget committee meeting last year and he felt he had a right to use it. How it was used is questionable. That left $1.00 in the account to leave it open to put money in later. I tried to close the account and got voted down. Where the money came from to pay John Gomarlo we will be investigating.
On John Gomarlo's comp time...I received a copy of the letter from Town's attorney Bart Mayer for authorization to instruct the selectmen to make payment to John Gomarlo for the now called "Banked Comp Time" n his letter. The selectmen OK'ed payment for 284.5 hours @ his rate of pay $18.33 total of $5214.88. Bart Mayer stated that RSA 275:42 in his letter allows the payment for time in cash in excess of 240 hours. This is against the agreement John made for Comp time according to the Winchester Policy Book, he is to take the time off before any vacation of sick time. That it clear.
This is disgusting paying someone when they should not have. It just goes to show it's more of the same no matter who we elect. I see Ms Fraser has not answered any of the questions asked, did you really think she would?
If John Gomarlo really had this payment for over time money coming to him, why didn't the selectmen pay him time and one half? If the payment was legitimate as the selectmen claim, NH State Labor Laws dictates payment of time and one half for over 40 hours of work. Why? Just another pay-off to keep the secrets John has on them.
[quote] Bart Mayer stated that RSA 275:42 in his letter allows the payment for time in cash in excess of 240 hours.[/quote]
We see nothing in this statute which refers to the town's policy and comp payouts. The statute simply states an employee will be paid according to time worked by the employer as agreed upon.
Where are you Roberta, thought you were going to answer some questions that we have? We get the same response at the Selectman's meeting; " thank you for your comments, we'll take it under advisement" and never get an answer there either.
You will never see change downtown, Mary, until we the voters send a clear message that we are unwilling to be bullied and treated unfairly by those elected to represent us and make decisions that affect our every day lives.
Roberta will be ok, its tough to fight city hall. There is a lot of pressure from the cry baby dept. heads. We need to get Roberta and ken some help next election, we can do this. Keep you eyes open folks, there is a lot of goofing off going on, and i think this web would like to here from you.
Post a Comment