DeKalb’s FY2011 budget included a Reduction in Force (RIF) plan to close a budget gap of a couple million. Here is how it played out for about a dozen AFSCME union members who got laid off as part of the RIF in June 2010.
| Date | Event | Documentation |
|---|---|---|
| 7/13/2009 | Council approves a side letter to its contract with AFSCME outlining wage concessions in exchange for a promise of no layoffs through the end of the contract expiring 12/31/2010. | 7/13 meeting minutes |
| 4/7/2010 | Voluntary Separation Program (VSP) portion of the Reduction in Force (RIF) is offered to eligible employees. Deadline for signup is 5/25, after which layoffs would be made to achieve budgetary goals for FY2011. | 4/5 special meeting minutes |
| 6/9/2010 | City follows through on layoffs. HR notifies affected AFSCME employees they would “not be eligible for unemployment until after your two (2) weeks [sic] severance, following your made whole date of December 31, 2010” presumably because they'll be receiving full regular compensation through that date. | Daily Chronicle articles 6/9 & 6/10 + notification to affected employees (see below) |
| 6/28/2010 | Approval of FY2011 budget & staffing plan. | 6/28 meeting minutes |
| 8/20/2010 | HR notifies affected AFSCME employees that they do not have to wait until 2011 to apply for unemployment after all; they meet eligibility by being neither on-call nor actively reporting for work. | Notifications to affected employees + IL Department of Employment Security (IDES) (see below) |
| 11/19/2010 | City reimburses IDES for 3rd Quarter unemployment compensation totaling $50,428. | IDES invoice mailed 10/23 + city check register entries |
| 1/28/2011 | City reimburses IDES for 4th Quarter unemployment compensation totaling $42,394. | IDES invoice mailed 1/22 + city check register entries |
Yes, you’re reading it right. Responses to questions submitted to the city manager’s office confirm that some AFSCME-affiliated employees did not work and got paid twice for the last half of 2010. DeKalb was on the hook for regular compensation because of the contractual obligations and for unemployment compensation because the city does not pay unemployment insurance.
The following documents were obtained under Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Redactions are mine. Click on any to see larger images.
6 comments
Comment by Ivan Krpan on March 26, 2011 at 8:08 am
So the City of DeKalb had to come up with just about another $100,000.00 for a MISTAKE in HR on interpretation of the AFSCME contract and the bulls$%t savings CITY MANAGER BIERNACKI told council and mayor the city would see with Voluntary Separation of city employees.
GREAT LEGAL ADVISE given to council by OUR IN HOUSE LEGAL DEPARTMENT.
How many mistakes can CM Biernacki be allowed to make before being canned? Can the City of DeKalb please hire a REAL City Manager for ur community, someone who doesn’t require a dart board to make critical decisions for DeKalb’s future?
Now adding insult to injury. Since Rick Monas was hired back part time after participating in the VSP, then notified that he was eligible for unemployment; is Monas still eligible to collect unemployment while only part time?
Question, where was Naylor on this one? He seems to understand AFSCME contract well especially when it comes to retirement benefits?
How can any alderman continue taking any advisefrom the in house legal department or the city manager’s office. This community really needs to worrying. Vote out the INCUMBENTS!
Comment by yinn on March 26, 2011 at 9:44 am
It’s important not to get the Voluntary Separation Program and the layoff part of the Reduction in Force mixed up. I am specifically speaking to the AFSCME layoff portion. I have not investigated what happened to anybody who took the VSP, but I believe it was a termination, not a layoff.
And with the AFSCME layoffs, I am not prepared to make many conclusions yet. At this point we only know that concurrent regular compensation and unemployment compensation were made to some of those laid off in June.
We do not know whether the employment status of the workers as of January 2011 was intended to be terminated or laid off. Therefore we also don’t know whether the city expected to be reimbursing IDES starting in January for whoever hadn’t found other employment yet.
Or to put it yet another way: We don’t know if there was an error that just affected the timing or if it actually was a mistake with an unanticipated cost that will approach $200,000 by the time the payments are done.
There was a cost-benefit analysis made that I’ve been told included “well thought out internal operational, policy and risk management reasons” for not keeping the AFSCME people working through December, but for some reason the city manager says he is not allowed to share it with me.
Comment by Ivan Krpan on March 26, 2011 at 1:26 pm
Got cha Lynn, thanks for pointing that out. Interesting that City Manager won’t release the information you need. Maybe he needs to check somethings out for himself. Maybe he’ll end up doing a little back tracking or play the blame game in the end here. $200,000.00 would have helped with 3 police officers.
Comment by yinn on March 26, 2011 at 2:32 pm
Well, at this point I am assuming the analysis must have been used in closed session, since I’ve never found any such thing in any agenda packet. If I can get enough work done this weekend, I may have time to turn in a FOIA request early next week. The response will reveal the claimed FOIA exemptions, if any, and the Public Access Counselor can review them if it comes to that. So far, work is going swimmingly today.
You must be logged in to post a comment.