Laura Pisarcik was City of DeKalb’s financial director for three years until her resignation March 7.
Despite her position as a department head, Pisarcik’s departure went unannounced until the Daily Chronicle began making inquiries and reported the separation April 12.
Since then I’ve obtained the separation agreement from the city under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act.
A non-disclosure provision is item numbered six in the agreement, while items 10 and 13 indicate Pisarcik had up to 21 days to consult with an attorney before signing, and notes that she did. Pisarcik and Anne Marie Gaura signed it less than two months following Gaura’s installation as city manager in January.
Severance pay is explicitly rejected in the agreement, but Pisarcik’s accrued hours of paid time off came to a payout of $9,000.
The document is five pages long and I’ve placed it after the jump. Continue reading DeKalb’s Separation Agreement with Pisarcik
From the Daily Chronicle’s weekend edition:
The city of DeKalb is without a finance director after Laura Pisarcik resigned the same week city Manager Anne Marie Gaura announced financial consultants would review the city’s financial policies and procedures.
Ordinarily I’d applaud the sight of heads rolling for the sake of accountability. This time I can’t. Here’s the problem: Though the Daily Chronicle published the news yesterday, Pisarcik resigned the first week of March. Her absence was discovered by accident last week, when somebody noticed her name had been removed from the city’s website and thought to ask about it. (Yeah, that was me.)
A city department head has been gone for a month without a public announcement of the departure? I wonder why?
Gaura acknowledged there is a separation agreement between the city and Pisarcik, but declined to disclose the details.
Does Ms. Gaura think she can withhold these details indefinitely? I’ve already submitted a Freedom of Information Act request, and please note I’ve never been denied copies of any contract. And when it comes specifically to separation agreements, we have only to recall that the Chronicle had no problem obtaining agreements signed with former city clerk Steve Kapitan and former park district executive director Cindy Capek.
There’s no doubt the separation agreement will come out. Also, Laura Pisarcik would have been missed at the next budget meeting, right? The city manager has blown, for no good reason, an opportunity to build trust with the community.
City of DeKalb’s use of administrative tow fees brings up lots of questions, such as how many of these off-budget accounts the city has and whether their collective use rises to the title of “shadow budget.”
I don’t have the answers to the above questions, but I do know that even off-budget transactions are included in the invoice payment listings, aka check register. And thanks to the new account coding, you can usually easily tell what type of account each purchase is charged to, should this be of interest to you. Continue reading How to Tell if a City of DeKalb Account is On- or Off-Budget
The Daily Chronicle may have just published one of the most important investigative reports ever written about City of DeKalb finances.
Since early 2013, the DeKalb Police Department has used around $300,000 of the $350,000 collected in administrative tow fees to buy a wide range of items outside of its regular budget.
There are a lot of potential issues arising from this revelation, from whether the tow fee ordinance is fair to how much the equipping of the new police station might have gone over budget. The article seems to suggest that, right now, the city is mostly concerned about the administrative tow ordinance itself coming under attack. But to me, we’re taking our eyes off the prize if we stray too far from the simple fact that $300,000 in public spending was not publicly accounted for in 2013.
I mean, doesn’t it make you wonder:
What other accounts holding fines and fees are used for “extras”?
How this might relate to the $3-million-plus “excess expenditures over budget” that the city’s auditors found noteworthy?
Why the city has begun changing the policy even while insisting there’s nothing wrong with the status quo?
That’s just for starters. So I’m going to keep my eyeballs on this for awhile, yes, yes indeedy.