Week of July 2, 2009
City workers who pled in time-stealing case receive pensions By Yudislaidy Fernandez Five of the 14 fired Miami city planners who pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges after facing more than 20 years in jail for a criminal scheme are collecting thousands of dollars in pensions monthly, the city's pension office says. The 14 city employees who made up what was known as The Firm, mostly from the capital improvements department, were arrested in 2007 on organized fraud and racketeering charges. Authorities said they did private design and consulting work on city time. Those involved received plea deals that reduced charges to misdemeanors and required each to repay $11,908 to the city, the Miami-Dade State Attorney's office reports. A spokeswoman for the office mistakenly said last week the plea deals included loss of pensions for The Firm members. The former employees can lose their pensions only if they are charged with a felony, said Sandra Ellenberg, pension administrator for City of Miami General Employees' and Sanitation Employees' Retirement Trust. In this case, employees pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor counts of unlawful use of a computer for using city-licensed design software. The five receiving monthly pensions are: Victor Marzo, $3,769 monthly; Roberto Silva, $1,832; Jose Casanova Jr., $5,708; Juan B. Ordonez, $5,833; and Jose A. Briz, $7,180. The cost to the city pension fund: $22,322 monthly. Around the time the scheme was unfolding, project delays and $38.8 million in cost overruns in the city's bond program — initially blamed on market changes and unforeseen setbacks during planning and construction — were reported in the capital improvements department, where most of the employees worked. That the former city workers were paid a salary and not by the number of hours they worked hindered the case, said Ed Griffith, State Attorney's office spokesman. Miami police and the State Attorney's office were unaware of the city's administrative policy for salary-based employees, he said. "As a result, when your whole basis begins to deteriorate you have to salvage the case," he said. "It was not meant to go in this direction…. You can't charge someone with a crime when it's not a crime." The administrative policy states that a "predetermined amount (of pay) is not reduced because of variations in the quality or quantity of the employee's work." It goes on to say those employees "must receive the full salary for any week in which the employee performs any work, regardless of the number of days and hours worked…" But that wasn't the only flaw in the investigation. The equipment the investigators used to monitor the employees' computer use did not yield the information they expected, Mr. Griffith said. "What it showed was not nearly as significant," he said, but added he was uncertain whether the lack of results came from the performance of the computer program used to review the collected data. Defense lawyer Jose Quinon, who represented Jose A. Briz in the case, agreed the policy states they weren't required to work a set number of hours on city business. "Meaning he was not obligated to clock in for 40 hours with the city," he said. Whether he worked one hour or 40, he said, his client would get paid a set salary. This administrative policy is often used in government agencies and businesses to avoid paying overtime to individuals for working beyond a regular work day. "The entire case of the state was premised upon the fact Mr. Briz was accused of cheating the city by not working 40 hours, but that is not the case because he was not obligated to work those many hours," Mr. Quinon said. He added that because under the policy employees are not "obligated to work during the work day," they could spend time doing something else. City officials could have handled the personnel matter administratively, he said. "The bottom line is that you don't go out making arrests and putting people on television and later say we made a mistake, and really, that's what happened here." City Manager Pete Hernandez said he had no say in the decision the State Attorney's office made on the case. "The State Attorney's office is not under me," he said. "I was given notice, I was advised, but I had no position of authority to approve something the state attorney is doing." Salaried employees exist in the public and private sector, he said, adding it is the responsibility of supervisors to ensure individuals are doing their work. "It all boils down to management and proper supervision," he said. That is something he is striving for, he said, and wants to ensure "these things don't happen" in the future. Mr. Hernandez said in the city, employees in professional-level, managerial and management positions are paid a set salary. While the individuals did not end up in jail, the episode stays on their criminal record, Mr. Hernandez said, and sends a message to others "that this will not be tolerated." |
Top