Does an ethics complaint make a sound if no one answers it?

[raider.adam]

http://www.phillyrecord.com/

In this week's Public Record, page 11.

by ADAM LANG

Does an ethics complaint make a sound if no one answers it? Or more
aptly “what happens to an ethics complaint if City Hall refuses to
respond?”

I have been a big fan and supporter of the Board of Ethics ever since
its creation. I have also frequently put in complaints for a variety
of activities I thought the Board should look into. Where sometimes I
may not have been happy with the result, that has always been more a
problem with the laws and not the Boards investigation work.

Over the last year I have grown concerned about the Ethics Board
because of a specific complaint I filed and the disturbing events that
have taken place with it. On March 2nd of 2011, over one year ago, I
submitted a complaint to the Board of Ethics about political activity
of City employees, specifically in regards to the employees the City
Controller has on the School District payroll. A variety of them are
committee people and work on the campaign of Controller Alan
Butkovitz. Activity expressly prohibited by the City Charter, but
allegedly a gray area because the School District is paying their
salary (the unintended irony is Controller Butkovitz’s complaint about
School District finances, but I digress...).

[thoth]

Called them to ask if they could generally outline guidelines for me on how city council's fund is distributed, how it can or cannot be spent, and who was responsible for "checking" their expenditures. Told me they didn't have purview over the monies and frankly, didn't know what was allowed or disallowed. A little disturbing, I get that they may not have teeth for this kind of thing, but they should at least be able to comment on what would constitute unethical spending by council.

http://www.phillyrecord.com/

In this week's Public Record, page 11.

[raider.adam]

Board of Ethics to revise rules regarding Controller's staff

In one of those weird coincidences of fate, the same day my commentary about the City Solicitor taking forever to render an opinion, the BoE publishes the Solicitor's opinion.

Summary: City Controller employees have to follow the ethics rules, even if paid for by the school district.

[raider.adam]

Here is the web page version.

http://www.phillyrecord.com/2012/03/...ing-unethical/

[raider.adam]

The day the Public Record commentary was printed was the day the Board of Ethics released an opinion from the City Solicitor. After 13 months of work to get a result on this, it finally paid off. No more political activity for employees Butkovitz sticks on the School District payroll.

Five City Controller workers paid by school district now subject to city ethics rules - Philly.com

[annie]

Good job, Adam! Now if we could just get them off the PSD payroll entirely...

[BarryG]

Given the SD's budget crisis, why is there not complete and total outrage over the fact that there are people getting paid buy the PSD who don't work for them?

Surely Tom Knudsen will clamp down on this practice... right?

[Naveen]

Given the SD's budget crisis, why is there not complete and total outrage over the fact that there are people getting paid buy the PSD who don't work for them?

They get paid to audit the school district, so the SDP pays for them. At least, that's the rationale it seems. But the question then would be what % of their job actually involves the SDP?

[BarryG]

They get paid to audit the school district, so the SDP pays for them. At least, that's the rationale it seems. But the question then would be what % of their job actually involves the SDP?

The auditor is supposed to be independent from the organizations it audits. It's outrageous that this has been going on so long. More proof that the school district is not underfunded, it is completely and utterly mismanaged.

[raider.adam]

Good job, Adam! Now if we could just get them off the PSD payroll entirely...

Given the SD's budget crisis, why is there not complete and total outrage over the fact that there are people getting paid buy the PSD who don't work for them?

Surely Tom Knudsen will clamp down on this practice... right?

They get paid to audit the school district, so the SDP pays for them. At least, that's the rationale it seems. But the question then would be what % of their job actually involves the SDP?

You have touched onto Phase 2. In the opinion from the City Solicitor, they did a fact finding section to lay out the situation. The history is that in 1974 the SDP paid for the employees that were doing the yearly budget. It was an efficient way of handling the personnel. Per the City Solicitor, currently the majority of the work those employees do, do not involve the SDP ( a small part of it does, like residency investigations) and none of the employees touch the yearly audit, which is what they were being paid for.

At the April 19th SRC meeting, I will be presenting those findings and laying out the case that the SDP, in finding cuts, should obviously go after expenditures that don't actually benefit the SDP and should not wait for City Hall to "find some money" for Butkovitz's employees first. The SRC's job is to find funding and pay their employees. The concerns of employment for other City departments is not in their purview.

[BarryG]

You have touched onto Phase 2. In the opinion from the City Solicitor, they did a fact finding section to lay out the situation. The history is that in 1974 the SDP paid for the employees that were doing the yearly budget. It was an efficient way of handling the personnel. Per the City Solicitor, currently the majority of the work those employees do, do not involve the SDP ( a small part of it does, like residency investigations) and none of the employees touch the yearly audit, which is what they were being paid for.

At the April 19th SRC meeting, I will be presenting those findings and laying out the case that the SDP, in finding cuts, should obviously go after expenditures that don't actually benefit the SDP.

Keep up the good work, Adam.

[seand]

They get paid to audit the school district, so the SDP pays for them. At least, that's the rationale it seems. But the question then would be what % of their job actually involves the SDP?

Well historically this is where the Controller's kept patronage jobs.

Its worth noting that it was exactly when Paul Vallas suggested purging those jobs from the SDP budget that Controller Alan Butkovitz decided Vallas's budget overruns were the worst thing ever, that Vallas had to be run out of town. Meanwhile when Ackerman ran up overruns that dwarfed Vallas's, barely a peep.

[raider.adam]

And of course the irony of it all when Butkovitz releases such a report:

Office of the Controller, City of Philadelphia, Controller Alan Butkovitz

In his letter to Knudsen, Butkovitz raised issue with the following concerns:

The district’s continued ineffectiveness in solving its growing budget gap.

The district’s limited authority to further cut costs to close its ever increasing budget gap

No formal plans to address the projected fiscal year 2013 budget gap

But wait, he thinks the School District should keep paying for his employees

[Garret]

So it would save the SDP about a quarter of a million to have these employees off their payroll:

Five controller's employees are currently paid through the School District, a practice that began because part of the controller's job is auditing the schools. Their combined salaries are $265,059. At least two of those staffers also hold political positions. Joseph Purul and Dwayne Stewart are Democratic committeemen, according to the most recent data from the City Commissioners.

City Controller Alan Butkovitz said he expected his staff to follow the rules. He added that he would be happy to have those staffers added to the city payroll, which would make the issue moot, if he could get the funding.

"My position is whatever the mayor and the city, however they want to fund these positions, that's OK with me," Butkovitz said.

Finance Director Rob Dubow said there had been no discussions thus far about moving those workers to the city payroll.

The Board of Ethics requested the solicitor's opinion on the Controller's Office workers after a complaint was filed in March 2011 by Adam Lang, a former Republican committeeman. Lang said Thursday he was gratified by the outcome.

"The idea of not enforcing it retroactively, I'm perfectly fine with that," Lang said. "The reason for the complaint wasn't to punish the workers, the reason was to force the city to finally make an official decision on what these rules are."

Good work Adam. I like the last paragraph, as people I know who have worked in government have told me that they are often bullied into doing political work in order to keep their jobs, even though they know it is wrong and don't want to do it.

[ArcticSplash]

Me and Adam should be co-mayors.

For realz.

[Hospitalitygirl]

Me and Adam should be co-mayors.

For realz.

True.

[raider.adam]

So it would save the SDP about a quarter of a million to have these employees off their payroll:

Or save the jobs of 6 teachers.

Good work Adam. I like the last paragraph, as people I know who have worked in government have told me that they are often bullied into doing political work in order to keep their jobs, even though they know it is wrong and don't want to do it.

Thanks.

[Naveen]

Great work, Adam! Keep it up!

[annie]

At the April 19th SRC meeting, I will be presenting those findings and laying out the case that the SDP, in finding cuts, should obviously go after expenditures that don't actually benefit the SDP and should not wait for City Hall to "find some money" for Butkovitz's employees first.

Me and Adam should be co-mayors.

For realz.

I had been wondering if there were any mayoral candidates that didn't warrant an immediate facepalm!

[govtstatistic]

http://www.phillyrecord.com/

In this week's Public Record, page 11.

That Depends On Who Is Making Money Where.
Or Who Is Being Paid To Ignore These Matters In The Best Light Of The Federal Govt