Sick, vacation days are public record

Posted in: Government Opinion on January 21, 2010 at 1:14 am |

By John Soltes

(Jan. 21, 2010) — This week, Senior Reporter Susan C. Moeller reveals the findings to an investigation by The Leader that lasted several months and included many appeals to the Borough of East Rutherford for official records and explanations for strange notations on these documents. Throughout the process of reporting, the borough was unwilling to make public all of the public documents requested by the newspaper.

In particular, back in June of 2009, The Leader asked for specific records pertaining to accumulated sick and vacation days for the employees in a municipal department. The newspaper went through the proper channels and filed an Open Public Records Act request to receive the documents.

The Leader was denied access.

The newspaper then filed a complaint with the Government Records Council, which oversees OPRA requests. After mediation, The Leader was able to finally receive the documents it asked for — in December of last year, some six months after the original request.

There has been no adequate explanation of why it took six months to receive these public documents — documents that should be available to examine or copy by not just media professionals, but any resident in the local area. After all, accumulated sick and vacation days affect local taxpayers who are charged with paying the salaries, benefits and retirement packages of municipal employees. Yet, East Rutherford chose to keep these public documents hidden for months.

Of course, the story does not end there. Once viewing the documents — the official documents, mind you — the newspaper saw a shoddy system of penciled-in tally marks that had a number of strikeouts, scribbles and even notes on buyouts of unused time. One of the most troubling messages appears on the file kept for Kathleen Winston, a clerk typist who started her service in the borough as a part-time employee and who has since gained full-time status.

At the bottom of one of her records — a document on official letterhead — borough clerk Danielle Lorenc wrote a note stating an addition of 30 vacation days and 58 sick days as per Councilmen Jeffrey Lahullier and George Perry.

“They will be calculated with a start date of 1993,” Lorenc wrote.

After further investigation, the newspaper discovered that these additional days were never put before the borough council for a formal vote, as is the normal borough policy.

Lorenc, Lahullier and Perry made a highly questionable change to an official document without the proper authorization of the local governing body.

The fact that Winston’s days were later reduced does not forgive the fact that the system of how these days are tallied is sloppy and ripe for abuse. If the borough was able to keep this document hidden, would these additional days still be there? This type of question surfaces when a borough’s actions are cloaked in secrecy. An investigation is warranted.

Tags: East Rutherford Soltes