Publication Date: Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Editorial:'Moonlighting' investigation raises serious questions
Editorial:'Moonlighting' investigation raises serious questions
(February 02, 2005) Disclosure that a city utilities work crew may have been getting paid for private work raises significant questions about high city overtime rates and supervision
The disclosure last week by the Weekly of an active investigation into alleged "moonlighting" by an entire work crew in the Utilities Department's Water-Gas-Wastewater division already has some city officials looking hard at city overtime policies and supervision practices.
It could be weeks before the specific investigation is concluded, while one utilities worker is on administrative leave -- and protesting his innocence.
The reports are that the four to six crew members were getting paid both by the city (at time-and-a-half overtime) and by homeowners to do work beyond the curb in the installation or repair of water and sewer lines. Perhaps the most serious allegation is that this may have been going on for more than three, possibly four years.
While it is important for the public to let the investigation proceed before reaching conclusions, it is also important for city officials not to allow the facts of the probe to get hidden behind "personnel" protections.
There are too many vital public-interest and policy questions involved.
For one, the investigation comes in the wake of months of allegations from some individuals that the city has excessive overtime in a number of areas, including utilities and other departments. Some persistent critics will say this alleged incident is confirmation that the city staff is "bloated." But a strong case could be made that high overtime indicates overly minimalist staffing in some areas.
In this case, there are at least three separate issues involved: (1) alleged improper use of city equipment and materials; (2) alleged false overtime claims; and (3) a broader question of how such practices could go undetected for months or several years.
City Auditor Sharon Erickson did an overtime audit in 2003 and, while finding minor discrepancies generally concluded that most overtime seemed reasonable given "minimum staffing" levels and savings from vacancies, particularly in police and fire departments. She made a number of recommendations for improving controls, but these were mostly technical and would not prevent willful deception.
Disturbingly, city pay records obtained by the Weekly and other newspapers show that in a few cases employees' overtime each year begins to rival their base salaries. In one case, where a police officer was doing double-duty as an emergency dispatcher, that may be justified due to the training-level needed for the dispatch job.
Those figures need to be kept in perspective, also. Total overtime in 2002-03 -- on a salary base of $63.4 million -- reached $4.3 million, primarily in several high-service-level departments: police, fire, utilities and public works. Of that amount, $1.2 million was in utilities, half of which was in Water-Gas-Wastewater.
It strains credibility to believe that in every case of high overtime pay that there isn't a better way of doing things than paying time-and-a-half wages to someone who already is getting a competitive salary. But even that conclusion gets complex, as this case indicates.
City Manager Frank Benest rightfully notes that the use of city materials for private projects or claimed overtime "is obviously a matter of theft and fraud, and if true -- a big if at this point -- will be dealt with as such."
On the broader question of overtime policies, Benest notes it's often a balance between hiring someone new with benefits and weighing that against the short-term need or emergency response to a breakdown or other immediate-need situation. The city has invested heavily in trying to prevent utilities breakdowns by upgrading infrastructure, but they do happen.
When something does occur after hours, it boils down to a managerial judgment call whether it has to be corrected immediately or wait until regular on-duty hours.
Nevertheless, for an alleged violation of city rules (and possible illegal behavior) to continue as long as this case seemingly has raises major questions of overall supervision within the Utilities Department, at least -- and possibly in other areas as well.
If the current investigation confirms the situation, that should trigger a sweeping review of managerial and supervision procedures.
One can understand an isolated incident or a short-term violation, but for something to continue for months or years indicates a significant lapse somewhere along the line, for which supervisors and managers should be held accountable.
E-mail a friend a link to this story. | 
