Non-elected bureaucrats, not the City Council, appear to run Long Beach
Why does Long Beach have an elected city council if non-elected employees can make policy decisions?
That's the obvious question after city management on Monday responded to critical state audits without consulting the full City Council.
Two draft audits by State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, delivered to city officials last month, found that some current and former employees were paid thousands of dollars for unused leave time in excess of city code limits and without council authorization. Auditors also noted the city was running budget deficits, masked by borrowing reported as revenues.
Among the appointees who received outsized payments were former city manager Jack Schnirman, who is now the Nassau County Comptroller, and Corporation Counsel Rob Agostisi, acting city manager until he resigned at the close of business Tuesday. Auditors also reported the city's two former comptrollers received excessive termination payments.
The two audits made ten different recommendations, specifically to the City Council, for financial reforms. For example, one was to "Adopt structurally balanced budgets which contain realistic estimates of revenues and...recurring expenditures..." A kind of a Budgeting 101 recommendation.
But instead of City Council members responding to recommendations made to the City Council, Anthony Capozzolo, an outside lawyer hired by city staff without council knowledge or approval, wrote the reply.
"This is insane," said Nassasu Legis. Denise Ford, a Democrat from Long Beach who caucuses with county Republicans. "The City Council should have been given the opportunity to review it and edit it before it was sent back to the state comptroller."
She added, "I think its a disservice to the residents of Long Beach. It's a slap in their face."
Council Vice President John Bendo and Councilman Scott Mandel wrote to the state comptroller's office on Monday to ask for a 45-day extension to respond to the audit.
But it's unclear whether there will be an extension.
Ian McCracken, chief examiner for DiNapoli's office, replied Thursday that the comptroller's office will accept only one response from the local government, signed by the governing board chairman, the chief executive officer or someone acting on his or her behalf.
Therefore, McCracken wrote, "We will entertain any reasonable request for an extension requested by the Council as a body. We further expect that the City Council's reply will clarify the nature of the Capozzolo response: whether this is endorsed as the Council's response, and if not, on what official's behalf that response was submitted."
But also Thursday, the new Acting City Manager, John Mirando wrote McCracken that the response received from the City's lawyer "represents the full and official response of the City of Long Beach."
Ford said she might write to the comptroller as well and ask him to ignore the Capozzolo reply.
"His response has no standing," Ford said.
Ford has written repeated letters to DiNapoli, District Attorney Madeline Singas and the U.S. attorney asking for an investigations of the payouts since April 2018. That's when residents were told the city would run out of money before the end of the year it didn't borrow $2.1 million to finance separation payments that already had been made.
Ironically, lack of City Council involvement was a chief complaint from DiNapoli's auditors and Singas, who is conducting a criminal investigation into the payouts. Federal investigators also are looking at the separation payments.
Singas wrote to city officials last month that "the City Council has not adequately exercised its oversight authority."
Auditors repeatedly wrote that the city council did not authorize or review questionable staff- approved payments, including $513,925 in separation payments to 10 people in excess of city code limits and and $229,494 in "drawdown" payments for unused time to eight city officers and employees who remained on the city payroll.
Let's count how many times auditors mention it.
From the Unused Leave report:
Page 5. "The council does not review separation payments."
Page 6. "If it was the intent of the city as part of the retirement/separation incentive, to change the leave entitlement terms of the city code, the council should have amended the city code to specify the new terms for leave payments."
Page.7. "The corporation counsel staff could not provide details about who approved this unwritten policy (of paying 100 percent sick leave instead of city code stipulated 30 percent), when it went into effect or why an unwritten policy would supersede the City Code....There was no indication that the council ever amended the City Code to reflect this interpretation or unwritten policy change."
Page 8. "We found no indication of the city charter or city code directly addressing the authority to provide drawdown payments for unused leave accruals."
Page 9. "In the absence of a pre-existing local enactment (ie council vote)...we question the appropriateness of drawdown payments..."
Page 10. "In the absence of a pre-existing local enactment,(ie council vote) ...we question whether the city should have made these cash payments."
It was only an 11-page report.
That's the obvious question after city management on Monday responded to critical state audits without consulting the full City Council.
Two draft audits by State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, delivered to city officials last month, found that some current and former employees were paid thousands of dollars for unused leave time in excess of city code limits and without council authorization. Auditors also noted the city was running budget deficits, masked by borrowing reported as revenues.
Among the appointees who received outsized payments were former city manager Jack Schnirman, who is now the Nassau County Comptroller, and Corporation Counsel Rob Agostisi, acting city manager until he resigned at the close of business Tuesday. Auditors also reported the city's two former comptrollers received excessive termination payments.
The two audits made ten different recommendations, specifically to the City Council, for financial reforms. For example, one was to "Adopt structurally balanced budgets which contain realistic estimates of revenues and...recurring expenditures..." A kind of a Budgeting 101 recommendation.
But instead of City Council members responding to recommendations made to the City Council, Anthony Capozzolo, an outside lawyer hired by city staff without council knowledge or approval, wrote the reply.
"This is insane," said Nassasu Legis. Denise Ford, a Democrat from Long Beach who caucuses with county Republicans. "The City Council should have been given the opportunity to review it and edit it before it was sent back to the state comptroller."
She added, "I think its a disservice to the residents of Long Beach. It's a slap in their face."
Council Vice President John Bendo and Councilman Scott Mandel wrote to the state comptroller's office on Monday to ask for a 45-day extension to respond to the audit.
But it's unclear whether there will be an extension.
Ian McCracken, chief examiner for DiNapoli's office, replied Thursday that the comptroller's office will accept only one response from the local government, signed by the governing board chairman, the chief executive officer or someone acting on his or her behalf.
Therefore, McCracken wrote, "We will entertain any reasonable request for an extension requested by the Council as a body. We further expect that the City Council's reply will clarify the nature of the Capozzolo response: whether this is endorsed as the Council's response, and if not, on what official's behalf that response was submitted."
But also Thursday, the new Acting City Manager, John Mirando wrote McCracken that the response received from the City's lawyer "represents the full and official response of the City of Long Beach."
Ford said she might write to the comptroller as well and ask him to ignore the Capozzolo reply.
"His response has no standing," Ford said.
Ford has written repeated letters to DiNapoli, District Attorney Madeline Singas and the U.S. attorney asking for an investigations of the payouts since April 2018. That's when residents were told the city would run out of money before the end of the year it didn't borrow $2.1 million to finance separation payments that already had been made.
Ironically, lack of City Council involvement was a chief complaint from DiNapoli's auditors and Singas, who is conducting a criminal investigation into the payouts. Federal investigators also are looking at the separation payments.
Singas wrote to city officials last month that "the City Council has not adequately exercised its oversight authority."
Auditors repeatedly wrote that the city council did not authorize or review questionable staff- approved payments, including $513,925 in separation payments to 10 people in excess of city code limits and and $229,494 in "drawdown" payments for unused time to eight city officers and employees who remained on the city payroll.
Let's count how many times auditors mention it.
From the Unused Leave report:
Page 5. "The council does not review separation payments."
Page 6. "If it was the intent of the city as part of the retirement/separation incentive, to change the leave entitlement terms of the city code, the council should have amended the city code to specify the new terms for leave payments."
Page.7. "The corporation counsel staff could not provide details about who approved this unwritten policy (of paying 100 percent sick leave instead of city code stipulated 30 percent), when it went into effect or why an unwritten policy would supersede the City Code....There was no indication that the council ever amended the City Code to reflect this interpretation or unwritten policy change."
Page 8. "We found no indication of the city charter or city code directly addressing the authority to provide drawdown payments for unused leave accruals."
Page 9. "In the absence of a pre-existing local enactment (ie council vote)...we question the appropriateness of drawdown payments..."
Page 10. "In the absence of a pre-existing local enactment,(ie council vote) ...we question whether the city should have made these cash payments."
It was only an 11-page report.
Comments
Post a Comment