Judgment days
As exasperated as Teaneck residents are with the costly lawsuits filed by former Township employees, most knew better than to believe any Council candidate who campaigned on a promise to put a stop to them. The circumstances surrounding the latest fat payout to a disgruntled former worker demonstrate that the citizens and elected officials who together foot the bill for various past misdeeds are powerless to prevent themselves from being soaked again in the future.As Brian Aberback reported in yesterday's Record, an ex-DPW employee and his lawyers are now several hundred thousand dollars richer at the expense of Teaneck's families thanks to the extraordinarily poor judgment of a DPW official who has not worked for Teaneck since 2004. Other recent outflows from our "self-insured" municipality to cover assorted settlements, judgments, and legal fees result from similarly avoidable self-inflicted wounds from the past. Having gained a reputation in a certain segment of the legal community as an easy mark, there's no reason to believe that anything other than more lawsuits await.
Those who campaigned on a platform of better labor relations realized this on some level. However, the measures they proposed to avoid these situations in the future did not address the root problem. An ombudsman dedicated to monitoring employee complaints would be nothing more than a costly early warning system for litigation coming down the pike. Commitment of non-existent funding for improved working conditions is infeasible and unlikely to placate employees who allege harassment, verbal abuse, and retaliation for whistle-blowing.
The real reason that the people of Teaneck have seen millions of their tax dollars go to line the pockets of attorneys and assorted aggrieved parties is that other paid Township employees have acted irresponsibly on the job. Unfortunately, the financial liability for the foolish behavior of a number of former superintendents and chiefs belongs to blameless taxpayers. Not only is it time to revisit the criteria for hiring and promotion decision and tighten their oversight, but we also must instill a culture of responsibility among senior departmental personnel in Teaneck (with penalties for infractions where legally permissible). After all, it is our money they're gambling with every time they open their mouths.
posted by Teaneck Blog @ 8:11 AM
8 Comments:
With minor variations, a campaign platform of "lower taxes, fewer lawsuits and more development" would have fit just about every candidate. And in many cases, that's all we heard. Shame on us for accepting all the promises of WHAT the candidates would do in office, without asking HOW. As always, the devil is in the details.
For years we've been hearing that steps are underway to stop the flood of lawsuits. Management has been changed. Diversity training is underway. Each 6- or 7-digit judgement is the last verdict we'll have to face. It's behind us now. Until the next one.
These are not single-incident lawsuits. Each one is the result of an initial problem, followed by a series of complaints that were not addressed effectively. Once documented, with a demonstrated pattern of abuse, harrassment and management inaction, these persistent problems become ripe for lawsuits. A jury of one's peers tends to be filled not with managers, but with workers who will empathize with the plight of someone who has to deal with what is presented as a tale of abusive management and substandard working conditions, without an adequate response from the Township.
These are not isolated incidents. They are occurring in every branch of our workforce; the Police Department, Fire Department and DPW.
Having participated in the Teaneck Community Project (a.k.a., the Visioning process), four of the six task forces recommended some form of ombudsperson (is that a word?) to deal with issues raised by residents and employees. Just as with any chronic disease, identifying these problems earlier, and addressing them before they fester into lawsuits, is one of the better ways to address the problem. It's rather easy to imagine that a third party ombudsperson who had intervened in any one of our many legal setbacks might have nipped at least one of these in the bud. I fail to see how we can manage without one for the near future.
Repairing and rebuilding our rather shabby array of municipal buildings and facilities will also help deal with another part of the problem. Virtually every building used by our township's employees is sorely out-of-date or badly in need of repair.
The Police Headquarters is bad enough. Look at the DPW facilities when you go to the Recycling Center. The firehouses seem to be subpar (based on discussions with firefighters). Even the Municipal Building, the crown jewel of our Township, is a rat's maze of poorly laid out working quarters wedged into a building designed in the early days of electricity and telephones.
It's a wonder that we get any productivity out of our Township's employees. The benign neglect of working conditions needs to end.
Above and beyond improving the selection and management of our managerial employees, providing a meaningful outlet to address any employee relations issues as they arise, and providing our employees with a proper work environment, will only help stop the neverending flow of litigation.
Alan Sohn
In a perfect world, working for Teaneck would be just like working for a major investment bank, complete with consultant-led training programs, a fully functioning human resources department, and shiny new (and well-maintained) workspacees. Surely the morale boost for employees and numerous checks and balances that would be built into the system would greatly reduce (but still not eliminate) the chances of a future lawsuit.
Unfortunately, we don't have the resources to make that happen and more importantly, these measures would only alleviate pressures that exacerbate the problems without rooting out the sources of the problems themselves.
Large corporations with abundant resources also have their share of lawsuits from employees. If the incidence is any lower, it is because managers and workers alike know that the type of behavior that causes others to file lawsuits against the company is grounds for dismissal and a sure way to stop ones career dead in its tracks. It's not clear to me that those whose poor behavior and bad judgment has landed the taxpayers of Teaneck in these messes have suffered any negative consequences whatsoever (for example, the former DPW superintendent seems to have landed an equally desirable position elsewhere).
As long as our paid personnel are aware that the Township will foot the bill for their actions and that they will skate away unharmed, they have no strong incentive to restrain themselves from acting inappropriately, whether they work in nice surroundings or not.
I just wonder what our overpaid ineffective Manager is doing about the moral of the employees....crying to the council about how no one likes her???? Boo Hoo--
Our taxes should be going to the poor roads all over town, safe work places & hiring more police and fire. But no--we use our hard earned money to pay out law suits brought on by the Managers lack of control over her department "chiefs".
I completely disagree -- the manager has an incredibly complex town with numerous departments and details to attend to, and works very hard to keep it all moving forward! She's not perfect (none of us is) but she is very good and deserves support. This is why 13 heads of township departments voiced support for her management this spring. We are unfortunately now living in an incredibly litigious society, and anyone who reads the RECORD knows we are not the only town with these type of problems.
I've heard some people say that these problems are all the fault of rapacious and litigious employees and I've heard others say that the fault lies squarely with abusive management. Obviously, the situation is not cut and dry and any resolution will require a sensitive approach. This is the position taken by the Teaneck New Beginnings slate (although perhaps not effectively articulated).
It seems to me that a $100,000+/- annual investment in a full-time ombudsman (or human resource specialist) would be a wise investment if it would reduce the number of 6- and 7 figure payouts.
I don't blame the Township Manager, though I understand why those who seek accountability would be tempted to place blame there. For the same reason, I remain skeptical of the ombudsman idea. Neither the Township Manager nor another specially designated bureaucrat can be on the ground monitoring the management-employee interactions that lead to these lawsuits.
I tend to agree with Teaneck Blog about this. The answer to bureaucratic problems shouldn't be to add another layer of bureaucracy (ie, an ombudsman). I also question whether there is, in fact, enough work for a full time ombudsman. Are things so bad that we need someone to work on this full time forever? I find that hard to believe.
Why can't the town open some kind of official grievance line in the Manager's office -- working with the Town Attorney's office -- to head things off. You know, an employee complaint line. That's basically what the ombudsman would be doing, anyway.
Interesting website with a lot of resources and detailed explanations.
»
Post a Comment
<< Home