The bonus payments, which all regular city employees get, are part of a worker's compensation self-insurance program in which city employees share 50 percent in overall savings when worker's compensation claims are lower than expected.
The bonus payments were made in November. The News-Gazette recently requested information about the payments, after learning about them, through the Illinois Freedom of Information Act.
For both Prussing and Clark, the bonuses represented two years' worth of payments, $450 for 2006 and $490 for 2007. Prussing and Clark had not received the bonus in 2006 and Prussing said she asked officials last fall why she and Clark were excluded.
"I checked it out with the (city) accountant," Prussing said. "I asked the question and the answer was we should be included."
Huh?
I understand her point, but it looks kind of bad politically that she made a point of asking for the money when she didn't get a check initially.
government, in its own little world,,,,,bonus money! Figures,,,collect taxes and then get bonus money for doing what they should be doing,,,being good stewards of the public monies,,,no surprise,,,,they own us, and control us,,,we gave up our rights as citizens years ago, grin and bear it :)
It sure does seem funny (not laughing) that when contract time comes up for Urbana city employees, the first thing you hear in any comparison with Champaign is that you can't compare Urbana and Champaign since they have a bigger tax base. Now I hear the Urbana mayor makes more money then Champaign's. I guess I see where the employee rates in her eyes.
Urbana's mayor runs the city. Champaign's is largely cermonial. He mostly heads council meetings and the liquor commission. If anything the Champaign mayor is the one being overpaid.
Considering the sort of treasonous representation we get from Prussing, the price seems too low. I would expect to pay much more for the disservice she provides to this city.
If John Farney had been elected City Clerk, at least he would have been honest enough not to accept this "bonus".
While there are plenty of times that I question some of the perks of government employees, I have to pipe in on the Bruce Byrd comment implying that only government could come up with the idea of rewarding themselves with bonuses. As a public employee (not Urbana), my employer has never given bonuses of any kind at all; however, I have lots of friends in the private sector who rourinely receive huge bonuses (in at least one case, more than my annual salary after 15 years and a Master's Degree). Bonuses are alive and well and far more than $450 in the private sector. I am always amazed at the people that seem to believe that working for a public institution is the land of milk and honey.
Bonuses are alive and well and far more than $450 in the private sector.
And routinely given for the same reasons the Urbana employees received theirs - the employees, through their (in)actions, improved the financial well-being of their employer by either increasing revenues or (as in this case) decreasing costs.
Such a trivial matter is not even worthy of mention in one of my letters to the editor.
Michael Fuerst
(Click here for Urbana postage stamps, T-shirts and bumper stickers.)
I was directly refering to the elected officials, not the employees...elected officials now like to play both sides of the court. They want the perks of being "elected", then want to mini cash in on the employees good work. But, Mr. Furst is correct, not really a big deal in this case money wise,,,,,,,but policy wise,,,,,,,just maybe:)
Are the bonuses tied to any performance of any kind?
Considering the sort of treasonous representation we get from Prussing, the price seems too low. I would expect to pay much more for the disservice she provides to this city.
Yeah, we get it, "Anyone who opposes me is a traitor, blah blah blah, the voters have spoken and they are traitors to the voters, we should hang everyone except me so I can run the decaying wasteland of a city left over when I've killed everyone else, blah blah blah."
If John Farney had been elected City Clerk, at least he would have been honest enough not to accept this "bonus".
Thanks for the compliment.
However, after a week in South Carolina, returning home and finding that this is news makes me feel that I missed nothing newsworthy.
Well, well, well, unfortunately this is not a trivial matter.
The mayor of another local community in a local county accepted payment which was authorized by the city council for his doing maintenance work while the city maintenance man was on vacation. The amount was $600 (here it is $940). The council, not the city accountant authorized the payment. Even though it was approved, the States Attorney for that county recognized the law had been broken and the mayor was convicted of the felony as provided by state law of increasing his salary while in office. For all those bloggers, just look it up. The law is very clear, no elected public official shall increase his/her salary during the elected term. Only the State Legislature could have authorized her receiving that payment and increasing her salary.
The felony makes it impossible for the other mayor to run for any political office. Being convicted of increasing his salary was hardly a trivial matter to him.
Those payments are also bonuses or taxable income, did they receive any W-2 forms, that is proof of the increase in salary. If no W-2 form, why not, they are also committing the crime of income tax violations also.
It may not seem to be a big issue, but in the other county, the States Attorney convicted him. Seems like Julia has some issues here that other counties deem very important. I wonder if the same politics that Attorney General Ryan used when talking about Gov. Ryan will also take place in Champaign County. No matter, it will still be a matter for the Attorney General's office and the dice have already been cast by the other mayor's conviction.
Incidentally, that mayor offered to repay the $600 and it made no difference, he had committed the felony. He can't even get a Firearms ID card either.In the instant case, this bonus money was for city employees only and not for elected officials, both the Clerk and the Mayor have broken the law. The program was set up by Bruce Walden, so now we know at least one reason that he was fired. No one to watch the fox.
Michael, remember me saying something about this a long time ago and you wanted me to be specific. Well this was one of those issues. There are more.
Who I am, is who I want to be...
Rex Bradfield
Rex, a bonus is not an increase of salary if it is already part of the terms of employment. Since she is a regular employee of the city and eligible for the bonus, no felony has been committed. If you really believe there has been one committed, you'd be pursuing real action instead of slandering an elected official with accusations of a crime that does not exist. Classy. Got any more half-baked schemes to try and weasel your way to an elected office?
-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm
Arvid,
The terms of her employment are set by the State Statutes. She is not a regular employee of the City, because her salary cannot be increased by the City. Other employees can be increased, but she cannot received a salary increase during her term.
Not my scheme, is a fact. He was convicted by the State's Attorney. Say all you want, he was convicted and the penalty was imposed by a court. I sometimes think courts are a scheme, but that is just in jest.
She is not entitled to workman's compensation, she is an elected official who receives a statutory payment for her position. Did the City Council members get a bonus also? Nope, but they are paid for their meetings. She is a part time mayor and not entitled to workman's compensation, check out the office description. Are the Council members entitled to workman's compensation? I think not.
Sorry, if it is true it is not slander ( actually in this case libel, this is published on an open web site, no spoken), did you look up the statute, it is very clear. Check it out. That mayor who was convicted will certainly take exception to your suggestion his conviction is half-baked and a non existent crime.
And in response to your statement about bonuses. Try this, take a $10,000 bonus and don't declare it as income, see what happens.
Incidentally, it is not me who pursues violations of the law, it is Julia.
Oh, one other thing, the Mayor who was convicted mentioned in his defense that the Council had approved it, and he took them at their word as it being ok. The States Attorney said, it is entirely the responsibility of the elected official to adhere to the Laws and making an incorrect assumption based on the actions of others simply was not an adequate defense. Apparently that was the case, he is a felon.
Nice try, but it ain't so.
Who I am, is who I want to be...
Rex Bradfield
Rex, maybe you should read the article in question: "They are in our worker's comp program," Eldridge said. "They are considered full-time employees for worker's comp. If they have claims (of an on-the-job injury), they go in that. If they don't have any claims, they're part of the savings." The "they" in question being both the Mayor and the City Clerk. Also, "Eldridge added that the seven city aldermen did not receive a bonus and aren't covered by worker's compensation." And finally, "Prussing said she believes she is in full compliance with the law because ordinances establishing the worker's compensation bonus program and health insurance for city employees were in place before she assumed office."
So that meets all the requirements of the ILCS statute, which states in part that "All municipal officers, except as otherwise provided, shall receive the salary or other compensation that is fixed by ordinance." This is compensation, fixed by ordinance, that was enacted prior to Prussing's election. Finally, I don't believe Arvid was refering to your story regarding another town's mayor being found guilty (is there a story you could link to?) as "half-baked and a non existent crime"; the reference was to your accusations that Mayor Prussing has committed a crime in accepting this compensation. I don't understand why you're in such a tizzy about this.
One other thing's been bothering me in this thread: the "bonus" city employees received was in the form of coupons to be used at local businesses. It's not straight cash.
HG
As a city employee, I'd just like to add that it's a nice perk. Every year I (and all of my co-workers) look forward to getting the gift certificates. It really helps at Christmas time.
Rex wrote: " He was convicted by the State's Attorney."
If (a) the mayor who accepted the $600 did so in good faith and (b) the mayor offerred to pay back the money as soon it became clear that his acceptance violated the law, then the state's attorney should be voted out of office. If (a) and (b) apply, then I suspect there were political reasons for the state's attorney's prosecution and possibly the judge's convictiing.. Many more serious crimes are plea bargained. On the other hand, there be a history of minor misdeeds or questionable actions by this mayor and council, and the state's attorney used this opportunity to stop such.
You will need better stuff than this for your mayoral campaign.
Is ther any reason why you did not cite the specific community and the mayor involved in this incident ? An account must exist in the NG or some other newspapaer.
Michael Fuerst
The terms of her employment are set by the State Statutes. She is not a regular employee of the City, because her salary cannot be increased by the City. Other employees can be increased, but she cannot received a salary increase during her term.
Rex, it's not a salary increase, period. She *is* a regular, full-time employee of the city and is covered by workman's comp. Therefore, if all other full-time workers get this bonus, then so does she. Yes, a bonus is additional income and gets reported, but it's not a raise. Did you even read the article, or just saw "mayor" and "bonus" in the same paragraph, drew your own conclusions and came up with the wrong story?
If you have such little understanding about office of mayor for Urbana that you'd try to compare this situation to yet another one of your "folksy" history lessons (that you didn't even validate, so how do we know how much of the story we're getting, considering your marked lack for noticing detail) that doens't apply in this situation, you may want to reconsider against running, lest you be embarrassed in another election.
-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm
He was convicted by the State's Attorney.
Um, the State's Attorney can only prosecute. The judge or the jury can convict.
Thanks Michael,
He preferred I did not use his name and community as he is awaiting what this States attorney will do with this issue. They intend to use legal means to get a statement from Julia as to why she does or does not act. Hence, he remains anonymous by request, but he is comfortable with disclosing his plight.
The State's Attorney and the convicted Mayor were of the same Political Party, so I wonder if it was politically motivated. The States Attorney was re-elected.
Don't worry, there are other things, like maybe perk contracts for construction with significant change orders after award. Or maybe Re-modeling contracts to personal whims. Or maybe, Questionable expenses. It will be interesting.
History,
Here is my problem, I have reviewed the ordinances and I cannot find where the ordinances state anything else than the salary that the mayor receives as compensation for her duties. You are correct, that is the law, but I cannot find in the ordinances where it fixes both a monetary amount to be paid for the office of Mayor AND the workman's compensation for that office. If the City is paying into a compensation fund or paying compensation before that fund, then it had to be approved by an ordinance. As I read the ordinances, I have no reason to believe if she is unable to continue as the Mayor because of an accident on the job that she would not receive her office compensation, but not in addition to workman's compensation.
Additionally some of those involved with the initial concept of this fund were positive it was only for employees, not elected officials. I have been unable to find the ordinance that approved the concept and conception of the fund.
When you read the supplemental documents associated with the budget, I cannot see any workmen's compensation figures that indicate the mayor's office has been paying into the fund. in sufficient amounts to cover both her and the employees listed. Just make a $ comparison between the figures in that office and the other offices. The percentages do not balance and the contributions should be a standard percentage.
Have I missed something in the ordinances?
Anonymous, I agree it comes at the right time and is a great idea, but the person who conceived that idea is no longer with the City.
Why is that? Good ideas usually are properly rewarded.
Who I am, is who I want to be...
Rex Bradfield
wayward.....Correct-o-mundo
My mistake, thanks.
Arvid,
No I knew this nearly a year ago, the article did not precipitate my comments, this blog precipitated them. I had mentioned as such to Michael long ago. I chose to delay this issue until the proper time and not to confuse the voters with something that was not a part of the upcoming election. A courtesy.
Remember this and remember this well Arvid, if I did not think that I could do better than the present Mayor, then what would be my purpose in running? If I could not do a better job, then to suggest to the voters of Urbana, that I could do a better job would be simply lying. If I could not do the job, then I would not run for office. I have a great profession and unlike Mayor Prussing, I don't need to be Mayor for the prestige.
Do you think for one moment that my administration would tell (or force) the Citizens to scoop the city sidewalks in front of their house because it would help the handicapped because the City does not have the money to help them with that necessary convenience? Then in the next breath say the City was going to spend money they do not have on $2.8 million dollars of bike paths? Take the damned $2.8 million and help the handicapped by scooping the walks............ if the walks are that important ...........................and you have the money.
Take a look at the things I said would happen when I was running for State Rep. then compare those statements with what has actually happened. For instance, I suggested to the local unions that Naomi would not stand for their interests if she came under pressure. The unions simply stated they always supported the Democrat candidate and were sorry they could not support me. Recently, one of those unions ran a very expensive FULL page add in the News Gazette (big black and white letters) telling Naomi to get with the program......NOW. I didn't run the ad, but I suggested it would happen nearly two years ago. Apparently how to properly represent the Unions was not in the campaign book from which Naomi read her responses.
I ( and Tom A.) said a rate freeze was the wrong way to handle the power cost issue and to waste time with that concept would end up having the State lose its ability to lever a good settlement. Naomi, even introduced the rate freeze and lost the lever. Did the single rebate check you received from the power company cover your bills this summer?....... mine didn't. But if they had negotiated a time payment plan which the power companies wanted, it would have eased the pain.
Mayor Prussing wants to buy the utility companies. Now there is a novel idea. While she is at it, how about buying a petroleum company, that would help even more. Do you think for one moment I would even suggest buying a utility company was a solution to increasing rate costs? Read the City Budget and tell me how adding hundreds of millions of dollars of debt service would help an already deficient 29 million dollar budget.
I was worried that she unnecessarily spent all the police time and money trying to catch the turkeys, and I was REALLY worried it took a YEAR for her to capture them.
Search the internet and find me another City with a 40,000 population and a Mayor that wants to catch turkeys. Good luck.
No, I understand the office and I understand what has happened with that office.
Who I am, is who I want to be...
Rex Bradfield
Rex, your stunning inability to provide some definite information or background for your claims about a convicted mayor (presumably somewhere within Champaign County) is troubling, to say the least. You've posted twice now, and the posts amount to "I know this guy, he was convicted of a crime that I'm suggesting Prussing committed, but I'm not going to tell you his name or the town he was mayor in." Until you, or someone else, can link to a story or where to find the information, I'm gonna call shenanigans.
(and by the way, if this supposed mayor was convicted, what precisely do you and your friend suppose the current State's Attorney of Champaign County is able to do afterwards? Issue a pardon?)
As for this statement by you, "When you read the supplemental documents associated with the budget, I cannot see any workmen's compensation figures that indicate the mayor's office has been paying into the fund. in sufficient amounts to cover both her and the employees listed", I will, again, refer you to the article in question. Please read it. It states that "City employees don't pay for worker's compensation out of their paychecks. The city pays out claims from its self-insurance reserves, according to Ron Eldridge, the city's comptroller." You're not going to find any evidence of any city employee paying into the worker's compensation fund. That's because no one does.
The Mayor is a full-time city employee for the purposes of the worker's compensation program. She's covered just as much as the most junior receptionist. This is a bonus, not a salary increase, and it's set by ordinance, that was passed prior to Prussing being elected. Go find another windmill to tilt at.
HG
Elected officials cannot receive UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION based on wages earned during their tenure; those wages are not reported to the state on the quarterly reports. Workers' comp is a completely separate issue.
History,
For heaven's sake, what on earth could I benefit from by lying about this issue. I don't know what your personal standards are when someone asks you to do something, but mine is honor their requests. It is not stunning that I don't provide you with that information, he requested I not do it and I am doing the correct thing, namely honoring his request. When the campaign starts I am sure this individual will be helping me, and you will have the opportunity to just walk up and say he is lying and I am lying. I encourage you to do so, if you like, but I am sure you won't hear the answer you are suggesting, namely it did not happen.
Incidentally, I don't expect, Julia to issue any pardon, I was at the first part of his attempts to get Pardon Board to recommend to the Governor, to consider a pardon and the gathering of other facts like providing facts to show an inconsistent (possibly for political reasons, as Michael suggested) enforcement of the Statute for the pardon board to consider at a later date. Sorry, I understand the intent of your comment, but alas, I have already been involved in procedures far above Julia's authority. They just consider her opinion to be a presentable fact. My personal feelings are pretty much along the line of Michael's namely "vote the bum out" and if Julia thinks the same, then maybe a wrong could be righted. Here is the difference, the Mayor in question did provided a service according to the wishes of the Council and was paid for it. Prussing did something that had not been paid to other Mayors or Clerks, and was only available to salaried employees, not elected officials. What did she do to earn that bonus?
Second, you keep suggesting that the Mayor is a full time employee. I completely understand Ron's statement and also completely understand the underlying security pressures within the City on appointed employees. I am sure Ron believes, just as the other Mayor believed, he is right. I am not disputing the law, but the law says by Ordinance, and I cannot find that ordinance that clearly states the Mayor and City Clerk are entitled to this benefit and not the Council. Can you? If no Ordinance exists specifically addressing this benefit, then obviously it is not assigned by Ordinance, and is against the law.
Third, I did not suggest the Mayor paid into this fund, I suggested the Mayor's Office (look at the post) (Executive Branch) paid into this fund. There is clearly a line item in the budget attributed to Workman's Comp. I never suggested any City Employee paid into this fund.
I asked you for your help in determining just exactly what ordinance assigns that benefit to the Mayor and Clerk, but not the other elected officials. I looked and I cannot find it. Either the ordinance establishing the fund or the ordinance establishing the Mayor's pay (and Clerk) should include language to the effect of
"Others sections of the City ordinances make a clear and definite distinction between the Mayor (and clerk) and City Council members and other employees, for purposes of determining a fair compensation for the Mayor (and clerk), the City shall pay to the mayor an amount of $50,000 per year, provide all insurance benefits normally allowed City Employee's and the Mayor shall benefit from the workman's compensation fund and any excesses created thereof."
The conduct sections of the code clearly make a distinction between employees and elected officials, and I was wondering why that distinction did not carry over and also was only for select elected officials. A reasonable question. Hey, if I was a council member, I would love to get a Christmas bonus check, I ain't getting paid much for my time like the Mayor and Clerk and also need the money.
And finally, to your questions, workman's compensation is a benefit as required by State Law, the paying back of savings from that fund is a City Ordinance which is a "perk" to City employees. A really smart perk, I might add, that was Bruce Walden's idea. I love great ideas, but hate to have great ideas abused and quenched by their absence.
Anonymous,
Yep, workman's compensation is sort of an insurance that compensates any employee for his expenses and lost wages as a result of an on the job accident. Unemployment compensation is free money that is paid out of a tax fund to workers that have been laid off and meet the requirements. It has nothing to do with injury. On a side note, before the State got involved with unemployment compensation to the large degree at present, when you got hired by a company, that company would hold back your first pay check or maybe a couple of pay checks to make sure if you got fired, or laid off you had a cushion.
I understand your post and the possible confusion between the two benefits. Thanks for suggesting it.
Who I am, is who I want to be...
Rex Bradfield
Rex, I'm calling shenanigans on this as well. If he's a convicted felon, then this is a matter of public record and I should be able to find *something* online resembling this, which I can't. Since you can't provide any shred of evidence, your story must either be completely false, or you are covering up for this person because they are in a position where being a felon would be detrimental to their employment. I trust your opinion on local history that I can either verify or is just good to read, and engineering issues, but in this case you're either a liar or an abettor. Either way, you have no credibility on the matter, so provide some more information, or stop making up stories.
Also, your reading comprehension skills must be very lacking today, as the article clearly says"
"They are in our worker's comp program," Eldridge said. "They are considered full-time employees for worker's comp. If they have claims (of an on-the-job injury), they go in that. If they don't have any claims, they're part of the savings."
You ask why it only applies to select elected officials, and the article goes on to say:
Eldridge added that the seven city aldermen did not receive a bonus and aren't covered by worker's compensation.
Since being an alderman in Urbana is not a full-time job, they aren't covered. Earlier in this thread it was covered that the difference between Champaign and Urbana's mayors, specifically how Champaign's mayor is mainly ceremonial while Urbana's mayor runs the city. That's why she gets a salary commensurate with a full-time employee. She was hired on a 4-year contract by the people of Urbana that is up for renewal soon. Quit making this into something it isn't just because you think it will earn you points with the people for your candidacy.
I'd ask if there is there any part of that you did not understand, but I sense that would be an exercise in futility and result in another long-winded explanation that either involves "a friend I know had this happen to them, but I can't provide any corroborating evidence" or some folksy, home-spun tale full of analogies and allegories that don't match to the situation.
-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm
On July 28th, 2008 at 10:20 AM, RexBradfield said: History, For heaven's sake, what on earth could I benefit from by lying about this issue. Please see the next to last sentence in your first paragraph, namely "When the campaign starts I am sure this individual will be helping me..." Attempting to discredit your supposed opponent sounds like a benefit to lying.
Rex, you've been asked three times to provide some independant verification or documentation concerning your story regarding the former mayor of some town that was convicted of some crime. You haven't done so, yet. Until you, or someone else does, I will continue to call shenanigans. And just so we're clear, until that verification occurs, I choose to consider your story just that, a story, with no basis in fact. If you want to take that as me calling you a liar, I'm ok with that.
What is stunning to me is that you use this story, a story you say is based on a friends experience, to somehow imply that Prussing is guilty of something and should/would/might be charged with a crime. Then, when pressed for details on this story, you claim that your friend asked that "[you] don't provide [me] with that information, he requested I not do it and I am doing the correct thing, namely honoring his request." But you went ahead and told a watered-down version of that story anyway. Do you not see the disconnect here?
HG
Mr. Bradfield, since it has been said that you are considering running for mayor, and as such you would be soliciting the support and votes of those of us who are opposed to the reelection of Urbana's Mayor, it is time for you to present some verification, since we can't seem to discover it ourselves. I would prefer a candidate for mayor who stuck to a more positive campaign, but if there are legal improprieties, it is fitting that you point them out, and supply the information. These are serious charges that you alluding to. Surely you dont want your critics to be given any unfair advantage, and you dont want to discourage potential supporters.
Regnad, Arvid and History
As I said, he asked me not to disclose his name and the place as he has to live there. Be patient and when the time is right, you will get to ask him directly. Presently, there are other issues that are a part of this mater involving State Agencies and my disclosing his name or the place may jepordize those efforts. Just ask yourself this question, if you told me not to use your name and other facts and I did, would you think I was honorable? This is not about my efforts to be elected, it is about wrong doing.
Incidentally he is aware of my statement and he approves them. I did not tell a watered down version, it is what he is comfortable with. Nope, no disconnect.
So here is what I request, when the time comes and you are actually aware of the facts, I expect all of you to post in the blog a statement that you strongly did not believe me in earlier posts but now with the facts what I said was true and I was correct and you apologize for your unfair statements at that time. Fair enough? I would make a counter offer to post differently, but I know it is true. I even have some of the court papers in my possession that prove it.
I view the fact that your efforts to find out the particulars are not successful as my being successful in honoring his request. It is his life, and if you were in the same position and saw another mayor do essentially the same thing, and not be convicted wouldn't you like to get at least some of the general facts before the general public in hopes of maybe showing the inconstancy in the enforcement with the law?
That has worked because in political defense of Prussing, all your statements are pointing out the inconstancy.
Now, I have repeatedly asked if anyone can find the ordinance that supports the Mayor's and Ron's statement. If it exists and there is an ordinance that specifically assigns the workman's compensation and fund benefits to the Mayoral office compensation, then just post it. If not, then by History's statement, it is not assigned by ordinance and is to be considered additional income, which is illegal. Also, I view the statement that the Mayor of Urbana runs the City as being a little slanted and position supporting because, according to the online ordinance, Urbana is Mayor, Council and Administrative Officer form of Government.
The duties of the Administrative Officer include, but are not limited to:
"To direct the general operations and business of all departments and divisions of the city, and to
provide for communications within the city among the various departments and divisions, and to
provide for coordinated planning of the various activities and duties thereof, provided that
nothing herein shall be construed to remove direction and supervision vested in the city treasurer
or city clerk by statute or ordinance, nor shall this division be construed as altering the lawful
powers and duties of the mayor"
The Administrative Officers position is responsible for "Running the City" (general operations), hence the part time Mayor definition. But for some reason, in direct conflict with the Ordinances, we have not had an Administrative officer for a year. As a matter of fact, if this issue had occurred when we had an Administrative Officer that decision would have been the the budget director duties of the Administrative officer, not the comptroller. I wonder if it had already been decided (differently) when we had an Administrative Officer? Hmmmmmm.
Why didn't Todd Satherwaite get these benefits? Why didn't the previous clerk get these benefits? Remember, if they are not entitled to these benefits, then both the Mayor and Clerk are increasing their salary against state law. Where is the ordinance language that says the Council is not entitled and the Mayor AND Clerk are? All I am asking for is the same thing Julia would ask for, .........the Ordinance. If Todd was also entitled to those benefits, why didn't he get a check for the back payments also? Why didn't the previous clerk get a check also?
Regnad,
Thank you for the civility of your response and questions. Very nice. Thanks.
Yes exactly, they are serious charges. When you are a convicted felon you use a lot of your rights. No gun cards, no office, it is really a bad deal.
My friend was absolutely stunned at the turn of events, but also remember he had even a more strong case because the Council supported him, not just the Comptroller. (and he DOES have a copy of the resolution)
My heart tells me both he and Prussing made mistakes that are similar in many ways, but substantially different in others and if he was charged and convicted, at the very least, Prussing should be charged. Then if she is successful in her defense, he can also appeal for pardon on his conviction using her defense and exoneration as legal proof.
"Surely you dont want your critics to be given any unfair advantage, and you dont want to discourage potential supporters."
Exactly, you have read my posts in this site before and I NEVER post without satisfying myself of substantial validity.
Arvid,
You of all people should know I NEVER duck a question, but I strongly stand for my principles or the principles of equal treatment of all.
You made the statement and all I want to know is:
What are the terms of that 4-year contract we and the City approved, and did it specifically include workman's compensation benefits and the "Bonus" feature of that benefit? Help me find the Ordinance.
All this discussion will end if the ordinance exists. Very simple. I can't find it in the 614 page copy I have.
Who I am, is who I want to be...
Rex Bradfield
What Arvid said...source your story or don't expect people to accept it
anonymous
Given the history of politicians in this area, I truly would be surprised if they did believe me. Honesty and integrity are in short supply in the political arena. As I have said before unlike my professions, the most important job of most local politicians is being most important (at all sacrifice of integrity). So everyone uses the jaundice eye to political advantage and immediately say liar. Look at Prussing and her comment as to why she fired Bruce Walden "it is personal" Did anyone believe that? No and for good reason. Bruce was doing such a bad job for Urbana that he was immediately hired by Champaign, and personal is not in the Urbana Ordinance.
If she itemized why he was fired and pointed out his shortcomings, I would have had more faith in her reasons. (That is exactly why I gave more detail on the other Mayor, but it failed)
(See what I said about politicians and how we don't believe them for good reason)
And also the last thing I would expect of any those who have commented so vigorously against my truthfulness is a public admission of their incorrectness and my integrity. It just won't happen. And I don't view that as something bad. But I suggested it, just to be on the record.
But as I said, even with your courteous request, I will remain honorable to his request. I was even tempted to offer any of them the opportunity to come and look at the papers, on their promise of not disclosing it, but simply saying they saw my proof. Not to worry, I came to my senses and realized that honoring a non disclosure request is not something they hold in great esteem (see the ignoring of my statement to that effect), His name and location would soon be public knowledge, so I will take the heat and wait.
You will notice that I did not suggest that Ron was lying, I simply said, he might have made a mistake thinking there was an ordinance. Just as others have suggested proof from me, I am asking for proof of the ordinance. The difference is, my request will not hurt anyone or violate any trust. It is public record. Count on no one bringing forward that Ordinance (or more likely the admission it does not exist), it will not serve the purpose of their comments. I can live with that also.
It will probably be shortly after the November election that I will really start with bill boards and radio ads, and by that time, this issue will be resolved by the other Mayor. I will simply post here and let everyone know, the name and what happened. The computers will smoke looking it up and then there will be silence. But keep your eye out, I will let everyone know.
Also recognize that when statements to the effect of if you are worried about it, do something are dangerous statements which are good reading but NOT what they want me to do. I could and am considering filing a legal action in court that would require the production of the ordinance supporting Ron's statement. His word means nothing without that ordinance and .....well you can see where that would go. Be careful of what you wish for.
Remember, one of the authors of the original idea said it did not include anyone but City Employees and not Elected Officials. (That also was ducked)
When you read these posts, always look at the request that is being ducked. Look at my request to simply provide the ordinance, and how everyone is ducking that question. Easier to kill the messenger than to fight the army.
Attorneys have a saying:
"If your case is strong on the law, argue with the law. If your case is strong on the evidence, argue with the evidence. If neither is very strong, fire all guns and make a lot of smoke"
I hear gunfire. But it is a usually successful tactic. The issue is whether Prussing was breaking the law, but even you have fallen into the trap as the issue is whether I am being truthful. My being truthful has nothing to do with the law or Prussing taking the bonus, she is either entitled to the bonus by ordinance, or she is breaking the law. See how that works? Don't answer the question, set up the smoke.
Politics as usual, but trust me, I know how the game is played now, and I post these things with great forethought, usually knowing the response.
Read other blogs and you will see when I post there is a lot of people who want to discredit me and fire the guns loudly because of the threat I pose.
Usually the blogs do not get such angry and viement language as when I post.
Thanks for you observations, and courtesy.
Who I am, is who I want to be...
Rex Bradfield
As an insider, I happen to know that CAO Walden advised Prussing as both he and City Attorney Steve Holz advised Tod Satterthwaite-the law prohibits the Mayor from granting themselves a bonus. In this case a cash card bonus of $1000. Shame on her. She should pay it back but the Council is not willing to to provide any oversight in the absence of a CAO/Budget Officer. Absolute power corrupts-absolutley...
Absolute power corrupts-absolutley...
...but it rocks absolutely, too!
-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm
Anonymous 07:42 PM
Thanks, as you probably suspect, your statement is also not new news to me, but I was hesitant to disclose it now in order to protect some of those involved that still have dealings with the City/Mayor.
From reading the state Statutes 65 ILCS 5/3.1‑50‑15, it is very clear that an entirely separate Ordinance was REQUIRED to allow this. I do not recall any such ordinance. Again, no separate Ordinance, no bonus.
Oh one other thing, I really dislike the Anonymous signatures in this blog, but in your case I know that anything but that signature would make you an "outsider" and damned quick.
Again, thanks for your help, I have to be very careful about disclosing how I get this information. There are many who as Regnad Kcin said above, are strongly opposed to the present Mayor, but also have to tread very lightly. Sadly, Vindictiveness is not an unfamiliar solution in the present Administration.
Again, thank you. Please don't be surprised when you see the posts that say they don't believe you either. You have said something that doesn't support their position. Hear the roar of the cannons?
Who I am, is who I want to be...
Rex Bradfield
I have always understood that elected officials are not employees, and therefore, do not receive the annual increases that employees receive. Employees can be reviewed and terminated--you can only do that with elected officials at the ballot box. I don't think that, if injured, the mayor could claim work comp benefits, since she's not an employee, but I could be wrong on that. If she can't file for work comp, then she clearly couldn't qualify for any benefits associated with savings in that fund. The bigger question, in my opinion, is the mind-set of an elected official who can't wait to find and take advantage of whatever perks she can find (regardless of the size of the perk).
Here is the first paragraph of the Health and Safety Act. EMPLOYMENT (820 ILCS 225/) Health and Safety Act. (820 ILCS 225/.01) (from Ch. 48, par. 137.01) Sec. .01. As used in this Act: "Department" means the Department of Labor. "Director" means the Director of Labor. "Employee" means every person in the service of: the State, including members of the General Assembly, members of the Illinois Commerce Commission, members of the Workers' Compensation Commission, and all persons in the service of the public universities and colleges in Illinois; an Illinois county, including deputy sheriffs and assistant State's attorneys; or an Illinois city, township, incorporated village or school district, body politic, or municipal corporation; whether by election, under appointment or contract, or hire, express or implied, oral or written. "Public employer" or "employer" means the State of Illinois and all political subdivisions. (Source: P.A. 95‑623, eff. 9‑17‑07.)
Anonymous:
Thanks for the post, interesting stuff.
Makes me wonder on a few of things:
1. Why aren't the council members included?
2. Why would a City Attorney say differently? Seems like there must be something else.
3. Workman's Compensation and bonuses on based on provision methods are two different issues, one is insurance, the other is increasing salary. It does not make any difference if it is a cash card, or cash, it is still income. Sounds like a duck, quacks like a duck...........
The real issue here is not the workman's compensation, it is the bonuses. They had to be assigned to the Mayor and Clerk by a separate Ordinance and they weren't
and
4. When Both the City Attorney and then CAO told the Mayor she was not entitled to the bonus, why did she ask again after there was no CAO? I remember not getting the answer I wanted from my Mom and asking others until I got the answer I wanted, do you?
Hmmmmmm.
Who I am, is who I want to be...
Rex Bradfield
Some of your questions were answered earlier, but what the hell...
1. Why aren't the council members included?
Because they're not full-time employees protected by the workman's comp program by ordinance.
2. Why would a City Attorney say differently? Seems like there must be something else.
When did the City attorney say they weren't entitled? I'm not willing to take an anonymous poster with zero citation's word for it. But then again, we're apparently just supposed to trust any half-crocked posting with no proof that comes along because it sounds like what you want to hear.
3. Workman's Compensation and bonuses on based on provision methods are two different issues, one is insurance, the other is increasing salary. It does not make any difference if it is a cash card, or cash, it is still income. Sounds like a duck, quacks like a duck...........
And maybe if you keep barking up the wrong tree, people will give up and just believe you. Perhaps you should also take issue with her getting $916 for declining health insurance. Using your definitions, that increased her salary too! It's a veritable scandal, I tells ya! Go tell it on the mountain, Rex!!!!
The real issue here is not the workman's compensation, it is the bonuses. They had to be assigned to the Mayor and Clerk by a separate Ordinance and they weren't
Rex, for the last time, no. they. don't. Your challenge has been answered, yet you're still barking up this tree. If they're entitled to benefits of a regular employee, except where otherwise noted, then they are entitled to this without a separate ordinance that deliniates it. You do understand the concept being used here, right?
When Both the City Attorney and then CAO told the Mayor she was not entitled to the bonus, why did she ask again after there was no CAO? I remember not getting the answer I wanted from my Mom and asking others until I got the answer I wanted, do you?
And when did that happen? When did she ask, was told she was not entitled, and then asked again after the CAO left? That's not in the article, and once again, I'm not going to take the word of a supposed insider who has such a juicy piece of news about this, but chooses to leak it exclusively on Illini Pundit. Color me skeptical, but I don't buy into rumor and innuendo quite so easily as you.
-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm
Workman's Compensation and bonuses on based on provision methods are two different issues, one is insurance, the other is increasing salary. It does not make any difference if it is a cash card, or cash, it is still income. Sounds like a duck, quacks like a duck...........
Do you know what the word "salary" means? A bonus is definitively not part of a salary. That's why it's a "bonus."
Look up the wording in other statutes regarding compensation. When they intend to include all monetary compensation, they use language like, "salaries, fees, perquisites, benefit of compensation in any form whatsoever." Sadly, the statute you cited makes no such mention.
On July 28th, 2008 at 09:37 PM, RexBradfield said: From reading the state Statutes 65 ILCS 5/3.1‑50‑15, it is very clear that an entirely separate Ordinance was REQUIRED to allow this. I do not recall any such ordinance. Again, no separate Ordinance, no bonus.
Like ThoughtPolice posted, the ILCS chapter you cite reads:
It only speaks to how members of corporate authorities are to be compensated, annually or for attendence at meetings (and reimbursement for expenses); it doesn't say anything about salary or other compensation. You might want to read 65 ILCS 5/3.1‑50‑5, which states that municipal officers shall receive the salary and other compensation fixed by ordinance. Also read Urbana's Code of Ordinances, Section 2-44: The salary, fees or other compensation of all appointed municipal officers and employees of the city shall be established by the annual budget ordinance of the city in the manner authorized by law. The Mayor is, for the purposes of worker's compensation, an employee of the city (from Anon's posting) and is entitled to the protections and benefits of the City's worker's compensation program.
Every time the City Council passes a budget, it is passed as an ordinance. Essentially, everything in the budget, every program and expense and revenue is ratified (or renewed) every time the budget is passed. Since 1993, Urbana has used their current worker's compensation program, and every budget since at least 2000-2001 includes it (that's the earliest budget Urbana offers online). That means the worker's compensation program is a part of the larger budget ordinance.
Rex, you seem to continually mistake and confuse the concepts of salary, bonus, and income. The Mayor's salary is fixed by ordinance; the Mayor also receives, when applicable, the bonus distributed from the worker's compensation program; both are income, and both are reported as such on tax returns, for example. But the bonus is not an increase in the Mayor's salary. It's not, no matter how much you try and say it is, it's just not. You confuse the two in your posting here: 3. Workman's Compensation and bonuses on based on provision methods are two different issues, one is insurance, the other is increasing salary. It does not make any difference if it is a cash card, or cash, it is still income. Yeah, it's income, but it's not a salary increase. The words "salary" and "bonus" are not synonyms, they're not interchangable. They're completely seperate concepts. In the quoted sentence above, you use the two interchangable, and they're not.
By the way, this thread is not some example of "If you're being shot at, you must be doing something right". You're factually wrong, demonstrably wrong, when it comes to the legality of this program, the inclusion of the Mayor and City Clerk, the various ILCS chapters and city ordinances dealing with salary and other compensation, and you're apparently unable to distinguish between the concepts of salary and bonuses.
You're going to need better, much better, material than this if you decide to run for Mayor.
HG
History
"in a manner authorized by law"
65 ILCS 5/3.1‑50‑10
"They may fix the salary of all officers who hold elective office for a definite term in an ordinance other than the appropriation or budget ordinance"
Nope can't do it with the budget. Did you find the separate ordinance, I still haven't.
"The mayor's salary is fixed by ordinance" Where is the ordinance and what was it fixed to in 2006 or 2007, and how did they know what the bonus would be at the end of the year?
Is that better?
Arvid,
Throughout the law the term "fix or fixed" is used. That bonus is a sliding scale bonus dependent on the claims during the year. It was not the same for 2006 as it was for 2007. That is hardly fixed. Clearly the State law was not allowing any "wiggle room" for Big Bounses and require the Cities to just do a separate Ordinance fixing the salaries.
Lets say the City had absolutely no claims and the bonuses amounted to $10,000....let's see.....the budget says $50,000 is allocated, and she gets $50,000 + $10,000, yep, that is fixed.
Just post the ordinance that says she is entitled to the fixed salary of $50,000 plus workman's compensation bonus. It is that simple.
Who I am, is who I want to be...
Rex Bradfield
Nope can't do it with the budget. Did you find the separate ordinance, I still haven't.
Wow...this is really bad. Did you actually read the statute you quoted from? What's the sentence that IMMEDIATELY precedes the one you quoted? Oh, right, it's: The corporate authorities of a municipality may fix the salaries of all municipal officers and employees in the annual appropriation or budget ordinance.
Rex, if you can't understand that "bonus" is not the same thing as "salary", this conversation can proceed no further.
I do urge you, however, to make your "findings" here public knowledge. Take it to WCIA, WICD, the News-Gazette or anybody else who will listen to you. If you have irrefutable evidence that the Mayor of Urbana has committed a felony through her office, they should be willing to listen. The fact that the only place I'm hearing about any potential felony issues is here does not lend credibility to your claims in the least.
-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm
Thought,
I did read that, "municipal officers and employees in the annual appropriation or budget ordinance." it applies only municipal officers and employees, not elected officials (the sentence as I quoted) but as I said, how can they possibly fix the salary with the annual budget, if the bonus is dependent on the claims during the year. It absolutely requires a separate ordinance. Otherwise it gives politicians an open check book. They get a dollar salary fixed and a $50,000 bonus granted to themselves. I hope you are not implying that fix and some sliding scale unknown "bonus" amount can be given simply by the city comptroller who is appointed by the Mayor.
Arvid,
Same thing, are you implying that she can get any amount of money without any approval over and above her budgeted salary? Why bother with the State Statue in that concept. I would just have the City of pay me $1 fixed salary, then create a bonus for myself every year in the budget.
Here is the point, from what we have read here, especially the post by 01:37 PM, Anonymous concerning the definition of employee, it seems clear that not only are the Mayor and Clerk entitled to workman's compensation, but clearly the council "whether by election" is also entitled to those benefits. Providing of course that no other provision exists in that act he/she cited that eliminates someone.
There is no doubt that workman's compensation as the State views it is a form or insurance, either purchased or self insured fund. It does not include any benefits for creative book keeping or any monetary compensation other than as allowed by law for an injury. Subsequently, as we have read here, both Bruce and the City Attorney were correct in their interpretation of whether the bonus should be allowed. They were considering the bonus as increasing the fixed amount of money to be paid the Mayor salary which would be in violation of the law. That was the only consideration.
They were saying the law provides you with a fixed, not changing, or variable amount of compensation for your position as a particular elected official and you cannot exceed that amount until your term expires. I have glanced through the State statute concerning workman's compensation, and I cannot find any provision implied or defined by workman's compensation for accounting bonuses or payments to individuals other than those associated with injury or accident.
The Mayor recently is trying to get a 15% pay raise. If she could get the pay increase by simply taking a "bonus" which you say is not covered by salary fix or the law, then why expose herself to the criticism of the pay raise. Just have Ron cut the check or say it was a common bonus allowed to any employee for exemplary performance.
Here is the successful argument the State made in the case of the other Mayor. He could have accepted that $600 without violation of the law, if he accepted it after the completion of his term. A couple of latin phrases that mean, Municipal laws cannot supersede State law except in certain instances (allowable home rule). He did not wait and therefore was indicted and convicted of violation of 65 ILCS 5/Art. 3.1 Div. 50 in the Municipal Code for increasing his salary in the time of his term.
Todd S. is not taking his bonus, because he knows he is not allowed that check. He knows it because just as 07:42 PM, Anonymous, that lying S.O.B. (your words, not mine) said...He was (non-existently, your implication) told it was not allowed by Bruce and Steve and did two things that Prussing did not do. 1. Accepted their opinion. 2. Kept them under employment.
What would you like for 07:42 PM, Anonymous to do to satisfy you? Maybe post with his real name (which I do, do you?), post his position with the City and not worry about Prussing firing him? Why certainly she is not vindictive, how many have been fired.......Lets see, do we have a CAO......Hmmmmm, how about the attorney, has he changed also...Hmmmmmmm. Yeah, he is probably lying.
Step back and look at your arguments.
You are saying that salary and bonus are not the same in the eyes of the State Statute, it is perfectly acceptable for any Elected Public Official to accept a fixed salary of any amount for the term, but when the State made the law, they did not include any form or bonus in that fixed amount, so any bonus any time is perfectly acceptable.
You are saying when the State said "fixed" they did not actually mean "fixed" in its purest form, they mean fixed subject to any other non salary bonuses.
I don't agree.
And finally, one of the things you and History (and others) do, is fail to read between the lines of my posts and try and nit pick minor details without recognizing what I do know. For instance compare what I said just before the "Hmmmmm" in my July 28th, 2008 at 02:17 PM post, and compare that to the lie (your words, not mine) by anonmyous On July 28th, 2008 at 07:42 PM. Now, I do not know who that post is from, but Gordy can certainly confirm it is not me. You both should step back and say, how did two people know the same damned lie. Or more possibly, could it be true?
Oh, I am going to see that former Mayor on another matter in the upcoming weeks, and I would be glad to have Gordy present and ask him for you to confirm whether the Mayor was a fellon for the reasons I have disclosed. If Gordy were to say, he met the fellow and confirmed my statement, BUT still not disclose the name, place or time. Would you believe Gordy, or would he just be another anti Prussing liar.
Who I am, is who I want to be...
Rex Bradfield