New Haven Independent

Long-Term “Double Dippers” Under Scrutiny

by Paul Bass | April 9, 2009 11:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (30)

Neil Avallone started working for the city in 1961, retired in 1993 — and promptly returned as a part-time “consultant.” He hasn’t left since.

Avallone’s boss considers him an indispensable trouble-shooter and devoted public servant; he even checked in with the office from a recent Italian cruise in case there were any glitches in the city’s computer systems.

“I love the city of New Haven. I love this department,” Avallone said the other day. He called city government his “second love — my wife is my first.”

Avallone (pictured), 66, is also what’s known as a “double-dipper.” He collects a pension. And he receives a paycheck for continuing to work for the city on an indefinite basis.

He’s not alone.

Since Mayor John DeStefano’s election in 1993, he has been renewing contracts annually with higher-paid management employees who retired and then returned to City Hall or the schools department as de facto high-level staffers.

They are required to do work not performed by union members. In most cases they can’t officially work more than 19 hours a week.

In one case, the mayor had a double-dipper holding a top executive post for more than a decade on a perennially renewed “temporary contract.”

A bill before New Haven’s aldermanic Finance Committee targets the practice. It would require retiree/ consultants to forgo collecting their pensions while working on city contracts. Click here to read the bill, which was sponsored by Aldermen Jorge Perez, Andrea Jackson-Brooks, Allan Brison, and Robert Lee.

The bill was introduced after city unions raised the issue in an effort to preserve members’ jobs in the current wave of layoffs.

Double-dipping extends to blue-collar seasonal jobs as well as to white-collar offices.

Neil Avallone is paid $65 an hour on top of his $60,900 pension. Since 2000, he has been paid $542,975.75 for his services, according to the city. Avallone regularly works closer to 25 or 30 hours a week, though he’s paid for only 19, according to city Controller Mark Pietrosimone. Pietrosimone said Avallone’s expertise and hard work have helped hold together a crucial part of the city bureaucracy, the Information Technology department, through waves of management departures and computer upgrades.

Brian McGrath, a veteran Democratic Party vote-puller, said he’s been receiving $4,100 a month under various contracts since he retired four years ago as the city’s traffic czar. He collects a $57,810 annual pension.

Over at the school board, perennial “consultants” and retired administrators Eugene Vitelli and Joseph Montagna collect $103,604 and $74,383 pensions each year from the Connecticut Teachers Retirement Board, according to Assistant Administrator Leanne Appleton. Meanwhile, the city has paid Vitelli $255,691 since 2000; Montagna, $107,492 since 2004.

New Haven, like municipal governments across the country (especially school systems), has come to see retired employees as low-cost, high-quality help for troubled budgetary times.

Some aldermen question the practice of relying on that help as a permanent solution or handing out two paychecks to one employee.

Rather than seeking to impose a specific solution — or single out any contract workers — the point of the bill is to highlight a practice that has been going on for years and see whether it makes sense as long-term policy, argued Alderman Perez.

He asked whether reliance on consultants to hold top staff positions for years at a time is the best “long-term way to do business.”

Neil Avallone, for instance, has been repeatedly filling in for, then replacing, managers who last no longer than two years on the job — continually solving short-term crises that stem from apparent institutional challenges.

Perez wants the DeStefano administration to provide a detailed list of part-time consultants as part of deliberations on the bill.

“We’re not going after people working 19 hours and making $10 an hour, the way the administration makes it appear,” Perez said.

In Neil Avallone’s case, for instance, he has been repeatedly filling in for, then replacing, managers who last no longer than two years on the job.

“If we need somebody, they should get one salary for the 15 years,” Alderwoman Jackson-Brooks said. “I just don’t see why we pay people double.”

Because, Brian McGrath argued, he could just as easily work at McDonald’s. And the city needs him.

Flipping Utilities, Not Burgers

McGrath (pictured) retired four years ago after 33 years in city government. He has worked on several part-time contracts since then, while holding a second job, running the Chapel West Special Services District.

Last year he had a $50,000 contract to “provide daily assistance” to his old department, traffic and parking, for up to 21 hours a week. He agreed to review challenges to parking tickets, “analyze enforcement data,” “provide staff support as needed to the group supervisor,” “review … ordinances and other group protocols,” “assist with resource allocation.”

That contract is done. These days the city pays the hardworking McGrath to track down shoddy road work by utilities and help craft a plan to get them to pay for repairs.

“The utilities have been digging a lot of holes in the street. They’ve been costing the city millions of dollars a year in repairs,” McGrath said. “I intend to go out and find all the holes that are no good.”

McGrath was asked if he agrees with the bill’s sponsors that he should give up his city pension while drawing a city paycheck.

“That’s kind of ludicrous,” he responded. “I put in 33 years, every week. I earned my pension. I worked like a dog.”

After 31 years, a city employee has no incentive to stay on the job, he argued. Because at that point the employee has “maxed out” on how much he or she will receive in pension benefits. “Anything after that, you’re wasting your time,” he said. “You can make more money working at McDonald’s and getting” 70 percent of the former city salary in a pension check.

“Then go to McDonald’s,” Alderwoman Jackson-Brooks said when told of McGrath’s argument. “If you’re retired, you’re retired. You shouldn’t get both at the same time.”

McGrath said he works for the city as a consultant, rather than at McDonald’s, “because it just so happens my expertise” is needed in government.

He was asked if the city should consider changing a system that gives workers an incentive to cash out, then return to the job to collect two checks instead of one.

“They’re not going to change the system,” he said. “This resolution [before the aldermen] is not going to pass. I question the motivation.”

Back To School

Eugene Vitelli has had a series of assignments since his retirement from the school system. These days he’s at the central office helping trouble-shoot and craft policy, said the school system’s chief administrative officer, Will Clark.

“He is very good at understanding the rules of the Board of Education, the rules of the State Board of Education, budgeting,” Clark said. “He’s someone you can send if there’s a problem in this school, that school. You can send him right in, mentor the principal, report back.” Vitelli served on the committee that reviewed the system’s policy toward bullying. “He knows the list of all the problems we’ve had for years now,” Clark said.

Joseph Montagna, who retired as principal of Fair Haven Middle School, is on assignment at Katherine Brennan School. The West Rock school is part of a two-building campus (including the former Clarence Rogers School building). The principal there was out ill for a while. Plus, “that’s a school that needs to improve,” Clark said. For all those reasons, Clark said, the system needed his “steady hand” and “experience” in “understanding how to run a building.”

The longer-range policy challenge is finding and keeping good administrators. Clark said New Haven’s school system faces the same shortage of “highly qualified administrators” that its counterparts confront around the country. He noted that Hartford’s school leaders are asking for a change in state law that will make it easier to bring retirees back on staff full-time without sacrificing their pensions.

Defenders of the double-dipping practice note that, at least with the schools, administrators’ pensions come from the state teachers retirement fund, not from city coffers.

“Whether it’s the state [or the city] paying for, it still coming out of our pockets,” argued Alderman Perez.

Last Man Standing?

Neil Avallone’s office in the Information Technology department feels like the set of Survivor, a bureaucratic island where most of the characters have been voted off. But the work still needs to get done.

Asked why the city would continue relying on a retired part-time consultant to fill what seems like a permanent job for 16 years running, Avallone and Controller Pietrosimone each described a department that has gone through continual change and upheaval.

Avallone retired from the department — then known as the Office of Management and Information Systems — under former Mayor John Daniels during another budget crisis, in the early ’90s. The city was cutting jobs. It encouraged people to retire, offering them lifetime medical benefits for early retirees.

Not only did Avallone retire. So did the two managers he reported to, the unit’s manager as well as the city’s deputy controller.

The city needed someone around who understood the largely paper-based, patchwork system of record-keeping for payroll and other budgeting matters. Avallone came right back, part time on a consultant’s contract, to run the office until a new manager could be found.

The department evolved over the next 16 years. Its name changed a few more times, as did its methods. It gradually moved from in-house, old-school record-keeping systems geared to 13 unions and 15 different pay groups — keypunch cards, reams of candy-striped paper reports — to more modern software-based systems designed by outside companies.

At each step, especially with the approach of Y2K and the need for an overhaul of the computer system, the department desperately needed Avallone’s services.

Meanwhile, it needed Avallone to train each new manager, according to Pietrosimone (pictured). No sooner would the job be done — than the manager would quit. Then the department needed Avallone was needed to fill in until a replacement could be found. Then he was needed to train the new guy…

“We had,” Pietrosimone reflected, “transitional issues.”

Avallone trained his first permanent replacement, Carl Ahern, in 1993. Ahern was gone in 1994. “He got frustrated one day and went to Utah,” Avallone recalled with a shrug.

Why do managers keep passing through the revolving door so quickly?

“I don’t know,” Avallone said. “They get disgusted. Maybe it’s pressure. Sometimes they can do a job on the outside making more money.”

They work in a continually shrinking workplace. Avallone said he had upwards of 40 coworkers when he started out in the department in the 1960s. Now the department has four people on contract, seven on staff.

One staffer is in charge of the city’s website, one in charge of geographic information systems (mapping). “One person supports tax and assessment systems. Only one!” Avallone remarked, pointing a finger in the air for emphasis. The remaining skeleton crew continually assumes new responsibilities.

Which doesn’t faze Avallone. He has kept up with changes in technology. His current contract shows him responsible for providing advice and help in improving and running the city’s MUNIS financial system, payroll security functions, “back-up and redundancy planning,” scouting out hardware for upgrades, assessing financial software.

“If they had to bring in anyone to fill my shoes, you’re talking upwards of $65,000, $80,000,” plus pension benefits, Avallone said.

While officials tackle the question of whether to look at the root causes of relying on retirees to carry out quasi-permanent jobs, Avallone is happy to continue plugging the gaps at least into the next decade.

“I’d like to go for 50 years,” he said. “If it doesn’t happen, it doesn’t happen. If they said, ‘Neil, you’re not going to get another contract,’ I’d still take calls.”

Share this story

Share |

Comments

Posted by: fedupwithliberals | April 9, 2009 11:32 AM

I'd be smiling to if I hit the patronage jackpot!

Posted by: Borist | April 9, 2009 11:50 AM

$65.00 an hr what a crock. You mean to tell me with all these colleges around we cant find anybody to do this work.When you retire you stay retired,give somebody else with a family a chance to earn a living.

Posted by: END The WASTE | April 9, 2009 11:51 AM

In light of the recession and budget cuts, this area of waste is a prime candidate for review. It appears that Mr. Avallone began work at the City at age 18. What education does he possess to warrant such a pay rate?? A new college graduate seems like a great candidate to fill the position.
Thank you

Posted by: jeffreykerekes | April 9, 2009 12:21 PM

$4100/mo to drive around and look for potholes? Give me a break. Ben Berkowitz's seeclickfix.com is free and people can report potholes there. I saw a DPW worker sleeping in a van the other day during street sweeping. Why pay McGrath $4100/mo for pot hole detection? Is this really that advanced that we need his "expertise"?

Posted by: lance | April 9, 2009 12:24 PM

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Hey wait a minute, isn't that the clown who was bringing "special" people to the polls an making them vote for Obama? Forget what I said.

Posted by: Alphonse Credenza | April 9, 2009 12:44 PM

Loves the city? Who wouldn't, when it has been an incredible sugar-daddy!

Posted by: Arch Street | April 9, 2009 12:49 PM

I understand alders Perez and Brooks argument.. it doesn't LOOK right. However the fact of the matter is these part-time consultants are more cost effective COMPARED to hiring a full time union worker making $55,000-$60,000+ benefits and eventually their pension.

I bet if McGrath was bringing those voters in support of Perez and Brooks they wouldn't be bringing this to the spotlight. This ladies and gentlemen is the TRUTH round the bill. Its political.. Find other real solutions to save in the budget then this!

Posted by: Charlie | April 9, 2009 1:32 PM

I agree with Arch Street. If Avallone or McGrath left, the city would need to pay someone to do their jobs. Those workers would probably be paid more, need training, and be less effective. The bottom line is BOTH the pensions AND the positions will be paid, whether Avallone does the job or not. I actually think the city saves money using these guys. And I would not call it "double-dipping".

Posted by: JRM | April 9, 2009 1:47 PM

If you're retired, collect your pension. If you're working, even under a contract, then you're NOT RETIRED. STOP collecting your pension until you are once again retired. It's a simple rule that everyone should easily understand and follow. I hope New Haven can see the beautiful simplicity of it.

Posted by: Exiled Italian Shill | April 9, 2009 1:51 PM

It amazes how the same people that complain in the blogs about paying workers too many costly benefits then complain when they do the work without being paid for benefits?

Perhaps these same folks (nh)CAN volunteer time to fill potholes so no one has to pay for benefits, wages or contracts. But its these same people that complain are the same people that demand more services.

Posted by: cba | April 9, 2009 2:31 PM

What a city government, cutting valued employees so political clowns like McGrath can find potholes; no wonder the voters of this State rejected Howdy Doody DeStefano by a huge margin

Posted by: BORIST #1 Fan | April 9, 2009 2:57 PM

Finally a new breath of fresh air. Borist I've been following your post and I have to say your right on the $$$. You are wise beyond your years. You should be working for Gleen Beck Show. Keep up the great postings

Posted by: Seth | April 9, 2009 2:58 PM

Now I understand why young talented New Haveners can't come home to find employment after college. The good ole boys are milking the budget! That's politics for you.

Greed is a disease.

Posted by: Common Sense | April 9, 2009 3:10 PM

McGrath states "After 31 years, a city employee has no incentive to stay on the job, he argued. Because at that point the employee has "maxed out" on how much he or she will receive in pension benefits. "Anything after that, you're wasting your time," he said. "You can make more money working at McDonald's and getting" 70 percent of the former city salary in a pension check".

Anyone that has "maxed out" continues to get added to any future pension the 70% of any increase in pay that they receive. Obviously the pay increases would lead to a higher pension. There's nothing wrong with that but lets set the record straight!!!

Posted by: City Hall Watch | April 9, 2009 3:13 PM

The question is not what would it take to hire a replacement for McGrath - it's whether anybody should be in that job all all. That's $50K a year plus a car or mileage to drive around looking at pot holes and street cuts. City Hall is just finding make work for a guy who's a reliable vote puller and has connections.

As for the IT department - This actually needs to be outsourced or it needs a full compliment of professional staff. New Haven is still pushing too much paper and still depends too much on people when technology would work just fine. Residents should be able to pay tickets, taxes, file a complaint with the police department or any department for that matter all on line, includng ordering up replacement re-cycling bins. All this stuff is manual. Requires in-person visits to City Hall or a trip to public works or the building department. As more and more of these activities are available via technology, we can dump out of the all the employees.

I totally don't get the principal story from Clark. At the rates we're paying for principals and all the assistants you have hanging out at Cross and elsewhere, how is it you can't find a good one? Shouldn't that be the main priority right after finding good teachers? I mean, without these two groups of people, how can you effectively run a school system?

Posted by: robn | April 9, 2009 3:32 PM

The median houshold income in New Haven is about $36,000 per year. Forgetting for a moment double dipping, granting pensions for 60-100K per year seems unsustainable.

Posted by: A real double dipper | April 9, 2009 3:35 PM

I have a family to feed. Everyone of you posters would take a position at the company you retired from as a consultant in a heartbeat. In my opinion, you're speaking out because you're not as lucky as I, a true double dipper. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Mcgrath and avellone, keep getting it. Milk this sorry city for all it's worth. The mayor is!

Posted by: NH resident | April 9, 2009 3:43 PM

To make matters worse, the guy who only loves his wife more than the city of new haven lives in west haven.

Posted by: Employee | April 9, 2009 3:55 PM

Real double dipper,

You have some nerve. As an actual city employee making a little over half of what these double dippers are getting for consulting. I have friends who were laid off two weeks ago. As the saying goes, it's all in who you know. Can't wait until November. That court jester won't get another term as long as I have a vote.

Posted by: The Truth | April 9, 2009 9:24 PM

City pensions max out at 70% of pay. Avallone's $60,900 means he would earn $87,000 if he was still an employee. Add 40% for benefits and he would be costing the taxpayers about $122,000 for a 35 hour week.

As a consultant he gets his $60,900 pension plus $65 an hour for a 19 hour week. Assuming 4 weeks vacation he gets $65 x 19 x 48 = $59,280. So he now gets $60,900 + $59,280 = $120,180 for 19 hour week. To see what this would be for a 35 hour week just multiply it by 35/19 = $221,138.

So instead of paying this guy $122,000 for his services we taxpayers are really paying him $221,138.

He's getting a $100,000 a year more by double dipping than he would as an employee.

He loves his job. He loves New Haven. You bet he does.

Now start asking why he gets this Fortune 500 salary? What does he know? Who does he know? I'll bet all the younger people that came to the IT department and quickly quit knew a lot more about computers than this guy.

Anyone want to do the numbers on McGrath, Montagna and Vitelli?

Another question. Are there any minority double dippers?

Posted by: nancydrew33 | April 9, 2009 9:26 PM

Dear Employee-

The court jester is not being challenged by any other candidate, so he will get reelected - with the lowest voter turn-out in history, guaranteed!

Posted by: Been Called Worse | April 9, 2009 11:11 PM

Avallone's position would be filled by a fulltime (35/hr a week) staffer starting out betweeen 38k and 42k a year (plus fringe). Considering that a full time employee would have additional duties and responsibilities the City would be getting more bang for their buck. It's not rocket science - its a trainable position that a full time employee could occupy.

I don't have much of a stance on the double dipping, other than these consultants, at market value, are grossly overpaid at the taxpayers expense, any way you slice the numbers.

More troubling is the City's management of contingency plans for when someone does retire/resign. 16 years and they couldn't phase in a replacement? You betcha.

"If they had to bring in anyone to fill my shoes, you're talking upwards of $65,000, $80,000," plus pension benefits, Avallone said.

Doubtful. 65,000 is on the high end, for this position, in city government, in today's job market. I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult to find the going rate for a Munis (www.munis.com) systems manager for a city of similar size.

One staffer is in charge of the city's website, one in charge of geographic information systems (mapping). "One person supports tax and assessment systems. Only one!" Avallone remarked, pointing a finger in the air for emphasis. The remaining skeleton crew continually assumes new responsibilities.

This is absolutely true. Nowhere near enough staff for a functional IT department. Difficult enough to even provide end user support, let alone manage the deployment of new technology at these staffing levels. You can't leverage technology as an enabler to eliminate waste and improve efficiency without the proper investments.

The most glaring example of which, in my opinion, is not finding a suitable full time replacement for a retired worker for the past 16 years. However, I don't think Mr. Avallone need justify his contract to us at all. It is a favorable business move on his part. City administration, however, should be held accountable for how tax money is spent.

Posted by: jjlowe332 | April 11, 2009 9:04 PM

Okay you really have to be kidding. Hello New Haven so many people have lost their jobs in the past year. Are you telling me you can't find anyone to do these jobs? As for McGrath anybody can look at a pothole and tell you if a utlilty company is responsible. HE NEEDS TO GO!! There are so many people who has worked in the Board of Education in other cities who can do Vitelli's job... FIND THEM!!!. Avellone is a little tricky but I'm sure there is someone. This is a case of friends taking care of friends. Now we know why taxes keep going up. This is a lot of wasted money. The Mayor needs to tighten the ship or find a new boat to sail because he is sinking the city on this!! I wish I could get $4100 a month to look at a pothole. WHAT A WASTE..

Posted by: MORRIS COVE MF | April 13, 2009 4:48 PM

Wow, $65 per hour? No wonder our city can't balance a budget...

Posted by: morris cover | April 13, 2009 10:59 PM

what is NOT mentioned is that the City uses Recol to do the City of New Haven website, but there is a position in Avallone's very same department called:
Web Designer $64,322 (page 101 of the FY 2009-10 MAYORS BUDGET). Wanna explain that?

truth is you could pay someone 45K for this but instead let layoff people and keep $65 an hour people on. Brilliant.

it's not going to stop unless we vote for anyone else.

Posted by: Jeremiah | April 14, 2009 8:46 AM

Doesn't anyone have the courage to tell the truth as to what is really going on here? Administrators, many of them unqualified for these positions are hired on the basis of nepotism and political patronage.Those who are qualified for these jobs are refused promotion because they are not 'the right fit'. The newly hired principals are incompotent to do the work. For this reason retirees who previously held these positions are brought back to do the actual work. In other cases classroom teachers who should have been promoted to administrative positions are, without extra pay, given the administrative tasks to do. Ask any veteran New Haven teacher about this.How about some real investigative journalism on the part of the Independent here, The Register won't do it!

Posted by: FIX THE SCHOOLS | April 14, 2009 12:05 PM

The mayor has announced that he wants "exponential" growth in student outcomes. This is very significant because it is the first time EVER that he has gone on the hook for school performance. As of right now, the public can hold him accountable for results - or the lack thereof.

This is a smart guy. So I think we can conclude that he intends to really shake up the way that the BOE operates. Anything less will mean sure failure - and he would have to face the consequences in the 2012 election.

This probably means that the old BOE patronage system is going to fade away. But at the very least it means that while some of the patrons may still linger, the future of our children will no longer be in their hands. This is the most important part of New Haven's school reform.

As someone who has been part of the critical chorus for years, I am thrilled that the mayor now recognizes the scope and magnitude of the problem. Because of this, I as one voter am now willing to grant him a short time to lay out his concrete plans for BOE reforms.

I think we should be patient (for 2 or 3 months) because:

1) He has staked his reputation on the schools success.
2) We have no better alternative at this point.

Posted by: Jeremiah | April 14, 2009 5:02 PM

I doubt that the mayor will make meaningful moves to fix the patronage problem with the BOE. The Mayor, for years actually was the source of the patronage problem. He doled out jobs in return for political support in the currency of votes and campaign contributions. How much were school administrators expected to pony up for when election time came around? Will someone investigate this?

Posted by: tom | April 15, 2009 6:58 AM

please file this under patronage or possibly triple dippers:

a chosen few @ city hall have their offsprng working for the city as "interns". take Pietrosimone's daughter who not only works @ the library but shamelessly parks her car in one of the few spaces reserved for senior management! and she's a part time worker!!!

Posted by: Concerned Citizen | April 16, 2009 11:04 AM

In response to the April 15 post by Tom. First of all, you should get your facts straight before making statements that are not true. If you did your research you would know that Pietrosimone's daughter does not drive to work, in fact,she gets a ride to and from work. I think it's pretty sad that you had to use Pietrosimone's daughter as an example of your ignorance. It appears to me that you have nothing else better to do with your time but make false accusations about city employees. You should really find something else better to do with your time and I sincerely mean that.

Long-Term “Double Dippers” Under Scrutiny

Comments

Sections

Neighborhood News

Special Sections

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

Flyerboard

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

NHI Store

News Feed