New Haven Independent

posted by: True New Havener on August 31, 2007  9:04am

This is disgusting—this officer is arguing that he has a right to abuse sick days—to steal from the taxpayers of New Haven?

Maybe this officer should just stay home in Killingworth for good.  We’d all be better off with more New Haven officers—at least maybe they would understand how hard it is for so many of us to pay our taxes.

Thank you Verrelli & Ortiz.  If the PERF review showed anything it’s that we need more order at NHPD, not less.  And more officers who don’t see their jobs as a chance to dip their hands in the cookie jar.  No doubt most officers are decent and hard working.  It must be frustrating for them to watch any corruption.  It certainly is for the rest of us who pay the bills.

What kind of culture has developed that instead of taking a slap on the wrist, this officer sues?

Hopefully, the times they are a changing . . .

posted by: FairHavenRes on August 31, 2007  9:11am

Bring some discipline back to the police department, and you get sued. No wonder we are where we are. Who is able to take sick days when they are not sick? Come on.

posted by: East Rock Resident on August 31, 2007  11:38am

Officer Vincent should be ashamed of himself - suing because he got caught abusing sick days?

posted by: Biagio on August 31, 2007  11:59am

Granted most of his sick time was centered around additional time off, but it is his time no matter how he uses it.  Abuse would be going over the 15 alloted days.  If the city is so upset by this person’s actions, then during the next contract negotiation, add a clause that allows for witholding holiday pay from an employee calling out either before or after the pdaid-day-off.

If the department is so concerned about abuse, they should see what a good chunk of their working officers are doing.  With all the complaints in East Rock regarding increased muggings and robberies, we were supposed to see additional officers and patrols.  Well, I will admit to seeing a number of officers in my neighborhood but at least half the time they’re parked and talking on their phone.  Yesterday it was two bicycle cops on Prospect just jabbering away on cell phones while standing on a corner.

I don’t mind my tax payers going to an office for using available personal time.  I do have a problem with an officer being paid to pursue personal interests.

And don’t tell me their on their phone talking to C-med or dispatch.  That’s what they have radio’s for.

posted by: WEBbloger 1 on August 31, 2007  12:21pm

Vincent’s name popped up: In the first half of 2004, he had used 10 sick days. In a memo to Vincent on July 13, Police Captain Steven Verrelli argued his sick days were “excessive” because only 15 are allowed per year. The sick days, Verrelli also argued, happened in a fishy pattern: seven of the 10 days were used in conjunction with days off or time off.

This incident ocurred in 2004, it was grieved, the grievance was apparently denied and was sent to arbirtration as agreed to by the union and the city. A three judge panel found that the case was not an abuse of sick time policy.
The city refused to accept the arbitrator’s decision, and now risk a law suit which the city will lose, based on the record and past court decisions. How hard headed is this city, they again expose the taxpayer to unnecessary risk and libility for one days pay. The principal does not justify the mean in this case.

The August 2007 PERF report just cited the police Department for out dated rules and regulations, and the improper use of those rules.

The city now has a new Director of Corporation Counsel, let’s hope he has enough wisdom to see through this apparent stupity on the part of the city.

posted by: True New Havener on August 31, 2007  12:45pm

Biagio,

Most of what you say I agree with but sick time is not to be used any way an officer sees fit.  Sick time is to be used when an officer (or family member) is sick.  Just like FAIRHAVENRES makes clear.  Vacation time can be used any way an officer sees fit.  This is not “his time.”  It’s our time as taxpayers unless he gets sick.

Further when he calls in sick, I bet the NHPD keeps another officer on overtime to fill the hole he created.  So if he’s lying about his sickness to get time off, we are paying him full time and we are paying another officer time and a half.  I think he should have to pay us back both his time and the time and a half. 

Instead he’s suing us—that’s right us—those of us who live in this city will have to pay at a minimum attorney’s fees to defend this ridiculous case.

Again—I say good riddance—back to Killingworth.

posted by: Edward_H on August 31, 2007  1:59pm

Biagio

Granted most of his sick time was centered around additional time off, but it is his time no matter how he uses it. Abuse would be going over the 15 alloted days.

Yours is the type of attitude that allows such abuse to proliferate in the first place. Unless Melissa got her facts wrong the sick days are to be used for:

By union contract, officers get 15 sick days per year, days which can be used for personal sickness or that of a family member.)

By my understanding the union contract gives the officer 2 reasons to use sick days

1) Said officer is sick
2) One of said officers famlily members is sick

What do you think happens in the normal world when an employee constantly calls out sick when he is due back from vacation?

posted by: Been Called Worse on August 31, 2007  3:11pm

True New Havener - As a city resident/taxpayer, you have already payed for officer vincent’s sick days Jan 1st when he is given his 15 for the year, you aren’t “paying” for them per diem when someone calls in sick.  Depending on union contract, the sick days can be accumlated over years and “sold back” to the city (where X amount of sick days = a year of service as counted towards pension).

I can see the city wacking him for abuse if you are defining abuse as patternized behavior (in this case based on vacation/holidays being supplemented by sick days).  I can also see how a problem can arise if the city doesnt have an articulated policy and this was done arbitrarily.  Worth going to court over?  Not to me.  But I also prefer keeping my name out of the paper for such trivial nonsense.

posted by: wow on September 1, 2007  10:06am

Wow, the first blog posts sure got it wrong.

First, he took 10 non-consecutive days.

He had a legitimate reason for them and documentation of them, which verrelli allegedly refused to look at.

third, verrelli made the determination with no evidence

and now, fourthly, the city, by having stuck by its guns with no evidence to back it up are costing the tax payers money. they pushed the guy to sue, and now that will cost us even more money. they think it is a poker game where bluffing can lead to victory.

likely, if the vincent’s allegations are true - and a state panel thought they were after looking at the evidence—the city is going to lose this lawsuit too, or settle it out, for guess what—money, our money, more of our money.

Gee, how is the city going to pay off its wopping interest payments if it keeps this up?

PERF’s criticisms were on point and verrelli’s sophmoric evidence standards, which consisted basically of air, are a perfect example of the kind of thing PERF takes issue with.

This officer has I think over a 1,000 hours of accummulated sick time, because he doesn’t abuse it.

You can’t just say anyone with 10 days is a liar—you have to look at whether the 10 days were used because of illness or not. Verrelli, in his own letter on this, makes clear he did not even investigate that. In his letter, you get the feeling that it doesn’t matter if it is legitimately used—this is really unintelligent stuff and only supports calls for leadership at NHPD to be replaced.

This should have been overturned by Verrelli himself the day the union and the cop tried to submit their documentation. We seem to be subsidizing the egos of people who want to save face. What arrogance.

posted by: True New Havener on September 1, 2007  5:24pm

Been Called Worse,

I just have to disagree with you on this one.  There is no budget item for sick days in the city budget.  We pay cops to solve and prevent crime.  If he is at home pretending to be sick, then he is stealing money from city taxpayers.

The city, like most employers, recognizes that people will be sick so it allots a certain number of days for that purpose.  It also assumes that there will not be wanton abuse.  If people use sick days legitimately, then yes we have paid for them.  If they steal the days, then we have not paid for them in advance.  And once again, in addition, we get overruns in the overtime line item.

Think of it like this.  If I give you $1 to buy lunch for my kid, and instead you spend the money on cigarettes for yourself, you have stolen my money and I still have to pay for the lunch so my kid does not starve.  Saying I paid for the lunch in advance does not solve my two problems: (1) you are a criminal and (2) my kid is still hungry.

And as to the pension buy back—The idea in these scenarios is that because the officer did not use these days, there was a benefit to the NHPD and taxpayers that the officer was on the job and not using the sick days.  These days can then be used for pension benefit.  That’s what is negotiated.  What is not negotiated is that the officer can cash in the days to buy ice cream, or go on a vacation, or stay home and sleep cause he feels like it.

Policing is a commodity.  We as taxpayers purchase that commodity.  When the officer absconds with our money, we still have to pay for the commodity or crime goes up.  It’s pretty simple and saying I already paid in advance assumes I don’t really care whether police are solving & preventing crime since they are just as valuable if they stay home in Killingworth and rip us off.

And obviously that’s just ridiculous.

posted by: THREEFIFTHS on September 1, 2007  7:30pm

People Read The Article He Is Being Charge By This Police Captain With Pattern Use Of His Sick Time Because Of The Seven Days That He Used In Conjuction With Days Or Time Off, Not Going Over The Fifteen Days That Is In The Union Contract.Now
If This Officer Had Medical Documentation From His Doctor That On These Days That His Doctor Said
That He Could Not Work And The Department Did Not
Send This Officer To There Police Doctor To Be Exam Than Case Closed. It Does Not Make A Difference What Days This Officer Used Cause If His Doctor Made A Medical Diagnose That He Was Sick On Those Days Than They The Department Must
Prove He Was Not And I Can Tell You The Police Department Will Not Challenge His Doctors Medical
Diagnose. Bottom Line Get Ready To Pay Him His Law Suit.