Iroquois Co. (ECWd) –
The now voided employment contract with their 911 Coordinator brings us to the need to expose the lack of oversite by the ETSB (the board) as it relates to certain obligations that were in the contract, yet never fulfilled, as well as the failures under that contract. In addition, looking at certain expense reimbursements we find some questionable figures the current ETSB may want to inquire about.
The contract, found at this link, contained certain items that Nita Dubble, the 911 Coordinator was required to perform. One of the things we have found with public employee contracts is the fact those in charge of oversite have no clue what is in the contract, and never hold those employed accountable to the contract they signed.
Keep in mind, this particular contract was brought to the table by Nita Dubble, so it’s not out of line to expect the items she placed in the contract to be complied with.
- Communications shall include but not be limited fo attendance at all BOARD meetings (unless otherwise directed) and submission to the BOARD of monthly and annual written reports on the status of the 9-1-1 System.
Turns out, no written reports have ever been submitted, thus one of the few obligations she had were not complied with. The response we received was a claim; “Verbal reports presented at ETSB meetings to satisfaction of board”.
We appreciate a claim that verbal reports were presented monthly and annually, however, that is not what the contract required. It specifically stated those reports would be submitted to the board in the form of written reports. So all those so quick to claim superior job performance, maybe you should ask why the most basic obligations she listed in her contract were never followed.
As this relates to the ETSB, why didn’t they do their job during this period to ensure compliance with the contract?
The contract outlines her salary to be $26.91 an hour and she was expected to work 40 hrs a week. So how does one provide oversite to an hourly wage agreement? Time cards are the norm but in this case, no time cards were used by the contracted employee. Thus, no oversite by the ETSB to ensure contracted obligations are met.
The Contract also outlines mandatory performance evaluations to be done by the Board. The evaluations provided, however, do not reflect the Board did the evaluation but instead one or two people. The last evaluation claims she is the champion behind the safety tax referendum that is on the ballot.
Lastly, a quick review of the expenses reimbursed to Nita Dubble raises some flags as it relates to mileage. How can two trips to Springfield net $335.80 while other trips to the same location equate to $181.70, which would equate to $363.40 for two trips. This is a case of the math not adding up. One line item reflects total miles for Springfield travel to be 316 miles. That entry is consistent with the first entry, representing the same mileage to the same location. The confusion comes with the multiple meetings line entry that reported a payment of $335.80, which only reflects 584 miles. With a round trip total being 316 miles on two entries, two trips would be 632 miles, or $363.40. How is it that we have a 48 miles difference with entries to the same location?
All the math aside, we have asked for the mileage logs which should have been provided to support this expense reimbursement. We will report on those once they are returned, assuming any such logs exist.
.
