Sunday, December 20, 2009

JCIDA probe

It was a surprise to learn that the Jefferson County Industrial Development Agency has been used as a conduit to provide state retirement benefits to a host of staff serving other development agencies across Jefferson County.

As revealed at a recent meeting of the Watertown Local Development Corp., the longstanding practice has been for various economic development agencies to declare their staff to be employees of the JCIDA. Doing so allows them to qualify for pension benefits through the state retirement system. The JCIDA became an umbrella agency to funnel benefits to workers.

But the state comptroller's office has raised questions about the propriety of the relationship. It sounds much like what some municipalities and school districts across the state were doing by declaring their attorneys to be employees to earn state pension benefits. Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli and state Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo put a stop to that.

Comments by JCIDA officials defensive of the arrangement raise many questions.

If, as claimed, staff at other economic development agencies are JCIDA employees, then what oversight does JCIDA perform?

What is the day-to-day working relationship between the JCIDA and the myriad employees, directors, consultants and secretaries who are supposed to be answerable to JCIDA Chief Executive Officer Donald C. Alexander?

In defending the practice, Mr. Alexander borrowed a ploy from former President Clinton ("it depends on what your definition of is is.")

Similarly, Mr. Alexander said, "It's a question of how you define employee."

Just what is the JCIDA definition of employee? Are they employees other than on paper? Are they paid by JCIDA? What control does the JCIDA have over their salaries or work hours? There is certainly more to it than just declaring someone an employee. Who sets the work agenda for these ghost employees?

The practice bears a thorough investigation by Mr. DiNapoli's office to determine its validity and accountability for any improper conduct.

No comments: