"Mass. spent millions on secret settlements; Concerted effort made to keep discrimination, severance deals under wraps" by Todd Wallack | Globe Staff, January 26, 2014
It was major news in 2008. Prosecutors accused 10 Massachusetts Turnpike workers of skimming thousands of dollars in tolls from passing motorists, calling it “the very definition of a violation of the public trust.” Most of them were convicted.
But the cases against two of the workers, Paul Iacobacci and Tony Pasuy, quietly fell apart. The state withdrew the charges, gave them back their jobs, and paid them six months in back wages as part of a confidential settlement.
There was just one thing the Turnpike workers, like some other state employees uncovered in a Globe investigation, did not get back in the deal: Their reputations. The state never announced that Iacobacci and Pasuy had been cleared or returned to their posts. It blacked out their names on copies of settlement documents provided to the Globe, citing the workers’ right to privacy.
At this stage that is an insult considering the NSA sucking machine. This was about protecting the sanctimonious state and its reputation.
And the two men were afraid to alert the news media themselves, since they still worked for the Turnpike and feared retaliation, one of them said.
“It wasn’t my idea to keep this secret,” said Iacobacci, 54, who was contacted by the Globe after a judge ordered the state to release his name. “I would like people to know that I am innocent and did nothing wrong.”
For years, the state has used confidential settlement and severance deals to make embarrassing problems go away, often requiring workers to promise to keep the payments secret and avoid saying anything critical about the agencies.
And then they wonder why we don't trust them and don't believe a damn word they spew!
When the Globe first asked for copies of all the pacts worth at least $10,000 statewide, it took a four-year legal fight to obtain the names of workers who received the money.
And don't forget, this is in the bastion of Democratic liberalism.
In much of the information provided to the Globe, state officials had even erased references to public court documents, discrimination complaints, and other information, making it difficult to identify the recipients and why they received the payments.
I'm wondering what flacks in state government were assigned to go over the thing with a fine-toothed comb and how much the taxpayers had to shell out to them -- all in the midst of service cuts in a recovering economy(?).
The state says it kept the identities of the workers secret to protect them and to comply with state privacy rules. But critics believe the agencies also wanted to bury messy employment disputes, cover up mistakes, or avoid setting a precedent that would allow other workers to demand similar payments.
But AmeriKan government doesn't do that! That what all the icky enemy governments do! I know because my ma$$ media government mouthpieces have told me so!
The policy certainly made it harder to track how the government is spending public money and addressing difficult problems.
But, but, but.... I was led to believe this is a good government that only cares about us!
Related: State to fix glitches in spending site
Un-flipping-believable.
You start thinking that the glitches are on f***ing purpose after a while!
“They’ve really upended the public interest,” said Jim Stergios, executive director of the Pioneer Institute, a Boston think tank that has pushed for greater disclosure of government spending. “They allow politicians to hide misdeeds. And they create the appearance of paying people off for silence.”
That's what government does!
According to the newly released documents, state executive offices and the Massachusetts Port Authority collectively spent more than $5 million on severance and settlement agreements to nearly 100 workers from 2005 to January 2011. Other state agencies, such as the University of Massachusetts system, spent millions more. The Globe has since requested data on more recent payments to state workers.
State agencies generally declined to say why they made specific deals, citing privacy rules. But a review of the documents shows that many payments went to senior executives who were given extra severance when they stepped down, including former managers at the Turnpike and Massport, or to workers who alleged that they were victims of sexual harassment, discrimination, or other misdeeds.
Yeah, let's pad those pensions with a little bonus.
Related: Turning Off the Pike
It will never happen again soon.
Also see: Taking Breakfast at T Stop
Now you know why registry fees need be raised.
For instance, a social services worker received $200,000 after complaining that her department did not adjust her duties to accommodate her medical problems.
She didn't work at the DCF, did she?
A highway worker got $170,000 after he said he was taunted by co-workers and bosses who thought he was gay. And a former Department of Industrial Accidents official negotiated a $150,000 payment after complaining to her superior that she was being barraged with pornographic e-mail, only to be told she should “enjoy” it. She was later fired.
The pacts aren’t unique to Massachusetts, or to government agencies. It’s long been common in both the private and public sectors to use settlement and severance agreements to resolve employment disputes and avoid costly litigation.
But state officials here went to unusual lengths to keep the agreements secret.
Just working for you, fellow citizens of the state.
The Patrick administration and some independent state agencies refused to provide the names of the recipients, even after orders from the secretary of state’s Public Records Division in 2010, prompting the Globe to file suit.
Possible law-breaking there?
State officials argued they were legally required to black out the names to protect the workers.
“As an employer, we have an obligation to protect the privacy rights of our employees,” said Heather Johnson, a spokeswoman for the governor’s office.
That rings so hollow as the government, including local law enforcement, have access to all NSA and government databases.
But in more than a dozen of the settlements, workers had already filed public lawsuits against the agency laying out many details of the dispute. But the state still blacked out names in the settlement documents provided to the Globe, along with references to the court cases, effectively hiding the amount of money the workers received.
Because they don't want austerity-strapped taxpayers to get angry.
For instance, Michael J. Rotondi, a former Department of Environmental Protection worker, negotiated a $266,000 out-of-court settlement after a jury found that a senior environmental manager had defamed him. But the state had long kept the details of that arrangement private.
Rotondi’s attorney said he strongly doubts the state withheld his name to protect Rotondi’s reputation, since Rotondi won a large settlement. “Most likely, it was done to protect governmental agencies and senior managers in government from scrutiny and embarrassment,” said Alan D. Rose Jr., a litigator with Rose, Chinitz & Rose in Boston.
In a number of cases, workers were also ordered to not tell anyone about the payments.
Yeah, this government -- like all others -- is only concerned with its own health and survival.
****************
Though some attorneys doubt that confidentiality and nondisparagement clauses are legally enforceable when it comes to government workers, the clauses can effectively discourage people from talking.
The governor’s office would not answer questions about why it included confidentiality clauses in some settlements or whether it will use similar language in future deals.
That is interesting because one of the selling points of the propaganda pre$$ is they have access to the shakers and movers of society. Turns out they are nothing but whores, broadcasting authorities' message when they get the call about some state or corporate promotion and getting no response or comment when it is anything to the contrary.
The game is over, folks, and this one-day wonder soon will be as well.
The newly released documents also show the state continued to assert the need to keep the deals secret to protect workers’ privacy after at least three of the people died, including one who was frustrated that he had to sign a confidentiality agreement as part of a $100,000 settlement to retire from the Office of the State Comptroller.
We know it wasn't about privacy and yet they still trot out the same tired excuse and lie.
“He was upset that he had to keep it quiet,” said John F. Donovan III, attorney for the late John Doogan. “He wanted to talk about how he was treated unfairly.”
The documents also show that a number of senior managers received substantial payments when they were forced out.
Hey, CRIME DOES PAY in certain $ectors!
Former Turnpike chairman Matthew Amorello received $181,515 after he was pushed out by then-governor Mitt Romney’s administration following the collapse of a Big Dig tunnel ceiling that killed a car passenger in 2006.
See: The Ultimate Cost of the Big Pit
Though many details from Amorello’s ouster agreement were released at the time, the Patrick administration still blacked out his name and other details from a stack of settlement documents it gave the Globe, and only provided the final estimate for how much money Amorello received after the Globe won its lawsuit. Neither Amorello nor the state would comment.
The agreements also show that other Turnpike officials received tens of thousands of dollars, each under severance or settlement deals, including the former director of development, director of information systems-operations, chief development officer, and several attorneys.
Similarly, Massport made significant payments to several executives when they left: Carole Brennan, director of external affairs and a former Boston mayoral spokeswoman, got $74,013; Charles F. Monahan, director of aviation security operations, got $77,022, and Patricia Day, director of labor relations, got $140,280.
**************
Attorney General Martha Coakley’s office, which represented the Patrick administration and Massport in the court battle to keep the settlements private, denied that agencies were trying to hide the deals. Coakley’s office insisted it was simply trying to balance the public records and privacy laws.
We are kind of tired of the excuses, Marty!
Related: Coakley Campaign in Crisis
She won't be winning anyway, so....
**************
Boston employment lawyer Inga Bernstein said she was glad the courts ruled that government settlements can no longer be kept secret, because she thought it would expose important problems.
“We expect [government employers] to follow the rules,” said Bernstein, a partner at Zalkind Duncan & Bernstein LLP. “And when the rules haven’t been followed they should correct them.
“It seems to me that should be part of good government.”
Well, when you find one somewhere let me know.
