DuPage Forest Preserve Executive Director Exits District with Golden Parachute
Wheaton, IL – June 25, 2012 – Executive Director Manning’s sudden retirement came as a shock to the DuPage Forest Preserve and its President, Dewey Pierotti, as indicated in statements released by the Forest Preserve shortly after Manning’s retirement was formally announced.
Manning’s abrupt retirement after renewing his contract in late 2011 sparked the interest of Commissioner Candidates Steven Leopoldo (District 3) and Dennis Clark (District 5). Through Freedom of Information Act requests, they uncovered a memo of understanding between Manning and the District, outlining a generous severance package.
DuPage Forest Preserve President Pierotti signed the memo dated May 17 and it was approved as a non-public document by the Board of Commissioners on June 5. Manning is to receive a severance package of four months’ salary based on his annual salary of $165,000, all of his accrued vacation, sick and holiday benefits, and health and dental benefits through August.
A request was made by both Clark and Leopoldo to view Manning’s letter of resignation. The official response from the District’s Freedom of Information officer, Linda Klett, was that, “The District has no such records. Mr. Manning did not submit an official letter of resignation.” The Executive Director’s employment contract requires a 90 days’ written notice in order to be entitled to severance benefits. The May 17 memorandum of understanding terminated Manning’s contract on June 15.
Reviewing the memorandum, Leopoldo stated, “It is unfair, unnecessary, and an unethical act to force taxpayers to foot the bill for Manning’s retirement package, in particular because it seems as if he was encouraged to resign.”
A curious provision in the memo of understanding also releases Manning and the District from legal repercussions from their actions.
Manning’s early retirement announcement on May 18coincided with the District informing the public it would not abide by the Illinois Attorney General’s request to release records detailing payments made to Alamach Technologies, Inc. The payment records indicate how nearly a half of a million dollars were authorized by the District in the alleged scheme to defraud taxpayers.
On June 22 the District’s Freedom of Information Officer informed requestors that the Forest Preserve attorney moved to have the DuPage Circuit Court order signed to bar release of the documents. The motion making the request was sealed from public view, an extraordinary legal process to prevent the release of public information.
Speaking about the sealed documents, Clark said, “It is not hard to connect the dots. We won’t rest until the truth is out.” Clark further stated, “If Manning’s performance deserves a generous severance package, then why is a provision included in the memo of understanding that he can never again work for the District?”
Leopoldo and Clark stated that they are continuing to pressure the District to release information on how the Forest Preserve District is spending taxpayer dollars and are seeking further support of the Illinois Attorney General’s office.
Scott C.
1:42 pm on Tuesday, June 26, 2012
All this just one day after an article about corruption in the suburbs!
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-suburban-inspector-general-20120626,0,6912476.story
Good for Leopoldo and Clark.
The Forest Preserve's attorney should explain each of the following:
"The Executive Director’s employment contract requires a 90 days’ written notice in order to be entitled to severance benefits. The May 17 memorandum of understanding terminated Manning’s contract on June 15."
[Does someone need to borrow my calculator?]
"A curious provision in the memo of understanding also releases Manning and the District from legal repercussions from their actions."
[Anyone have the language from this provision handy? Or a legal opinion about its validity?]
"Manning’s early retirement announcement on May 18 coincided with the District informing the public it would not abide by the Illinois Attorney General’s request to release records detailing payments made to Alamach Technologies, Inc."
[Those pesky Attorneys General!]
"[t]he Forest Preserve attorney moved to have the DuPage Circuit Court order signed to bar release of the documents. The motion making the request was sealed from public view, an extraordinary legal process to prevent the release of public information."
[Seriously? The cover up is almost always worse than the crime. This isn't going to end well.]
SteveforDuPage
1:54 pm on Tuesday, June 26, 2012
The provision is available for review here in the memo of understanding and the employment contract. There are public documents that were obtained via Freedom of Information Act requests: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BzuzwQkYDH4HMEY1YVpaVDVSR00
Scott C.
4:40 pm on Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Ooopsies! Someone forgot to read Section 12 of the Employment Contract before agreeing to provide the sweet severance package! Or at least they forgot to explain the basis upon which they are granting generous severance in light of that provision. How can the possibly explain this? Or are they going to hope that everyone looks away and forgets about this until the checks clear?
I wouldn't want to be the Forest Preserve attorney right now. Unless, of course, his compensation package is similar to this one. "Public service" pays GREAT in Illinois! And I sometimes wonder how the expectations of politicians in this state can be so woefully out of touch with the rest of reality. Silly me.
Mark Thoman
6:09 pm on Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Sec 12 says the employee MAY (emphasis mine) terminate his contract by serving written notice. Not SHALL; rather, MAY. There's a bit of a difference there, and an example of maddening vagueness. He chose not to do that, so is all that follows regarding that written notice moot?
Section 10 is interesting. He could do such a bad job everyone in the world could want him fired, and if he gets that resignation in within 10 days AFTER the vote to fire him, it's considered a "voluntary retirement".
SteveforDuPage
6:22 pm on Tuesday, June 26, 2012
The only method perscribed by the contract in the section "Termination by Employee" is a 90 days' written notice. There are not other methods defined by the contract that are within the power of the employee. You are right though, this -may- end up being up to the determination of a legal authority.
Scott C.
6:54 pm on Tuesday, June 26, 2012
I agree. Section 12 is the provision that governs termination by the employee (as opposed to termination by the employer). Its pretty clear. Especially the first sentence. If he wants to voluntarily terminate his employment, he's got to give 90 days written notice. Plain and simple.
And to get severance he has to work that whole 90 days. The way its drafted makes it clear that even if he provided the required notice and then hung on for 90 days but didn't actually perform his duties that he wouldn't get benefits. So how anyone could suggest that, with that level of specificity, he can somehow get benefits without giving the 90 days is a bit of a mystery to me. Such a pained reading would seem to contradict the plain meaning of the agreement as drafted.
I'll be interested to see how this shakes out!
Gone are the days when politicians can expect to write themselves generous checks (and severance deals) and just expect the taxpayers who provide the funding to just let it go without questions.
Dan F.
9:19 pm on Tuesday, July 3, 2012
That whole contract stinks! Here's your job, here's how much you get paid. You do something stupid and have to leave, the door's over there don't let it hit you on the way out.
Instead, pad this, goose that, fatten up over here, add some gravy over there and hey! life is good!
Jane
10:21 am on Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Given the facts surrounding his sudden departure, the investigation underway regarding mis-use of public funds, the FP District's refusal to release copies of invoices/payment records....
Doesn't it seem very likely that the Ex Director was given the option of immediate "resignation" or he would be "terminated?"
While the FP made a big splashy annoucement about an internal covert investigation of two IT employees, one has to wonder if there should be an investigation into the events surrounding this "resignation" (or is it a retirement?)
As for the Memo of Understanding, it would appear that Pierotti did not have authority to enter into this agreement on May 17 - does that render the agreement void? The terms of the Ex Directors severance package were never publically approved by the Board of Commissioners.
Scott C.
1:07 pm on Wednesday, June 27, 2012
All great questions Jane.
And I'd further note that whether they call it a resignation or retirement, either would seem to clearly fall under voluntary termination in the employment agreement by the employee which, without the required 90 notice and 90 days of work, indicates that no severance/benefits will be paid.
Regardless of what happened in any back rooms, given that they have framed this as a sudden retirement (which even under the escape clause in Section 10 doesn't allow for benefits, presumably including severance), someone has some serious explaining to do about the golden parachute offered here in apparent contradiction of the employment agreement.
Without some precise (and credible) answers to some obvious questions about this severance deal, I would think the only other practical way out of this would be for Manning to save face (and fall on the sword for the Forest Preserve) by indicating that he is going to forgo the offered severance package. The Forest Preserve seems to have enough ongoing problems on its hands than to want to add a fight to justify this golden parachute deal to its list.
So interesting.
Lisle WatchDog
9:35 am on Thursday, June 28, 2012
Will Pierotti be charged with conspiracy and misuse of taxpayer funds?
Maria
2:29 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
What is the total amount of Manning's golden parchute?
Four months’ salary + accrued vacation + sick and holiday benefits + health and dental benefits through August = ??
If it is over $10K, doesn't it need Board approval?
Certainly this was not in the budget since he was still under contract.
Why are taxpayers stuck footing the bill for this?
SteveforDuPage
2:32 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
The Board of Commissioners did vote on it. It was handed to them as a handout during the June 5th meeting. It had to be FOIAed to get a copy.
SteveforDuPage
2:33 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
The nominal amount is far in excess of $10K.
Dick
8:47 pm on Friday, June 29, 2012
Are there sleeping sheep on the FP Board?
SteveforDuPage
5:49 pm on Thursday, August 2, 2012
A little bit over a month latter, the FBI is getting involved. http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20120802/news/708029745/
James Williams
9:36 am on Saturday, August 4, 2012
Damn sounds like someone needs to learn how business (not just municipalities) run. People leave all the time, some by choice some are forced out. If and when someone is forced out a termination package can be a great idea, stops future lawsuits at a fraction of the potential cost.
Don Kirchenberg
12:56 pm on Wednesday, August 15, 2012
President Pierotti is getting very defensive about the inquiries about Manning's exit, the big bonus package they gave him with benefits and discussions to fold the Forest Preserve District back into the County: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAi8tGrF7KI