Hillsborough may have to pay employees overtime for time spent driving county owned cars from drop off points to their work sites.
By BILL VARIAN
Published December 11, 2003
TAMPA - A program aimed at making more productive use of some Hillsborough County employees' time could end up costing taxpayers $735,000, in part due to poor oversight.
The program allowed some employees who spend much of their workdays away from County Center in downtown Tampa - such as code inspectors and dog catchers - to stash the county-owned cars they use for work near their job sites.
The program was aimed at people who live near where they work. It was meant to cut down the time they spent driving from downtown and to the area where they work if they spent most of their days in, say, Lutz, keeping the grounds clean at a park. The employees got the added benefit of cutting down their commute.
"Some of it surfaced when we moved to County Center and there were some people who would have to drive downtown to pick up their car then drive to where they work," said County Administrator Pat Bean. "Why does it make sense to make a person like that drive to a central point if they can actually be productive on the way to work and on the way home."
But earlier this year, a pair of employees from the county's public works department who use the program complained to the U.S. Department of Labor, saying it worked to their detriment. They said they should be paid from the time they pick up their cars and drop them off at the remote locations - typically fire stations or libraries - but weren't.
Instead, the county typically paid them when they picked up or received their work assignment for the day.
The Department of Labor agreed with the employees, and asked the county to see who else might be affected. So far, the county's Human Resources Department has identified 115 people. The department estimates it would cost $625,659 to pay the employees overtime back pay for the past two years, $735,020 when Social Security and retirement plan payments are added.
Bean said part of the problem is that there were not clear rules about who qualified for the program. She has asked the county attorney's office to review the Department of Labor findings, something that hasn't been done before now, although the complaint was filed in June and Human Resources began its analysis is August.
In recent months, the Human Resources Department has been blamed for a series of botched workplace complaints, including one in its own office, which preceded the resignation of former director Sharon Wall.
The county attorney's office will analyze whether to challenge the Department of Labor's findings in whole or in part, or whether the county just needs to pay up.
"Of course, if the method of payment was incorrect, we certainly want to correct the method of payment," said Rudy Haidermota, an assistant county attorney who handles personnel matters.
In the meantime, Bean has directed her director of fleet management to tighten up the program. While Bean did not say some employees were abusing the practice, she expects some changes.
"It is our expectation that upon the conclusion of our review, fewer county vehicles will be dropped off at remote county facilities each day," Bean wrote in a memo to commissioners last week apprising them of the situation.
A draft of new rules by the director, Fred Claussen, also suggests a response to some problems with the change in policy.
Outlining what will be forbidden in the future, he wrote: "For example, an employee whose County business is primarily conducted in the south or central parts of Hillsborough County on a particular day may not drive that vehicle to the Lutz library for overnight parking and proceed on to their Lutz residence. This would be considered as using the County vehicle for personal use and is subject to disciplinary action."
- Information from WTSP-Ch. 10 was included in this report.
