Game Fishing Forum banner

Port of Seattle gifts of 4.7 million to employees!

1K views 11 replies 6 participants last post by  wolfkill220 
#1 ·
Wow, I guess it doesn't matter because they work for us. ;) It's just "$4.7 million".

State agency: Port of Seattle unlawfully gifted $4.7 million in public funds to hundreds of employees

SEATTLE - The Port of Seattle unlawfully gifted $4.7 million in public funds to 642 Port employees last year, the draft findings of a State Auditor's investigation allege.

The news was first reported by the Puget Sound Business Journal Thursday night and later confirmed by Kathleen Cooper, the assistant director of communications for the State Auditor's Office.

An investigation by the Auditor's Office found in its draft findings that the Port of Seattle's $4.7 million in payouts violated the state Constitution as an unlawful gifting of public funds, Cooper said.

The news comes as the Port of Seattle CEO Ted Fick announced his resignation Thursday. He had been placed on administrative leave last week. The State Auditor's Office declined to say whether Fick's resignation was related to the payouts.

According to the Business Journal, state auditors came across the payments, made last year to 642 salaried port employees, during a regularly scheduled accountability audit at the Port. Cooper said they briefed Port of Seattle executives about their draft findings on Wednesday and recommended that the Port conduct a legal review. Cooper said the Port of Seattle has until Tuesday to respond to the draft findings.

"Two sources familiar with the matter" said commissioners approved the payouts after Fick proposed them last year, the Business Journal said.

Cooper said the payments were unlawful because they were not tied to specific job goal or performance requirements and that's why they're considered an inappropriate gifting of public funds.

Port of Seattle Chief Operating Officer Dave Soike will serve as interim CEO of the Port now that Fick has stepped down.
 
See less See more
#6 ·
Been that way a very long time. When hubby first went into the Navy in the 70's, he was a Storekeeper. When he had to inventory the warehouse at a base we were at, he was required to toss any opened case of anything. As an example, 46 boxes of light bulbs went into the dumpster. (no, he could not bring a single solitary bulb home) He was then required to order replacement cases, and hopefully, it would put them over the supply budget.

He decided to change rates and become an Electronics Tech because he's not much for counting beans. In those days, if a piece of electronic gear broke, the guys were trained to repair rather than replace. We're talking $35,000 type of stuff. Very cost effective until Bill Clinton decided to downsize the military and increase contracting to save money! The contractors replaced instead of repaired and charged twice as much.

I guess you can see how well THAT worked. The abuses hubby saw when he worked for a large defense contractor were constant. He made sure none of that stuff happened in his department, and it paid off in several promotions.
 
#8 ·
I think there is a significant difference between agency departments that spend out their budgets at the end of the fiscal year due to the nature of gov't. agency budgeting (and I'm not defending it, just noting that's the way it is) and spending money as the Port did, in ways that are not consistent with legal fiscal procedures. I do agree that both produce $$ waste, but at least the former isn't an act of breaking the law, or stretching it.
 
#12 ·
I agree Don't get me wrong in working in the construction trades I have worked a few prevailing wage jobs.The checks where nice but yes what a waste.But the prevailing wage is determined by it being a certain kind of goverment job and is a requirement in the bidding by federal rules.All the companies that I worked for would never have paid it if it wasn't a federal requirement.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top