Politics & Government
Framingham CFO Was the Consummate Professional to Her Last Day
In the first 2024 City Council meeting, Louis Miller's high value as a key city financial leader for Framingham was amplified twice over.
On January 1st, 2024, the City Council held the first meeting of its new term, in which its Chair and Vice Chair were elected and sworn in, a Temporary Rules Committee was established to quickly review the basics of City Council operations for the new term, and two financial matters were dealt with.
Normally, this would be nothing much to comment about, but the unexpected resignation of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), Louise Miller, whose last day was New Year’s Eve, the day before, cast the proceedings in an entirely different light.
Often a lot can be learned from little things, and this is one of those cases.
Find out what's happening in Framinghamfor free with the latest updates from Patch.
The first financial matter on the meeting agenda concerned funding for a recently completed union agreement. A staff memo was produced on that topic for the City Council meeting by Jennifer Pratt, who is trying to fill the giant void left by the departed CFO, while the city searches for a replacement for Louise Miller.
The day before the City Council meeting, Louise was asked to look that memo over, and she found a number of important errors and omissions. In her words:
Find out what's happening in Framinghamfor free with the latest updates from Patch.
“It understates the amount needed to cover the 888 Professional Union classification and compensation as well as the signed MOA, both in the aggregate and for individual departments. It also does not include Weights and Measures as a Department that will need additional funding to cover the changes to classification and the COLA, if approved by Council.”
She sent an email to the city detailing all of the steps which needed to be taken to fix the problems.
The complete email sent to the city on Sunday December 31, 2023, at 12:37pm is included at the end of this article. Louise takes 1800 words to explain how to remedy all of the mistakes. It was not a simple fix.
This illustrates perfectly how important it is to have a competent professional running city finances to guarantee correct information is supplied to the City Council, so it can make sound decisions.
While we were all kicking back on Sunday, getting ready for the New Year celebration, Louise was hard at work making sure that the city stayed on the right financial track in 2024, even after it had made her life a nightmare in 2023.
She truly is the consummate professional.
The second financial matter on the meeting agenda concerned substantially increasing the City Accountant salary, as Louise had recommended early in December, following her observation that the prolonged vacancy in that position was due to Framingham’s compensation being non-competitive.
This is even more disturbing as it reveals that the Chief Operating Officer, Michael Tussino, played a key role in the circumstances leading to Louise’s resignation. The 6 month vacancy in the City Accountant’s position was a great point of contention for the City Council, with Council Chair, Phil Ottaviani, notably blaming Louise Miller for the vacancy and being very public and quite harsh about it in this video:
There is a big problem with this, as Phil should have directed his ire at the Chief Operating Officer, Michael Tussino, who is responsible for Human Resources, and thus for all hiring.
It turns out, from information provided in the January 1, 2024, City Council meeting, that the pay for the City Accountant is substantially below that in surrounding communities, typically $20,000 less. When the City Accountant left in July 2023, his pay was $127,402 and it could have been easily boosted to keep him here. It was constrained by his low paygrade of S3, and now 6 months later, after all the ruckus about having no City Accountant, Tusino has made a painfully overdue move to the City Accountant paygrade up to D1 with a pay range of $107,600 - $164,600, to enable a pay boost.
Michael Tusino should own the Accounting vacancy problem. He failed to ensure that the City Accountant was fairly compensated, did nothing for 6 months after the City Accountant left, stood by silently as Louise Miller was blamed for the problem, and now after helping create the conditions which lead to her resignation, is finally moving to fix the problem.
Michael Tusino’s role in other city operations involving Louise Miller also bears examination.
Michael knows that for the Regional Public Safety Dispatch Center project to succeed, surrounding communities have to be convinced that it has the right financial, legal, and organizational structure to ensure that it won’t be subject to Framingham City Council budget cutting or other intrusion.
Louise Miller, with her financial and legal expertise and her connections to surrounding communities, was pivotal to ensuring that the right agreements, with the right financial and legal safeguards would be put in place, to optimize the chances of bringing that project to a successful conclusion.
With Louise gone, this project is likely to collapse and all the grant funding with it. It would seem that Michael Tusino and the Mayor should have worked hard to prevent Louise leaving. What were they thinking?
Another area in which the Chief Operating Officer has been playing a key role is the downtown parking garage project, which, as Louise Miller pointed out in her final memo to the city on December 29, 2023, was on track to have the architectural design contract awarded to Arrowstreet. However, as she also pointed out in that memo, some issues were raised with respect to whether the proper procurement processes were followed, and the matter is in the hands of the City Solicitor.
Very troubling on this front is the fact that the Legal Department reports to Michael Tusino, who has no legal training. Stack that up against Louise Miller who is an MIT math major, a J.D. (cum laude) from BU graduating 10th in her class out of 406, with 18 years of experience as a lawyer, all on top of her 12 years at the highest levels of municipal finance. She knows procurement inside out and its seem entirely possible that there was some significant difference of opinion between her and Tusino on the procedural and legal aspects of this unexpected dispute.
A downtown parking garage project may not seem to be a big deal, but there is a lot of money involved, with $2.5 million in grants covering just the design. It is important to get this project right. Some basic parking garage will not do. It has to be attractive and safe. We have all been creeped out at some time or other in a parking garage. One of my cousins was shot in a parking garage mugging in LA, and the only murder which occurred in Newton when I lived there, happened in a parking garage.
Take a look at https://www.arrowstreet.com/ and see what you think. Arrowstreet looks to be a perfect fit for the task.
In summary, we have arrived at a crossroads, where the Mayor needs to choose the right path forward.
Framingham’s reputation is tarnished. A very talented female financial leader felt she had no option but to leave. The quality of financial information provided to the City Council is in question. Budget planning for FY25 is in disarray. Two critically important projects are going sideways. Even the city’s bond rating may be in jeopardy.
The Mayor should beg Louise to come back as CFO, with expanded authority, and he should narrow the scope of authority and responsibilities of the COO to prevent conflict and maximize the effect of Louise’s financial and legal talents, and experience. For the foreseeable future, the Legal Department should report to the CFO, not the COO.
The City Council should also apologize profusely for allowing Louise to be publicly criticized in such an unjust manner, especially Council Chair Phil Ottaviani, who could have intervened and put a stop to the whole unjust affair.
Notes:
(1) City Council Meeting Agenda Items from January 1, 2024
4. ORDER 2024-001
Upon request of the Mayor, referral to the Finance Subcommittee the change in grade from an S3 to DH1 for the City Accountant position.
City Accountant Comparison.pdf
5. ORDER 2024-002 BACKGROUND FILE CHANGED
Upon Request of the Mayor, referral to the Finance Subcommittee a funding request for Memorandum of Agreement for Salary Adjustments as a result of a Compensation and Classification Study of Framingham Professional Union SEIU, Local 888 Funding Request for Memorandum of Agreement for Framingham Professional Union SEIU, Local 888 Effective July 1, 2023 - June 30, 2026.
FILE CHANGE Compensation Schedule and Salary Tables 888 Convert to PDF.pdf
(2) Louise Millers email fixing all of the financial mistakes in the city memo to the City Council for the January 1, 2024 meeting
From: Louise Miller <lmiller@framinghamma.gov>
Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2023 12:37:09 PM
To: Michael A. Tusino <mat@framinghamma.gov>; Charles J. Sisitsky <mayorsisitsky@framinghamma.gov>; Kathy Davies-OLeary <koleary@framinghamma.gov>; Jennifer A. Pratt <jaf@framinghamma.gov>; City Council <citycouncil@framinghamma.gov>
Cc: Darlene Archibald <darchibald@seiu888.org>
Subject: Fwd: Memorandum and Calculation for 888 Professional Union
Dear all:
I was asked about a memorandum in the Council packet for tomorrow’s meeting. I looked at the memorandum and it is incorrect in a number of regards. It understates the amount needed to cover the 888 Professional Union classification and compensation as well as the signed MOA, both in the aggregate and for individual departments. It also does not include Weights and Measures as a Department that will need additional funding to cover the changes to classification and the COLA, if approved by Council.
I have explained below how the aggregate amount needs to be calculated. I also included guidelines on how to calculate retroactive pay for employees should Council approve the requested changes. I apologize for the small print. You should be able to change the font. I have also attached the excel document in which I was working, if that is easier.
I wish everyone a Happy New Year. Today is my last official day with the City.
Louise
Louise L.E. Miller, J.D.
Chief Financial Officer /Director of Administration and Finance
C: 781-697-6018
When creating the budget, employees are budgeted at the step at which they will be during a fiscal year, regardless of when they reach that step during the year.
The Fiscal Year step is the basis for the Council's Schedule E vote and indicates the maximum that can be paid for a particular position.
A classification and compensation for the 888 SEIU Union has almost been finalized (I believe there were 2 outstanding questions regarding specific employees).
The classification resulted in changes for many positions. The study showed that some positions should be reclassified higher, others were they should be and yet others were reclassified lower. The second part of the reclassification was looking at compensation for the positions. Please note that this was a classification and compensation of positions not individual employees.
For positions where compensation would be reduced, the City proposed that the employees be allowed to continue in their existing compensation schedule until they either leave the City or apply for and obtain a different position with the City, at which time the position would be moved to the new salary schedule. This means that the City will have 2 compensation schedules for the 888 Professional Union, which will need to be reviewed every time an employee in the Union leaves the City so that all positions are transitioned over time.
For positions where compensation is increased, a calculation needs to be made to determine the effect of the new compensation schedule on budgets, and, if the new schedule is approved by Council, to place individuals on the correct salary table and determine the retroactive pay owed to individuals.
The memorandum submitted to Council does not correctly calculate the fiscal impact of the new classification and compensation study, nor does it correctly calculate the amounts that need to be transferred into departmental budgets to cover the proposed compensation.
There are 3 parts to the calculation. 1. The FY24 budget impact of the proposed compensation. 2. The FY24 budget impact of the proposed COLA. 3. The FY24 budget impact of the FY23 retroactive impact of the proposed compensation.
The memorandum to Council appears to correctly calculate Part 1, which totals approximately $122k. It also appears to correctly calculate Part 2, which total approximately $23k. The memorandum, however, completely omits Part 3, which is the FY23 retroactive portion of the impact of the change in salary, and which totals approximately $40k (I have not done the exact calculation because I do not have the FY23 salary tables but it should be a little over approximately 1/3 of the FY24 change, because it covers 4 months of FY23 salary (March 1 to June 30) at whatever the FY23 step was for each employee, which is one step lower than FY24.
The total amount needed to cover FY24 impact of the compensation and classification is approximately $162k, and the impact of the FY24 COLA is $23k, totaling $185k additional funding needed for FY24.
At least 2 departments need transfers of funds to cover the impact of the compensation change and the COLA: Inspectional Services and Weights and Measures. The amount needed is significantly more than $15,000, and the Health Department does not have sufficient funds in its salary line to cover the increases to Inspectional Services and Weights and Measures. At this time, I could not say with certainty whether there are sufficient funds in any of the budgets once the full impact of the compensation change and the COLA are determined for each department.
The funding source that had been planned for any department that needs supplemental funding is the Salary Reserve. $625k was budgeted, of which $381k was voted to be transferred by Council in July to cover the Firefighters Collective Bargaining Agreement. There are sufficient funds in the Salary Reserve to cover Inspectional Services and Weights and Measures, and any other budget that may need a small appropriation. I have provided the most recent YTD report to Kathy O'Leary with my notes. In looking at the Health Department budget, I think that the Year To Date (YTD) or Account Inquiry report is being misread by whomever prepared the memorandum. There is a single budget line in Health for all salaries. Accounting was supposed to update salary expense lines so that all salaries are paid out of the single budget line. This did not happen. So, there are multiple salary expenditure lines under different org codes in MUNIS that need to be totaled in order to determine the actual YTD. The Health Department is at 41% YTD, vs. an anticipated 43.5%. That yields an approximate YTD surplus of $20k, certainly not enough to cover the compensation and COLA for Health and transfer funds to another department.
Below is the manner in which the actual retroactive pay for each employee will need to be calculated so that it is correct. I have laid out 5 scenarios. I think it covers all possible scenarios.
It is very important for the retroactive pay that all employees be at their correct step and have received any retroactive pay if not timely place on their correct step at the time that the retroactive pay is calculated. Otherwise, another layer of complexity will be added, for which I am happy to answer any questions if necessary.
Scenario 1: Employees remain on the current salary table. They will be placed on a new salary table with a 1% increase as of January 1, 2024, if approved by Council. Their retroactive pay will equal the difference between the pay on the new salary table and the pay on the old salary table as of January 1, 2024.
To calculate: Actual Pay from January 1 to date placed on New Salary Table *.01 = Retroactive Pay
For example: if an employee is placed on the new salary table on February 25, 2024, the retro pay will equal 1% of the salary paid from January 1, 2024 to February 25, 2024.
Scenario 2: Employee was at top step in FY23 so FY24 step = FY23 step. The employee will be placed on the new salary table as of March 1, 2023 (New Salary Table 1), and the new salary table with 1% COLA as of January 1, 2024 (New Salary Table 2).
To calculate: (Pay under New Salary Table 1 from March 1, 2023 to December 31, 2023 - Actual Pay from March 1, 2023 to December 31, 2023) + (Pay under New Salary Table 2 - Actual Pay from January 1, 2024 to date placed on New Salary Table 2) = Retroactive Pay
Scenario 3: Employee steps between March 1, 2023 and December 31, 2023. The employee will be placed on the new salary table as of March 1, 2023 (New Salary Table 1) at the FY23 step. The employee will be placed on the new salary table at their FY24 step when stepping and the new salary table with 1% COLA as of January 1, 2024 (New Salary Table 2) at the FY24 step.
To calculate: (Pay under New Salary Table 1 at FY23 step from March 1, 2023 to date of step - Actual Pay at FY23 step from March 1, 2023 to date of step) + (Pay under New Salary Table 1 at FY24 step from date of step to December 31, 2023 - Actual Pay at FY24 step from date of step to December 31, 2023)+ (Pay under New Salary Table 2 at FY24 step - Actual Pay at FY24 step from January 1, 2024 to date placed on New Salary Table 2 at FY24 step) = Retroactive Pay
Scenario 4: Employee steps between January 1, 2024, and implementation of the new salary tables. The employee will be placed on the new salary table as of March 1, 2023 (New Salary Table 1) at the FY23 step. The employee will be placed on the new salary table at their FY24 step when stepping and the new salary table with 1% COLA as of January 1, 2024 (New Salary Table 2) at the FY24 step.
To calculate: (Pay under New Salary Table 1 at FY23 step from March 1, 2023 to December 31, 2023 - Actual Pay at FY23 step from March 1, 2023 to December 31,2023) + (Pay under New Salary Table 2 at FY23 step from to December 31, 2023 to date of step - Actual Pay at FY23 step from December 31, 2023 to date of step)+ (Pay under New Salary Table 2 at FY24 step - Actual Pay at FY24 step from date of step to date placed on New Salary Table 2 at FY24 step) = Retroactive Pay
Scenario 5: Employee steps after implementation of the new salary tables. The employee will be placed on the new salary table as of March 1, 2023 (New Salary Table 1) at the FY23 step. The employee will be placed on the new salary table with 1% COLA as of January 1, 2024 (New Salary Table 2) at the FY23 step. The employee will be placed on Salary Table 2 at their FY24 step when stepping in the normal course.
To calculate: (Pay under New Salary Table 1 at FY23 step from March 1, 2023 to December 31, 2023 - Actual Pay at FY23 step from March 1, 2023 to December 31,2023) + (Pay under New Salary Table 2 at FY23 step from to December 31, 2023 to date of implementation of new salary tables - Actual Pay at FY23 step from December 31, 2023 to date of implementation of new salary tables) = Retroactive Pay
