First he broke the law he sponsored and voted for, then it takes six months under intense political pressure before he caves in, then admits he broke the law and decides the money needs to be paid back.Now, in continued violation of the law, his sister whom he hired illegally has paid the money back. It is a violation of labor laws that she returned her compensation after she worked in his office as an employee, which now amounts to her working without being compensated. That is most likely the reason the Public Officer's law requires the employer to return the money and not the employee, to prevent further violations.
Public Officers Law section 73 requires that the offender – Aubertine – is responsible for repaying the illegal “gift, compensation or benefit”:
…Any person who knowingly and intentionally violates (the law) shall be subject to a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed forty thousand dollars and the value of any gift, compensation or benefit received in connection with such violation. (POL, Sec. 17, subd. 14(h), emphasis added)
Aubertine's move of allowing his sister to pay the money back is likely an effort to prevent an admission of guilt on the public officer's law, but now he may be in violation of labor laws, people cannot work without compensation.
"Article 6 of the Labor Law, relating to payment of wages, protects the rights of a worker to receive wages earned. It assures payment of wages in full on regular pay days. It sets standards as to the frequency of pay days and authorizes the Labor Department to assist workers in collecting unpaid wages."
Read the Abstract of Laws Relating to Payment of Wages. Here
Will it take more pressure to get him to finally correct the violation the proper way?
17 comments:
The Times quotes Courtenay M. Ruddy (coming, Lovey!) saying that the issue wasn't raised "by a constituent" for six months.
That's the official position of Darrel Aubertine? It's OK to break the law unless the voters find out?
I apologize for being so thick, but I guess I’m missing something.
PIV, you write: “the law states that Aubertine himself is responsible to pay the money back.”
But I don’t think the subject of the Public Officers Law that you picked says that, unless I’m missing something.
“Any person who knowingly and intentionally violates (the law)” - would be Aubertine in your example.
“shall be subject to a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed forty thousand dollars and the value of any gift” – In other words, is subject to a fine
And who decides to penalize Aubertine financially? According to the WDT, that is made by an “oversight body.”
OK, so Aubertine shall be subject to a fine if the oversight body says so. But 1) an oversight body hasn’t said so, at least as far as we know and 2) and being subject to a fine is different than being required to pay the money back.
You started your post by asking: Does Aubertine understand the laws? Let me flip that around and ask you: Do you? If so, can you point to a section of state law that proves “Aubertine himself is responsible to pay the money back”?
You are full of it IV. The Watertown Daily Times reported today that Aubertine was instructed by Senate to do it this way, and he paid Mrs. Wiley from his personal account before she sent the check this week, so she was compensated for her April hours as proscribed by law.
Isn't it a violation of state and federal law for Renzi to coordinate with the Senate Secretary to engineer this latest attack?
C R
If Aubertine pays the money back then he admits he violated the PO law and is subject to the penalty.
If his sister pays the money back then Darrel Aubertine has violated the labor laws the for not compensating an employee.
By him attempting to avoid a penalty situation, he is breaking labor laws.
Pick your poison.
So much BS, so little time....
Renzi and the GOP are so desperate they will do and say anything to try and get him elected.
Darrel was following what the Republican majority in senate payroll told him - that the check had to come from his sister.
so.....the check came from his sister and they refused to accept it. BTW Darrel paid his sister from his own personal account so that she would not be uncompensated for the work no one disputes she did perform.
When did Renzi pay the town back for the 4 years of having himself illegally in the pension system. Note to all: the EMPLOYER pays a portion of the retirement - so no, Renzi not only requested the town to put him in the pension system so that he could get enough additional credits, but the taxpayers also PAID for his illegal benefits.
Try not to change the subject.
What you have here is a little criminal activity, nothing that would stop us from voting for the person we've already decided to vote for. Criminal activity isn't what it used to be. Not when we have our partisanship to consider.
If your are so sure about this then why are you giving us Dave Renzi who stole and is being checked on?
IV - saw the cake - thanks a bunch... my fav brand, too.
Very thoughtful of you...
~ dmf
Cournenay M. Ruddy back speaking for Aubertine...."Head for the hills gang, hide the 'wimmin & children the race is gonna get uglier soon!"
Instead of sticking to the facts (Reporting 101), intrepid journalist J. Seymour puts on his on his barrister's hat and renders his verdict as judge and jury, ignoring the fact that Darrel A. has ADMITTED all. ("I did it, I just wanted to wait six months until someone caught me doing it.")
The stand-up, one-of-us thing to do is to repay the money AND the fine, admit your mistake and move on.
The Courtenay M. "Sandy Isle" Ruddy-Drew G. "Woodstock" Mangione, all-things-are-partisan-political thing to do is to say, "the Senate Majority made me do it," in yet another Aubertinian effort to wiggle away from responsibility.
Once again, clearly showing that this guy hasn't a clue what he's doing.
Drew and Courtenay should be fired for letting Darrel get himself in this pickle.
PIV
"If Aubertine pays the money back then he admits he violated the PO law and is subject to the penalty. "
Renzi lied about it, then he said he did, but was confused because he claimed the rules changed.
By your logic, Dave's little indiscretion is also an admission and he is subject to the penalty that comes along with commission of a felony.
As hard as you try to squirm out of David's little mess, PIV, you can't have it both ways.
What is good for the farmer is good for the lawyer.
Jeez, aren't you getting a little tired from beating this to death. Move on for God's sake! Don't you have anything better to blog/twist the facts about?
It's the best Dave Renzi's campaign has at this point, they can't drop it.
Is Darrel EVER going to pay back the money?
" anonymous said...
Is Darrel EVER going to pay back the money?"
The downstate republican campaign of David Renzi does not want Darrel to pay back the money. They are making it difficult for him to pay it back.
Because, as soon as they do, they will have to spend their time defending Dave Renzi who is being investigated by the Attorney General for scamming the New York State Retirement system.
Darrel's "non-payment" is another one of PIV's shiny things that he grasp's tightly as the Dave Renzi campaign squirms.
hummm seems with all the sister hiring game everyone seems to have forgotten his windmill voting scheme if thats not a worse ethics call i dont know what is . voting on something so you financialy gain is scummy .
Post a Comment