Archives > Little Elm Journal > News
Print
E-mail
Comment
Rate
RSS
Share
Lakewood Village liable for payments to past employees
By Ann Marie Shambaugh, Staff Writer
Sometimes saying goodbye is not as final as it seems.
Town of Lakewood Village money will be used to pay unemployment benefits to two former town secretaries, both of whom went to work for other cities for a brief time.
The town could have to pay up to $7,846.09 total to Andrea Berry, who worked for Lakewood Village from December 2006 until May 2007, and Julie Arrington, who was employed from June 2004 to November 2006.
Several Lakewood Village residents said they are upset that they have to pay the benefits, which will add up to 2.54 percent of the town’s total budgeted expenses if the maximum is paid out.
“It’s so upsetting, because like any other town we have a budget crunch,” said resident Betty Lisk, who questioned the council about the issue at the last meeting. “We’re a small town and all this money comes out of our taxes, and we have other things to take care of…so it just takes away from what we could do. It’s disheartening.”
Berry worked for Prosper as its economic development specialist from May 14 to July 7, 2007, when she was terminated for failing to report to work, according to town attorney Julie Fort.
According to the Collin County case records, Berry was arrested on June 27, 2007 for possession of controlled substances less than 1 gram.
Texas code states that employers do not have to pay unemployment insurance to employees that were terminated for misconduct at their last place of work.
“The people that I’ve talked to on the street are somewhat incredulous that we’re on the hook for people who either quit or lost their jobs,” said council member Mark Vargus.
Unfortunately for Lakewood Village, the law also states that only the most recent employer can appeal the TWC’s order to pay benefits.
“Because we were not their current employer, we had no legal standing to say whether or not they should get benefits since we weren’t a party to their termination,” Vargus said.
According to a Lakewood Village memo, representatives from Oak Point, where Arrington worked from November 2006 to June 2007, and Prosper said that they would appeal the rulings. Another memo states that Prosper failed to provide enough information on its appeal, although Fort disputes that claim.
“They were provided with the facts of what happened,” she said.
The memo also states that “the City of Oak Point failed to attend, so the appeal was found in favor of Julie by default.”
Oak Point officials would not comment on the issue.
Lakewood Village has already received its first bill, which totaled about $2,600. The town will dip into a special fund designated for unforeseen contingencies to pay for it. That fund has $8,000 set aside for this fiscal year, which began Oct. 1.
“We’re going to have to go back and do a budget amendment, because we did not anticipate this,” Vargus said.
Lakewood Village resident Ken Winn said he thinks that it is unfair that his tax dollars will be paying for this, and he wishes that the populace had been better informed on what was going on.
“I am really concerned about it because we just pay up, pay up, pay up. I still say that our lawyer should’ve stepped in and helped us out on this thing and went to council to say, ‘Let’s have a meeting and find out where we’re at and how we can get around this,’ or whatever our legal obligation is,” he said.
The following are comments from the readers.
In no way do they represent the view of Starlocalnews.com
In no way do they represent the view of Starlocalnews.com
You must register with a valid email to post comments.
Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.
Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.
Registered users sign in here:
Become a Registered User
- Return to: News «
- Home «
- Top of Page ^
