1. Authorize Litigation, Medicaid Pharmaceutical Fraud, County Attorney – Mr. Bardsley explained the purpose of the resolution. We were made aware of the legal action instituted by the counties in the southern part of the state in relation to alleged overcharges by pharmaceutical companies in the State of New York regarding Medicaid billing. There is allegation that the price has been fixed by those companies that design the wholesale price in New York. This lawsuit is to potentially recover the overcharges and to litigate the fraud matter. NYSAC has made issue out of this to the various members and they have actually brought counties together in an effort to obtain legal counsel to pursue the same type of litigation that Suffolk County has instituted. NYSAC Counsel has provided us with form documentation that we have used thus far – for the memo and the resolution. Mr. Bardsley has spoken to Mr. Steve Acquario, Esq. Regarding the cost to the county. Mr. Acquario indicated that the firm that NYSAC is recommending is qualified, they have been retained by a number of counties who have accessed them through NYSAC, and the general fee arrangement is a 25% contingency fee, which is lower than the amount this firm is charging some of the counties in the lower part of the state who initiated this lawsuit, so the counties entering at this time are getting a lower fee. It is only a contingency, so if there is no financial recovery, there is no fee. We are told that the maximum cost to the County will be $1,000 for expenses. We will have an opportunity to review the agreement with the law firm before we sign on to it. Mrs. Tytler asked if we know the potential recovery for the County? Mr. Bardsley indicated that Ms. Monroe, DSS Commissioner, has been asked to gather some information on the potential recovery. The recovery could be significant if there is an award in favor of the County. Mr. Bardsley indicated that there is also an opportunity for punitive damages over and above the actual damages. Mrs. Brown asked if this is only for year 2002? Mr. Bardsley does not believe the years are limited, but the issue is proof of overcharging. Mr. McKee asked which pharmaceutical companies will be identified? Mr. Bardsley indicated that the attorneys and the investigators who work for them will be looking at the companies and identifying. Mr. Bardsley indicated that he does not have the experience to litigate this, which is why it is important to hire a firm that is experienced and qualified to litigate the case. Mrs. Tytler asked if Mr. Bardsley is asking for permission to proceed. Mr. Bardsley indicated that the resolution is very general, and would give him permission to enter in to the lawsuit. Mr. McKee asked Mr. Bardsley if he thought we would be successful. Mr. Bardsley indicated that for the small expense up front, he believes it would be beneficial to enter in to the lawsuit. He doesn’t have a feeling for how the suit will actually go. This could, in the end, be finalized through a settlement to the aggrieved parties. Mrs. Tytler moved adoption; seconded by Mrs. Brown. All members voting in favor; none opposed; resolution adopted.

2. Revising Self Insurance Rates for the Cortland County Government Employees’ Health Benefits Program, Personnel/Civil Service – Mrs. Brown moved adoption; seconded by Mr. McKee. Mr. Schrader explained that based upon the adoption of the budget, the rates/costs need to be revised. This is the average 10% premium reduction for each class of employee. These rates will go in to effect March 1, 2005, if this is adopted on the floor. Mrs. Breed asked how our claims were last year. Mr. Schrader indicated they were better, but we did not have the one large claim out there. Mr. Schrader indicated that before his arrival, the Personnel Officer did this on his own. All members voting in favor; none opposed; resolution adopted.

3. Authorize Subscription Plan Amendment, Data Processing (Lexis-Nexis) – Mrs. Brown moved adoption; seconded by Mrs. Tytler. Mr. Schrader indicated that this is our legal/attorney research software subscription. We have about 12 licenses for this. This will be a 36-month term for a subscription. Chairman Steve indicated that this is a heavily used program. Mr. McKee asked what the software is for? Mr. Schrader indicated that it is a database created by a firm that gives us access to case law, law books, etc., with search engines to bring up particular cases. Mrs. Breed asked if this has always been combined. Mr. Schrader indicated that previously we had separate licenses. Mr. Elston asked if we went out to bid on this? Mr. Schrader indicated that this is basically the only company about this; West Law does exist but we have had a long-term relationship with Lexis-Nexis. Mrs. Tytler and Mrs. Breed asked for "per month" to be added so it is clear that this is a monthly cost. Mr. Elston has some familiarity with this and to him, it does not make sense not to look at West Law, who is a competitor. We certainly go out for three bids on a lot less money than this; this appears to be sole sourcing; he believes there is at least one competitor. Mr. Schrader will get contact the competitor and get a price quote from them. Mrs. Breed is asking about comparable services. Mr. Schrader will contact the attorneys to see which software they approve. Mr. Elston asked for a list of which attorneys utilize this software. Mr. Schrader will provide the list. All members voting in favor, except Mr. Elston opposed; resolution adopted.

1. Mr. Bardsley informed the committee that David Alexander, Assistant County Attorney, has resigned effective February 1, 2005. Mr. Alexander is an asset to the office, particularly in Family Court. However, he has found it difficult to maintain a private practice while serving as Assistant County Attorney. Mrs. Tytler asked if Mr. Alexander was willing to stay on until a replacement is found. Mr. Bardsley indicated that Mr. Alexander was willing, however, if the burden is placed on him to fill the position, it will get acted upon in a more timely manner and it will not put David in the position of having to tend to delegated work when he is preparing to leave County employment. Mr. Bardsley would re-think this if the committee desires. Mrs. Tytler is concerned about covering Family Court, should there be a significant lapse in filling the position.

2. Vacancy Report – Annette Barber, Personnel/Civil Service – Mrs. Barber reviewed the vacancy report. The 12^th entry on the list – Medical Services Clerk – was filled the day it was approved to fill – this was actually a reassignment, and the report does not reflect that fact. Mr. Elston asked why the vacancies for the part-time dispatchers are not on this report. Mr. Schrader explained that the positions are not listed in the budget, there is a pool of money for part-time people. The Sheriff has discretion to hire up to 10 part-time people; he must break the Civil Service list before he can hire individuals not on the list. The list is close to being broken.

3. Pre-employment Drug Testing – Mr. Schrader believes that the County should start doing pre-employment drug testing. As part of negotiations with the Unions, we should have drug testing wording in the contracts. Pre-employment drug testing will cost $51. We are doing some physicals for some titles now. He believes we should have standard pre-employment drug testing. Using the new hire statistics, the cost will be approximately $5,000. Mrs. Breed believes the drug testing is important, because if someone is using drugs, and that individual causes an accident, it will cost us more than $5,000. Mr. Schrader indicated that we have a random drug testing system for our CDL drivers. He believes if they are using drugs while they are here, they are using drugs prior to employment. Mrs. Tytler asked what happens to the individuals who have tested positive for drugs during the random testing. Mr. Schrader indicated that to some degree our hands out tied, but they are disciplined, counseled, and required to enter professional counseling, and remain clean for a certain period of time. Mr. Schrader indicated that we have not had any repeat offenders; however, he believes that if there is a second offense, the individual should be terminated. Mrs. Tytler asked if this has to be included in the contracts? Mr. Schrader indicated that pre-employment testing does not have to be negotiated; post-employment testing does need to be negotiated. Mrs. Brown moved to allow pre-employment drug testing; seconded by Mr. McKee. All members voting in favor; none opposed; pre-employment drug testing will be instituted by the County Administrator.

4. Mrs. Brown asked about the residency of the part-time Assistant District Attorney. She understands that the new hire lives in Tompkins County. How did that happen? Mr. Schrader indicated that a memorandum was sent from his office, allowing Mr. Hartnett to fill the position with an out-of-county resident given specific details – that he exhausted all in-county residents and that he assured the County Administrator and the Personnel Officer that the individual will not exercise the sovern duties of the office (not handing out indictments) and that the DA provide a listing of the hierarchy in his office and he provide a caveat that the out of county attorney would not be in the line of succession if there was a vacancy in the DA or the First Assistant DA. Mrs. Brown asked if this is a disadvantage. Mr. Schrader indicated given the staffing levels – 4 other assistants – he doesn’t see this as an issue unless further out of county hires are brought on board. Mr. Schrader indicated that Mr. Hartnett has not filled the third condition of the requirements. Mrs. Tytler asked why he was hired if the requirements have not been met. Mr. Schrader indicated that the DA still has some time to complete it. Mr. Hartnett’s term of office began January 1, 2005; it is twelve days in to his term and he hasn’t met this. Mr. Schrader is giving Mr. Hartnett until the first Legislative session. Mrs. Tytler asked how many county residents were considered and turned down. Mrs. Barber indicated there was one. Mrs. Tytler asked why others were considered? Mrs. Barber indicated that there were no other applicants. Mrs. Tytler asked why the county resident was turned down. Mr. Schrader indicated that she would need to ask Mr. Hartnett, but he understands there were conflicts based on the individual’s recent employment. He does not know if this is the reason or whether there were other factors. Mrs. Breed, Mrs. Tytler, and Mrs. Brown all feel that the Mr. Hartnett’s feet should have been held to the fire. Mr. Elston expressed that he hopes that there will soon be a resolution allowing the Sheriff to hire correction officers from an adjoining county. Mrs. Brown indicated that she will not support that either. Mrs. Breed indicated that we "train" people and then they go to Tompkins County. Chairman Steve indicated that has not happened in four years. Chairman Steve indicated that he feels that we can make exceptions for once in a while, but he does not believe that we should make it the policy. Mrs. Brown agrees that it could be done on an exception basis, but she does not believe it should be a policy. Mr. Schrader understands that the resolution to be considered will be accompanied with a policy stating that going outside the county can only be considered when all county residents have been exhausted. Mr. Elston doesn’t understand why there is an issue of out of county residents. In the private sector, you look at how the commute is. Mrs. Breed feels that it is an issue that if you are not a resident of this county, you don’t really have a concern about the tax level. Your concern should be about the dedication to the community and what it costs us. Mrs. Tytler agrees with Mr. Elston. There are certain positions in the county that should be county residents, but she does not feel that all county positions need to be county employees. Chairman Steve indicated that is not the case, our policy allows contiguous counties. The situation with the Sheriff’s Department is because those individuals are public officers. Mrs. Tytler would like to see the approach be within so many miles of the county as opposed to preventing out of county residents. Mrs. Breed indicated that she feels we should not set a policy that allows out of county hiring; it should be handled on an exception basis. Mrs. Barber indicated that our policy is that public officers live in the County. Chairman Steve indicated that he believes all department heads should live in the County and that should be our policy. Mr. Schrader indicated that we have a very small pool signed up for the correction officer exam; we need to enlarge the pool. This county needs to ask the state permission for the Legislature to hire outside the county. Mr. Schrader indicated that there will be a resolution asking for a Home Rule amendment, accompanied by a policy, for consideration at the next Personnel Committee meeting. Mrs. Barber explained to the committee while an application is required and while we can’t accept merely a resume. Mrs. Barber also explained where our job and exam postings are sent. She believes they are sent to 45 different locations.

5. Mrs. Barber asked about permission to hire Deputy Personnel Officer and discussed the current range for the position. She would like permission to hire about the base, not to exceed midpoint. The two internal candidates make $3,000 more than the base salary. Mr. Elston moved that Mrs. Barber be given discretion to hire the Deputy Personnel Officer at a salary not to exceed mid-point; seconded by Mrs. Brown. All members voting in favor; none opposed; Mrs. Barber may hire a Deputy Personnel Officer at a salary not to exceed mid-point of the salary range.

6. Mr. Schrader indicated that we need to re-examine the Management Comp committee and get it reactivated. Mrs. Breed indicated that with CSEA negotiations and the pressure on the MSD study – is there a way to start formulating something without Annette having to prepare a great deal of documentation. Can a work session be held, with the hope that mid-March, Annette’s time will be eased up a bit. Mr. Schrader asked if the committee would accept a draft to react to. This was agreed to. Mr. Schrader indicated this should be ready for the March Personnel Committee. Mr. McKee asked if there are any "canned formulas" we can get to set salaries? Mr. Schrader indicated there is a formula in place now, but it is not effective. Mr. Schrader recommends looking at what the market will bear. Go to other counties and look at their salaries for the same positions; then you can set a range for the positions to see if we are competitive. With very few exceptions, we are not competitive. Mrs. Tytler believes we should look at job responsibilities before you look at what the market will bear. If we have a large bank of applicants, it is most likely evident that we are competitive. Mrs. Tytler has found that people tend to leave their employment at the three-year mark, and her company has instituted a bump at the three-year level so the salary is increased in addition to the COLA or any other across the board raise given.

The meeting adjourned at 9:20 a.m.

BACK