Open letter to Mr. Tim Clifton, City Manager Woodstock IL

Dear Mr. Clifton:

In today's Northwest Herald, Friday, May 1, 2009, you were quoted as saying "The city's interest always is to protect residents and taxpayers and to be a good steward of tax dollars. ...we also want to be fair and equitable to city employees."

So far I have not experienced that aspect of the "city's interest" towards its employees. I hope that some time in the very near future I will experience your quoted words in real forward moving modalities of action to resolve this situation of which you are aware.

I am not saying this to be rude or blamful but I would recommend that before totally backing your departments heads you adopt the late President Ronald Reagan's philosophy, "trust but verify". As they say there is always another side to a story and in the news business always a "back story" that can change the whole complexion of what you may have been told along with what people may have told you are iron clad facts and incontrovertible.

Sincerely,
Richard W. Gorski, M.D.

I've learned my lesson!

Dear Ms. Jillian Duchnowski:

Boy have I learned my lesson; never talk to the press with the expectation that the truth will be revealed by them. In most cases you can probably expect that you will get a STORY created to titillate the readers and stir controversy and increase sales and circulation and not even an attempt at getting at the underlying factors that are at the heart of the matter. What a lot of reporters (not journalists) want is to get their STORY on the front page of a newspaper in big black print with their name written below.

I also resent the implied insinuation that I doled out pain meds like some street corner dealer supplying his customers with their needs. If I could count the times I gave patients free samples or medications (freely at my cost) that they needed but could not afford it might be more than the hairs on your head. I am truly saddened and disheartened at the way you approached this, seemingly setting up your agenda to go where you wanted to go and report and dismissing the things that did not fit your agenda or version of the truth. I wish you well on your journey to become a journalist.

Justices rule for whistle blowers

In a 9-0 decision, on Monday, January 26, 2009, the Supreme Court of the United States stated that employees, workers who cooperate with an investigation regarding uncouth behavior by a supervisor are protected from retaliation under the civil rights laws. So now not only is the person who filed the complaint protected but any witnesses who might corroborate the truthfulness of the complaint are also now protected against retaliation by the employer. Justice David Souter said that protection "extends to an employee who speaks out about discrimination not on her/his own initiative, but in answering questions during an internal investigation."

Another Continuance..in Woodstock IL

Will it ever end? Sgt. Gorski, almost 20 year veteran of the Woodstock PD, who was unanimously vindicated by the Woodstock Board of Fire and Police Commissioners almost a year ago of a complaint brought against him by Robert W. Lowen Jr., the current Chief of the Woodstock PD. Sgt. Gorski has been found guilty of nothing and has had absolutely no disciplinary action recommended by the Woodstock Board of Fire and Police Commissioners. Yet for the last year he has been punished by the City of Woodstock for being found vindicated by its own Board of Fire and Police Commissioners buy not paying him his back pay with statutory interest as demanded by the State statute. Likewise when he tried to go back to light duties as recommended by his spine surgeon he was told sorry we've got nothing for you, have a nice day. Now understand this, he is still a sworn police officer, an employee of the City of Woodstock, vindicated by the Board but they have decided unilaterally not to pay him even though he is still technically an employee with the city; you try to figure that one out if you can.

Could you have a nice day knowing that there is no income to support your family which includes three young daughters? I don't think so.

Today he was told that the Hearing in Judge McIntyre's Court was continued and will not take place tomorrow. He does not know why as of yet or who asked for it. I am looking forward to the reason for the continuance. I hope its not going to result in another several months of no pay or back pay for being found vindicated by Woodstock's own Board of Fire and Police Commissioners. Imagine that: being punished because you have been found innocent. Must be a new legal concept being allegedly promulgated by the City of Woodstock against its long term employees or could it be allegedly something more personal between Lowen and Sgt. Gorski that the city does not want aired in the arena of public opinion and its citizens' good judgement.

David W McArdle...Back Again In Court

Remember the previous article about David W. McArdle, a managing partner of Zukowski, Rogers, Flood and McArdle, attorneys for the City of Woodstock Illinois and the phone call and meeting with Sgt. Gorski's attorneys to work out something more amicable and efficient in settling their differences? Well to the best of my knowledge Sgt. Gorski's attorneys received no calls back in regards to it but I am sure the Sergeant's legal bill increased and so did the city's because of this exercise in futility. I suspect it may have been just another tactic in trying to extend this whole matter by trying to bankrupt the Sgt. so that he could not go on and continue to defend his position in court and for the City of Woodstock to continue to not pay him any wages for more than a year now.

At court,Mr. McArdle brought out his tripod and poster boards and in a few minutes tried to convince Judge Maureen McIntyre that the 4 1/2 months of evidence and testimony presented by Anne Brophy, the attorney who handled the prosecution for the city against Sgt. Gorski and an attorney for Zukowski, Rogers, Flood and McArdle; that the decision in the case, by the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners should have been decided differently and against Sgt. Gorski. That they, the Board, should have found him guilty of the charges brought against him by the Chief of Police, Robert W. Lowen Jr. and he should have been fired from his job after 20 years of exemplary public service to the community of Woodstock Illinois. So much for advancing amicability, efficiency and trust but I will say it was a valiant effort in trying to rewrite history and a valiant attempt to forget about the concept of double jeopardy of the defendant. As far as justice...you be the judge.

Now the citizens of Woodstock and of McHenry County have an even clearer idea of what Sgt. Gorski and his attorneys have had to deal with.

RETURN TO WORK AGREEMENTS

According to the U.S. Department of Labor (www.dol.gov/elaws) Sept. 16, 2007 "a Return-to-Work Agreement (RTWA) is a written document that sets forth the expectations that the employer and the employee assistance/medical professional have of an employee who has completed mandated treatment for alcohol and/or drug problems." This agreement is to be used if an individual has a primary alcohol and/or drug problem. Primary meaning that his/her alcohol and/or drug problems are the basis of the work related problems that are occurring. It is not designed to be used on an individual whose primary problem is a work related injury or injuries or disease who is under the care of a licensed physician who prescribes the drugs for either cure or mitigation of symptoms such as pain or any of a myriad of others. One example of the misuse of this type of RTWA would be to force a employee, lets say who has cancer, to sign the RTWA because the drug the employee's physician has prescribed might at times cause nausea and or vomiting and interfere with workplace routine. The RTWA to be used must be for an underlying primary alcohol and/or drug problem and not used to impede the treatment of an underlying disease or injury or injuries, especially if said injury or injuries were sustained in the workplace. It, the RTWA is not meant to be a "one size fits all" agreement; that should be obvious to all rational and sensible people. It should not be used to "get rid" of or discard employees that are becoming a logistical or financial problem for the employer...to use it for this reason would be amoral and allegedly illegal.

According to the U.S. Department of Labor "Developing a RTWA requires:

• Coordination between the employee, employer, union, Employee Assistance Program and/ or treatment professionals.
• Compliance with the organization's policies and legal obligations, as well as medical recommendations.
• Prior notification through company policy that an RTWA would be expected as a condition of continued employment.

I hope all people of honor and conscience in positions of authority use a RTWA for the benefit of the employee and not as an illicit tool to solve their self motivated problems with that employee. In the end we all will have to answer for our actions especially when they affect the welfare of other individuals and their families.

Reminders To Woodstock Illinois City Council Members

MUNICIPAL CODE WOODSTOCK ILLINOIS



1.3.2: DEFINITIONS, GENERAL:



NEGLIGENT: The word "negligent".....imports a want of such attention to the nature of probable consequences of the act or omission as a reasonable prudent man bestows in acting in his own concern.



NUISANCE: Anything offensive or obnoxious to the health and welfare of the inhabitants of the City: or any act or thing repugnant to, or creating a hazard to, or having a detrimental effect on the property of another person or to the community.



PERSONAL PROPERTY: Includes every description of money, goods, chattels, effects, evidence of rights in action and all written instruments by which pecuniary obligation, right to title of property is created, acknowledged, transferred, increased, defeated, discharged or diminished and every right of interest therein.





1.4.1: GENERAL PENALTY:



Any person violating any provision of this Code, or any rule or regulation adopted or issued in pursuance thereof, or a provision of any code adopted herein by reference shall, unless another penalty is specifically provided, upon conviction, be fined in any sum not less than five dollar ($5.00) nor more that five hundred dollars ($500.00) or imprisoned for a term not exceeding six (6) months. Each act of violation and each day upon which a violation occurs constitutes a separate offence. (1963 Code, 1.09; amd. 1986 Code)



1.4.3: RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACTS



Each person concerned in the commission of an act prohibited by this Code, whether he directly commits the act, or prosecutes, counsels, aids or abets in its commission, may be prosecuted and, on conviction, is punishable as if he had directly committed such act. (1963 Code 1.08)

Woodstock & PD Takes Care Of Its Own...Joke

Within the Illinois Compiled Statutes there is a division called GENERAL PROVISIONS and within it is (5 ILCS 345/) Public Employee Disability Act, commonly known as "PEDA".

Sec. 1. Disability benefit.
(a) It lists among other things that an "eligible employee" is "any full-time law enforcement officer or full-time firefighter who is .............employed......., any unit of local government granted the power to employ persons for such purposes by law."

In my humble, non-lawyer brain this would include a city like Woodstock Illinois.

(b) "Whenever an eligible employee suffers any injury in the line of duty which causes him to be unable to perform his duties, he shall continue to be paid by the employing public entity on the same basis as he was paid before the injury..."

(c) "At any time during the period for which continuing compensation is required by this act, the employing public entity may order at the expense of that entity physical or medical examinations of the injured person to determine the degree of disability."

(d) "During this period of disability, the injured person shall not be employed in any other manner....."

Now lets look back at the situation of Sergeant Steven R. Gorski, an "eligible employee" of the Woodstock Police Department for (19) nineteen years.

1. Under Section 1 (a) he is an "eligible employee".
2. Under Section 1 (b) he sustained an in the line of duty injury that was reported, documented and approved after an investigation by a Deputy Chief of Police of the City of Woodstock. This injury has resulted in his inability for him to perform his duties as a Patrol Sergeant for the City of Woodstock Police Department.
3. Under Section 1 (c) never did the employing public entity (City) have a physical exam to determine the degree of disabililty of Sergeant Gorski.
4. Under Section 1 (d) at no time during this now current period of disability was or is the Sergeant employed in any other manner.

In conclusion, it seems to me that the City of Woodstock, its Mayor, City Council, City Administrator, Director of Human Resources and Chief of Police are alledgedly NOT in compliance with 5 ILCS 345/, The Public Employee Disabiltiy Act.

Now tonight when you go to sleep you can relax and have pleasant dreams knowing that your public officials are looking out for your best interests should something happen to you while you are working for the City of Woodstock. Pleasant dreams and yes don't forget to buy plenty of private disablity insurance so your family and you can survive.