To the Editor:

On Monday March 21 at the request of Councilwoman Wilkinson, the DPW Director Mr. David Picozzi appeared before the council to respond to various accusations of theft within the department. Mr. Picozzi read a lengthy narrative, hand picking a number of issues, while disparaging all criticism of his department that has been lodged against it over a fairly extensive period of time. With each issue that he outlined he ended the narrative by stating, “where’s the proof”? The appearance was contrived on the part of Mr. Picozzi’s allies Wilkinson and Travis, and as one who follows city council meetings might expect, it was again, one-way dialogue with the public not being allowed to comment or ask questions.

While I can appreciate and respect the appearance of Mr. Picozzi defending his department, there certainly was a level of smoking mirrors that was displayed during his defense of his department. Disturbingly, although all council members received emails with questions to pose, police reports, court documents, and settlement documents, again, the failed body sat silent unable to ask one single question. As a person who has been extremely critical of the department and one who has documented numerous issues of waste on video, I was disappointed, (but not surprised) that not one question was posed by the council members. Once again in the city of Warwick, no attempt to curtail poor behavior is initiated.

While Mr. Picozzi denounced the allegations of theft and waste as rhetoric and hearsay, and asked for proof, the fact of the matter is that Mr. Picozzi’s comments can also be seen as the same due to the fact that he has no quantitative proof or tools to substantiate that there is no theft and waste within the department, however there have been a number of documented issues to the contrary. Here are some facts:

1. The department has no UPC bar coding system to track inventory from acquisition to installation.

2. The department does not perform any form of regular physical inventory control.

3. There is no system in place to track supplies.

4. There is no GPS fleet management system.

5. There has NEVER been an audit of the department.

In view of the above, unfortunately, Mr. Picozzi’s statements can neither be confirmed nor denied. We are left in a position of having no opportunity to question him and having to take his comments on face value.

Interestingly enough, just a couple of days before the engineered spectacle, a video was made public of one of Mr. Picozzi’s outside supervisors and another worker, driving around for hours, hiding at ball parks, and never exiting the truck. In a strange series of coincidences, the employee was demoted just hours before the hearing. These two questions were sent by me, and received by Mr. Picozzi, which he addressed at the podium.

Question 1. Why was the driver of truck H5, promoted to the head of outside services last week and then demoted and replaced the day after my last video was made public last week? Answer – It’s a personnel issue and we don’t discuss personnel issues.

Question 2. Has Ken Naylor had security access to the main gate at any time within the last 2 weeks. Answer – Yes.

The first question clearly indicates that the employee was bagged in the act of waste and abuse driving around all day performing no work and his demotion was damage control. The second question is very problematic to me and my question to Mr. Picozzi is, why would you give security clearance to a non-essential employee (mechanic) who was the subject of an arrest due to removing gasoline, tools and supplies after hours from the department? Who, by the way, also has three convictions of unlawful removal, and shoplifting (see RIJudiciary.com defendant search). I am very interested in the answer to that question, but since no council member asked the question, I guess we will have to ponder the issue for quite some time.

In a letter to all council members, the following internet links of news articles and videos of, shall we say, less than admirable behavior, were forwarded to the council.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tXLrIhEfOk

www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2b2e4tSHdY

www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpI3nPd1fUM

www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7QZzlPplbo

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AAt8RFyR-4 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMSZZLQ4-3w

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DZ5fxWdsHw

www.youtube.com/watch?v=daJQFiH6_9I

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jCZGqhQUH8

In addition, several court documents were also forwarded so they would have enough fact to substantiate some simple questions. Unfortunately, the council stood silent.

Although both sides of this issue may have both legitimate points and some not so legitimate, one fact remains. During the court case of DPW worker Naylor, former DPW workers testified under oath in superior court, “that during 28 years of employment, there existed an unwritten policy whereby employees “could take anything,” and just bring it back”. (pg. 3 & 4 of final court disposition of Naylor case C.A. K2-0121A).

Mr. Cook further explained that no system existed whereby employees made requests to a supervisor or recorded items being “borrowed” or returned. Instead Mr. Cook testified “that the common practice that existed within the department was based on the “honor system”, and employees only need return what was borrowed”. In fact, Mr. Cook testified that when a consumable item such as gasoline was taken, it was only necessary for the employee to replace what was taken. Finally, Mr. Cook also stated that it was not unusual for employees to “borrow” items from the Department’s facilities after it had closed.

You would think that after the council was made aware of these facts that someone, anyone, would have posed a question. You would think that Wilkinson, the finance chair, who stresses repeatedly, the need to identify “gaps in best practices”, would have at least asked if this insane policy had ended. Nope, not a question out of her mouth.

I guess what stands out most to me from watching the production of Monday the 21st, is that the Picozzi, went into passionate detail about his service to the city and stated that he had been in management for 27 years. Mr. Cook stated for 28 years, “workers could take anything they wanted”. Those facts let Picozzi off the hook for 1 of the 28 years. What about the other 27? There are only one of two explanations. Either for 27 years he was unaware of the unwritten common practice, or for 27 years he knew about it, supported it and allowed it to take place. Which is it? I guess there could also be a third explanation – the possibility that the former employee perjured himself? In any event I have grave concerns that not one member of the council was able to ask a question. I guess they just don’t care.

Rob Cote

Warwick