THE CHIEF-LEADER welcomes letters from its readers for publication.
Correspondents must include their names, addresses and
phone numbers. Letters should be submitted with the understanding
that all correspondence is subject to the editorial judgment of this
newspaper. Letters can be e-mailed to: RSTEIER@RCN.COM or
mailed to: Richard Steier, Editor, 277 Broadway, Suite 1506, NY, NY
10007.

MTA Penny-Wise . . .

To The Editor:

I have an idea how to save some money at the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

Every year many lawsuits are filed against the MTA's agencies. Some of them are well-justified, others are frivolous. Some are asking for millions of dollars, others, just for several hundred dollars.

So, would not it be appropriate for the MTA to satisfy a reasonable claim of a few hundreds dollars without wasting thousands of dollars in legal expenses? I think it should be.

Of course, an individual can spend millions of dollars trying to win (as a matter of principle) a one-dollar claim, but a government agency (funded by the taxpayers' money) does not have such a luxury.

Several years ago, I (a retired New York City Transit Electrical Engineer) filed a Small Claims lawsuit against my former employer for the amount of my one-day salary. On Aug. 15, 2003, the next day after the 2003 blackout, many New Yorkers could not get to their jobs because the subway did not operate. All city agencies excused their employees for that missed day, but the NYC Transit wanted to be "different" and forced its employees to take a vacation day.

The union (DC 37 Local 375) filed a grievance, and eventually, as a result of arbitration, NYC Transit was ordered to restore the vacation banks of employees who were unable to report to work. But, since the grievance was brought on behalf of the union members (i.e., current employees), NYC Transit refused to pay all employees who had retired since the blackout.

A simple logic suggests that everything that happened after the blackout was absolutely irrelevant, but NYC Transit's logic is different, and it's decided to punish its former employees (who gave tens of years of dedicated service to the agency) for exercising their Constitutional right to retire.

If you want to sue a government agency, you have to file a claim with that agency first, and the so-called statutory hearing must be held. At that hearing, a court reporter takes notes and then prepares a transcript. Only after that hearing (if the agency refuses to pay) can you go to court.

After my hearing, a 71-page transcript was prepared. At $4 per page, its cost has already exceeded the amount of my claim. But it was just the beginning. After that, the NYC Transit filed four legal documents (totaling 103 pages), and its lawyers had three court appearances. I think that my case is a good example how the MTA is wasting the taxpayers' money.

I lost the case on a technicality because the judge had misguided me.

VICTOR MALTSEV