News

Ex-city worker guilty of larceny

Man caught doing private job near City Hall while collecting sick pay

By Julie Manganis
Staff writer
Published: November 22, 2008

SALEM — A former city worker spotted doing a private line-painting job on a day that he had called in sick was found guilty on Thursday of larceny.

But while the Peabody District Court jury found that Rhett Rochna, 37, was guilty of larceny by false pretense, they found that it was for an amount less than $250 — Rochna's pay on the one day he was photographed outside a Dunkin' Donuts just down the street from Salem City Hall, pushing a line-painting machine around the parking lot.

Prosecutors and city officials had hoped the jury would find that Rochna had lied about being sick for the entire time he was out of work, from May 23 until June 18, when he was spotted working. They had charged him with larceny of more than $250 by false pretense.

Rochna tried to convince jurors that he was acting on doctor's orders to get some exercise, to help alleviate hypertension and anxiety — ailments that Rochna blamed on tension between himself and his supervisors at work. Rochna worked on road crews in the city's public services department, doing a variety of tasks, including painting lines.

Rochna also argued that he was simply helping out his brother, who manages the Dunkin' Donuts.

His doctor testified during Rochna's trial, however, that by exercise, he meant a brisk walk, not painting lines.

Prosecutor Jane Prince showed jurors a series of notes written by Rochna's doctors, saying that the longtime public services employee was unable to work.

On the same day the third note was submitted, saying Rochna was too sick to work, Human Resources Director Lisa Cammarata walked down the street from City Hall to Dunkin' Donuts, about a block and a half away.

There, she saw Rochna working in the parking lot.

Cammarata, who also testified during the trial, sent another employee to take pictures. Two of those pictures were shown to jurors.

The city fired Rochna and then threatened to take him to court to recover the $727 weekly salary they had been paying him for the prior 31âÑ2 weeks, a total of $2,619.

Jury deliberations in the case stretched into a second day, and jurors sent two notes to the judge. One note asked whether the larceny charge covered the entire period from May 23 to June 18, and the second asked whether finding Rochna guilty of larceny under $250 implied that he was guilty of collecting one day's pay.

After the jury's verdict, O'Leary fined Rochna $250.

Rochna's lawyer, Christopher Mangos, said his client was disappointed by the verdict, but has not decided whether to appeal.

In a letter sent to Rochna on June 27, a city lawyer, Dan Kulak, offered a settlement in which Rochna would resign and drop any appeals and grievances over his firing, in exchange for the city not challenging his unemployment claim and not filing criminal charges.

Rochna rejected the offer. He later won unemployment compensation from the Division of Unemployment Assistance, and a clerk magistrate rejected the city's request for criminal charges to be issued.

Then, in two separate rulings, Salem District Court judges overruled the unemployment office and ordered Rochna to repay his benefits and also overruled the clerk magistrate, allowing the city to proceed with a criminal larceny complaint against Rochna.