“I’m being perfectly honest with you, I have very serious concerns about
how the city is going to be able to deliver services.” — Maggie Whelan, General Manager, Personnel Department, City of Los Angeles.
Leave it to the bureaucrats to talk truth to power, even when those in power do not listen and cannot see.
Today, our LA civic hero is a woman who has seen it all at City Hall, the longest serving general manager in a system of government that turns over its management for the slightest political whims.
Many who survived have given up entirely but there are some whose skills and detachment have allowed them to keep the system running despite the muddling and meddling from above and still preserve a measure of integrity and the ability to speak honestly, in a nice manner, to be sure.
Maggie Whelan is one of the best of those and her performance Wednesday before her City Council masters was an exhibition that should be watched closely to see what it takes to do a good job when all around you are those who could care less.
Bernard Parks was her straight man, giving nothing away in his expressions as he drew out the truth of what hell his colleagues have wrought with questions that begat facts, a dose of reality. Like Whelan, he spent his career in the stifled culture of City Hall and thrived until, in his case, he thought being Chief of Police, actually meant he was the Chief.
If your attention span ends here, this is all you need to know.
In response to Parks’ deliberately convoluted questions about the chaos caused by the shotgun approach of early retirements, the total confusion caused by layoffs where no one actually loses their jobs and a fiscal crisis that gets worse by the day, Whelan offered these words of wisdom:
“I’m being perfectly honest with you, I have very serious concerns about
how the city is going to be able to deliver services. perfectly honest with you, I have very serious concerns about how the city is going to be able to deliver services.”
There it is. If Maggie Whelan whose job it is to juggle the 52,000 full-time employees into a functioning city government, doesn’t know how LA is going to deliver services, nobody does.
Certainly not the mayor who has done nothing except put 4,000 more workers on the payroll and into the bankrupt pensions plans and spent money as fast as he made hollow promises.
Two weeks ago he awakened from his long disengagement from his job of leading the city and exercised powers no one knew he had to order 1,000 job eliminations immediately.
It was a trick since the goal was to transfer most of them to special funds, Harbor, Airport and DWP jobs. Only 160 have been transferred out of more than 2,000 applicants who jumped at the chance to escape what was going on and, as Whelan notes, not a single worker has been laid off.
It was as if she were speaking in a dead language like Sanskrit. The reality didn’t matter.The Council is moving forward relentlessly to carry out a plan that in the end will lead to even worse financial troubles, and losses in services that will damage the quality of life for millions and jeopardize the future of the city.
Don’t take my word for it. Watch Maggie Whelan closely for the four minutes of this video and hear what she is really saying. And if you really want to understand what is going on more deeply, watch the full video at the City Clerk’s site. .
Maggie Whelan may not ready for the pedestal yet. She oversaw the Mayor’s recent transfer proposal that moved people to higher paying jobs in DWP, Harbor, and Airports. Some of them were in no danger of layoffs so the goal wasn’t even achieved of reducing the general fund liability. All it has done is make the delivery of services even more difficult by snatching some out of needed positions with one or two days notice. She and the others will soon see that just like the stupidity of furloughs for only a small sub section of employees, this rushed transfer episode will end in disaster and probable legal liability. A slapdash band-aid approach to managing the structural deficit of the City will not be successful.
In the mix of ERIP, lay-offs and furloughs, no consideration has been given to demotions that would also save considerable amounts.
Here are several random thoughts:
1. The City has gone through layoffs in the past (real layoffs).
2. The process takes a long time (at least a month) and cannot be done in the Mayor’s announced period. A layoff list needs to be generated. Any layoff/seniority list generated has an expiration date and the clock is reset, requiring the generation of a new list, if layoffs aren’t carried out in a timely period.
3. As reported, Proprietary Departments have picked up some City transfers, but;
4. Layoffs are based on the Bargaining unit, Civil Service class, and most importantly seniority in class.
5. Protest, grievances, and lawsuits could take place for several reasons. For example, what if someone with lower seniority gets picked up at a Proprietary Department even those with more seniority applied. Then the “rejected” employee who is forced to stay at the City gets laid off.
6. Repeating, the City has implemented layoffs in the past perhaps dating back to the 70′s. When the City’s budget returned to balance after about a year. Those employees who were laid off were offered protected return rights. Some employees got other jobs and did not return, while others happily returned to work.
In the mix of ERIP, lay-offs and furloughs, no consideration has been given to demotions that would also save considerable amounts.
How much exactly would demotions save? And what criteria would be used for determining who gets demoted?
None of you understand how the switch to proprietary departments works. It’s obvious.
Demotions are possible, but only by accident through “bumping” rights – that is the complication of generating the layoff list and usually results in people still going out the door. For example, if an employee has either changed civil service, promoted within his/her class, or changed department or bargaining unit, the generation of a layoff list goes through iterations. On “round one” the employee could get kicked back to a previously held position which may include either a demotion or a change in class or bargaining unit or department, etc. This process causes the “higher level” employee to bump an “lower level” person. This process occurs until either the higher level person bumps a lower level person out the door, or if the original employee is “pushed out the door.”
You could have a scenario where an employee bumps into a Proprietary Department (Airports, Harbor, DWP) that has a need (and is budgeted) for that class and can “absorb” that position.
To February 18, 2010 12:58 AM: That’s where there could be protests, grievances, or lawsuits. What if a targeted employee gets a job within the last 2 weeks with a proprietary dept (LAWA, Port, DWP) and then the layoff list is generated and someone of higher seniority who didn’t get picked up, but applied, gets laid off?
Since there are civil service procedures, can’t the employee with higher seniority complain if he also applied for that proprietary dept position, but was passed up in favor of someone in the same civil service class, but with less seniority?
One saving grace would be that not many people were picked up and those employees knocked out would have to be aware of this issue.
As the comments show, the lay off process is slow and complicated, and each month the city delays, the situation will only get worse.
To put some perspective on this, remember that Personnel doesn’t hold the purse strings, i.e. they do not decide how many positions are funded in a budget cycle. Those functions are performed by management and the so-called proprietary departments.
The human resources role in a local government fiscal crisis is to insist that governance acknowledge that the primary part of the budget are people/positions. That’s what is clearly shown in the video.
Until or unless the city council and mayor commit to achieving a payroll and benefits budget they can sustain with in-place taxes and fees, practically anything attempted will have marginal effect.
Thank God somebody, in this case Whelan and Personnel, has the integrity to point out the obvious.
By Anonymous on February 18, 2010 12:58 AM
None of you understand how the switch to proprietary departments works. It’s obvious.
What’s not to understand? The Mayor sent out a directive to all General Managers on Feb. 4th detailing certain steps to be taken to reduce the deficit in the General Fund. One of those steps was asking Departments with special funded positions (including the Proprietary Departments) to identify open positions for immediate transfer. A list with some of these positions was made available to employees on Feb 5th which was on a Friday. Employees were given until the following Monday to apply by online application. The normal Civil Service hiring procedures were bypassed and selections were made within 3 days by whatever criteria the General Managers deemed appropriate – review of application, coin flip, friend of a friend, etc. Offers were made, employees started on Tuesday after the holiday.
Since no provisions were made to ensure the transfers were limited to those facing layoffs or in general funded positions, the layoff scenario and/or the protests grievances and lawsuits mentioned in earlier comments are certain to occur.
She oversaw the Mayor’s recent transfer proposal that moved people to higher paying jobs in DWP, Harbor, and Airports.
The assumption that city workers automatically get raises upon transfering to a propietary department is wrong. Many transfers actually take a paycut by way of resetting their class step to 1 in order to move to a propietary department. Some also downgrade to a lesser class. In their minds it’s worth it to take the initial paycut because propietary departments have greater stability in times like these.
Whelan is talking about a city structure that cannot function. Services can still be provided at the same level, but at lower costs. Union jobs that kept going up and up are no longer sustainable. If employees are going to pay the cost for future restructring, so should the Mayor and Council. They can no longer function with the staff they are used to. And could somebody take away the Mayor’s LAPD bodyguards. If he is so afraid for his puny life, then he should not be Mayor of this city.
To February 18, 2010 2:45 PM: If someone is transferring from a Council Controlled Department to a DWP position THEY WILL GET A RAISE, PERIOD.
If someone is transferring from a Council Controlled Department to a DWP position THEY WILL GET A RAISE, PERIOD.
Just because you repeat yourself in caps doesn’t mean your statement holds more weight. Maybe you can give me an example?
I’ve seen engineers transfer from LADOT to LADWP and take paycuts in the process.
Recall the so-called and self-proclaimed leader of this great city. Make this mayor give up ALL his slush funds and put the funds into the City’s general fund. Villa(Raigosa) should pay for his own gas, car insurance, meals and everything else a regular hard-working City employee pays for with money earned on their jobs. Does the mayor pay for his ticket, transportation, meals and drink when he goes to events such as the Grammy’s. I don’t think so! Every time he goes to an employee type event, why is he always taking pictures with every pretty young woman he sees. If you look closely, his arm is always around a girl’s waist. Sexual Harassment in the making. He needs to view the City’s Sexual Harassment video and sign the required form that he understands what he signed. This mayor needs to put the City ahead of himself. Give up your slush fund monies. Be accountable. Maybe some of these actions will save the City some money. Even if he states it’s a small part of the City’s money. Remember, it’s still City money and small amounts will add up to big time money.