Several years ago, the people of Los Santos voted to make Alma Villa la Rosa their first female mayor. She had been a community activist and was expected to be a great leader.

But Villa la Rosa was very ambitious; she hoped to use her position as a stepping stone to higher office. So, when a former mayor (who had been a generous campaign contributor) asked her to support his effort to “modernize” the Los Santos Public Service commission, she quickly agreed.

Now, under Los Santos law, the Public Service commission could be changed only by a vote of the electorate. But Villa la Rosa would not let rules get in her way. And, since the reform was backed by a very powerful former mayor, she agreed to support it — to do what she could without public notice or giving the voters a say in the matter.

During her first few months in office the new mayor treated the personnel department as a division of her own office, and — in violation of Los Santos law — she downgraded the Los Santos Public Service commission. She then appointed like-minded loyalists to manage the seven bureaus in the Los Santos Public Service commission.

The bureau chiefs were told they would be accountable only to the mayor. They were told she would not expect them to follow all the rules. The chiefs were urged not to seek permission for what they wanted to do. They were told to run their own organizations.

The fact is Villa la Rosa played an active role in turning the Los Santos Public Service commission into seven, separate agencies — each with its own sense of mission, but none with a working plan to manage employees, its most expensive resource.

With no one in Los Santos responsible for human resource management, it is not really surprising that the number of public employees increased, as did the size of the annual budget. Nor is it surprising that, when a devastating fiscal crisis hit Los Santos, Villa la Rosa was harshly criticized for laying off employees who should not have been hired in the first place.

“I’m duty-bound to balance the budget. These layoffs, these service cuts are absolutely essential,” Villa la Rose said in an attempt to calm her constituents.

But her credibility took a hit when it was revealed that, while laying off employees who serve the people, she was protecting an army of exempt mayoral aides she had hired to serve herself. She resigned in disgrace.

To implement their self-serving scheme, a special election was scheduled, with just one ballot measure. Bell’s voters were told Measure A would give their city greater control over its future. They were not told it could facilitate the looting of Bell’s treasury.

By a vote of 336 to 54, Measure A passed, and very soon four of the five Councilmen were earning $100,000 a year. Then they gave the City Manager and his Assistant huge pay raises. Moreover, a new police chief was hired at an outrageously inflated salary.

Eventually, the people of Bell discovered they’d been snookered. They marched on City Hall and demanded that the top three top officials resign. But resignations did not put the scandal to rest. The three over-paid officials could now become over-paid retirees for the rest of their lives.

The salary scandal in Bell is not going away. In fact, what started out as a horrible example of self-serving politics is now being investigated to see if criminal action, like conflict of interest and/or voter fraud, may have been involved.

Bell is now getting national attention. And all Angelenos applaud the fine work done by the media organization(s) which exposed the scandal and kept it in the headlines. At the same time, there may be some who wonder why the Bell scandal gets so much media attention, while the lawless attack on the city’s civil service system goes unnoticed.

In Los Angeles, civil service goes back a hundred years. While it’s never been called “efficient,” civil service has given the city a stable, reasonably honest public service.

Yet, since 1993, civil service in Los Angeles has been under attack. Mayor Richard J. Riordan trampled the Charter, shielded department heads from oversight by the Board of Civil Service Commissioners, and thwarted the enforcement of civil service rules.

In effect, Mayor Riordan and his successors turned the city’s civil service system into forty-some departmental systems. Sadly, all those departments cling to archaic personnel practices. All mismanage their most valuable asset. And all waste tax dollars.

Meanwhile, Angelenos were kept in the dark. Mayor Villaraigosa refused to talk about his responsibility for civil service. The Council denied its duty to oversee the City’s personnel function. And department heads couldn’t really be expected to put their jobs on the line by acknowledging the Mayor’s refusal to apply his management authority.

And the media organizations? Well, by their silence, they’ve allowed City Hall to treat the public like mushrooms—to keep people in the dark, covered with bandini.

What Los Angeles needs now is a leader who’ll put an end to the unlawful, 17-year attack on the city’s civil service system. But first we need media organizations that will stand up to City Hall—media organizations that will expose the self-serving politicians who, whatever their motives may have been, corrupted the city’s employment system.

• The city budget for Fiscal Year 2010-11 comes to $6.7B. Of that total, $3.9B—58 percent—will go to support a workforce of 32,802 employees.
• Those 32,802 employees will be assigned to work in 34 budgetary departments, all of which are known to lack effective performance management systems.
• In City Service, department heads have historically mismanaged two components of human resource management—employee selection and performance appraisal.
• Employee selection is routinely mismanaged because department heads refuse to use the probationary period as it was designed to be used—as the working test
• Performance appraisal is mismanaged because department heads don’t understand that performance appraisals are supposed to appraise performance.

City government costs too much because of three mayors: Riordan, Hahn and Villaraigosa. They secretly stifled the Civil Service Commission, seized the Personnel Department, and hired a weak department head to do their bidding.

In effect, the administrations of Riordan, Hahn and Villaraigosa turned the city’s civil service system into 34 separate systems. Civil service rules are routinely ignored. Standards for personnel practices were lowered; they’re no longer required to be job-related, just user-friendly. Clearly, civil service has been dumbed-down, and now main- taining an underachieving workforce is regarded “good enough for government work!”

Our leaders at City Hall need to be reminded that, in a democracy, government is “of the people, by the people and for the people.” Leaders are elected/appointed to do for the people what they can’t do for themselves. Leaders’ salaries are paid by the people; their benefits (including retirement) are provided by the people. In return for what they give their leaders, Angelenos expect city services to be delivered at a price they can afford.

How can the cost of city government be brought under control? Well, one thing must be obvious to all Angelenos: human resource mismanagement wastes money. It makes absolutely no sense to spend four billion dollars (58 percent of the annual budget) hiring employees whose fitness for the job is not demonstrated before they achieve permanent status, and whose actual job performance is typically not assessed afterwards.

How can the cost of city government be controlled? At this point, I ask the reader to review the facts cited above. As I see it, government costs too much because elected and appointed officials cling to personnel practices that effective organizations have long since abandoned. To raise productivity and reduce costs in city departments, managers must invite employees to help manage their own jobs. It’s no more complicated than that.

Fight back, Angelenos! Your leaders at City Hall are throwing your money away!

As an adult American, I have rights and freedoms that people around the world cannot match. My right to life, liberty and property are guaranteed by a written constitution, and they can’t be taken from me without due process of law.

I’m free to say what I want to say, to go where I want to go and to associate with whom I choose. My religious rights and my right to vote are secure, no matter whom the president may be or which political party may control the United States Congress.

As an American citizen, I can be confident that homes and schools and public buildings in my city are built by licensed contractors—that the construction process was inspected by public employees.

Moreover, I can be sure that the food I buy at the grocery and the pancakes I eat at my favorite restaurant are safe to eat. I can be sure that the pharmacist at the local drug store is fully trained and licensed by an appropriate government agency.

And if I’m ever accused of serious wrongdoing, I could rely on the right that protects me against self-incrimination. I’d also be entitled to the advice of an attorney, and to be tried by a jury of my peers. Moreover, until I’d been found guilty by such a jury, I’d be legally entitled to the presumption of innocence.

As an adult American, I know that very little in life is actually free. One generally pays for what one gets. We all pay for the rights and freedoms we enjoy. So we pay taxes, obey the laws, vote every chance we get and do community service when we can.

But we all know that government rarely works as well as it could. And we’re not too shy to complain and criticize. But, in my view, Americans are more inclined to gripe about something Washington did or failed to do than to go after City Hall. Yet, that’s where complaints about government failure would most likely get the desired results!

Imagine if you can what would happen if all the Angelenos who criticize Washington were to focus on City Hall. If the mayor knew the people want the city’s civil service system restored, he’d move quickly to undo the damage done by former Mayor Riordan!

The first three tests in the City’s employee selection process are designed to predict job performance. But the last test, Probation, is designed not to predict, but to measure job performance. Unfortunately, City management has not yet recognized that distinction.

The first two tests are designed and administered by the Personnel Department. They are conducted according to a well-established routine. The third test—the selection interview—is administered by the operating departments. Under Mayor Bradley, the Personnel Department advised, trained and guided departments in the use of this test. And it’s my understanding that most City departments still use this test very effectively to select the candidate best qualified for the position being filled.

The fourth test, Probation, is also administered by the operating departments. But no department uses this test effectively to measure the job performance of probationary employees. And that failure keeps civil service in Los Angeles “stuck on stupid.”

In fairness, it must be reported that, during the Bradley Administration, an effort was made to upgrade the use of probation. Appointing authorities were directed to install a performance appraisal system that complies with relevant regulations and that is clearly job-related. They were directed to use that appraisal system—both for probationary ratings and for annual appraisals.

As part of the mayor’s effort, The Supervisor’s Guide To Performance Appraisal was published by the City’s Personnel Department. It was endorsed by the City Council and sent to the departments for review and—ultimately—for implementation.

If the Guide had been installed in all City departments, probation would now be used as a job-specific working test. Had that happened, employee morale and productivity may well be higher than it is, and the cost of City government would probably be lower.

But Tom Bradley left the Mayor’s office before his effort to improve Human Resource Management came to fruition. Sadly, the new Mayor, Richard J. Riordan, buried the Guide and subjected the City’s civil service system to a radical make-over. And he did this against the law! Whatever his intentions, Riordan robbed the people of Los Angeles.

Under Charter Section 200, civil service commissioners are officers of the city. And under Charter Section 215, they can’t begin discharging their duties until they take the following oath or affirmation:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California and the Charter of the City of Los Angeles, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of [my office] according to the best of my ability.”

By swearing (or affirming) to support the city charter, civil service commissioners promise to do what the following charter sections require of them:

• Sec. 541: “The Board of Civil Service Commissioners shall have the power and duty to make and enforce the civil service rules and to establish and maintain [oversee] the civil service system in accordance with the civil service provisions of Article X of the Carter.”

• Sec. 1019 (a) Investigation: “The Board shall investigate the enforcement of the civil service provisions of this Article and the civil service rules…”

Both these charter sections became effective on July 1, 2000. Yet, based on over 30 exchanges with the Board of Civil Service Commissioners, I’m persuaded those charter sections are routinely violated.

In preparation for a June 12, 2008 presentation, I sent each commissioner a copy of the charter sections cited above and a copy of Civil Service Rule 1.26. I also sent each commissioner a list of questions I’d planned to ask the Board about those regulations.

• Civil Service Rule 1.26: “PROBATIONARY PERIOD means the working test period during which an employee is required to demonstrate his/her fitness by the actual performance of the duties and responsibilities of his/her position and during which he/she may be terminated without right of appeal to the Board of Civil Service Commissioners.”

My first question was, “Does Civil Service Rule 1.26 require appointing authorities to use the probationary period as a working test?” In response to that question, President Drew Ivie said, “That’s the rule.” My follow-up question was, “Is this rule enforced now?” The President’s answer to that question was, “The department feels it is being enforced…”

I wasn’t satisfied with that answer and, in a subsequent letter, I asked the general manager to answer the following questions:

1. Does Civil Service Rule 1.26 require appointing authorities to use the probationary period as a job-specific, performance-based working test?
2. Does Charter Section 509(b) require the chief administrative officer to comply with Civil Service Rule 1.26? If so, is this charter section enforced?
3. Does Charter Section 510(c) require the chief administrative officer to comply with Civil Service Rule 1.26? If so, is this charter section enforced?

The general manager refused to put her answers in writing. Instead, she had my questions sent to the city attorney’s office and, to this day, insiders at City Hall refuse to answer those three questions.

For years, the best kept secret downtown was that the Civil Service Commission is not allowed to enforce the rules! The public was treated like a mushroom farm—covered with bandini and kept in the dark. But now the secret’s out. And Mr. Mayor, please note: the people want Civil Service to work for them!

You’re aware that Civil Service Rule 1.26 defines the probationary period as the working test period. You know it calls for the use of probationary ratings that reflect what appointees actually do on the job.

And you surely must know that Section 541 of the City Charter vests in you with the power and duty to enforce Rule 1.26, to ensure that, like other employment tests used in City Service, the probationary period is used as a valid (clearly job-related) working test.

Now, I call your attention to the report, “Performance Appraisal Process,” which Manager Whalen submitted to the Board on July 18, 2007. While this report provides information on both the use of probationary ratings and annual evaluations, my focus this morning is on probationary ratings.

According to this report, the Personnel Department’s survey involved 43 city departments, 19 of which reported using the city’s 50-year old rating form, PDAS-28, to assess the work of their probationers.

In those 19 departments, probationary Clerks and Carpenters, Managers and Mechanics, Welders and Water Biologists—all were rated on the PDAS-28 trait list.

But 17 of those 43 departments reported using their own customized rating forms. In one department, supervisors were expected to rate probationers on tact, memory, attitudes, judgment, etc. But since those rating factors were not defined, each supervisor was forced to provide his/her own definitions.

Another department using a customized rating form asked supervisors to document probationers’ common sense, temperament, loyalty, disposition, etc. But since the department provided no standards with which the probationer’s traits could be compared, supervisors set their own standards.

Finally, according to the General Manager’s July 18, 2007 report, none of the 43 departments surveyed reported using a probationary rating procedure that complied with Rule 1.26. Nor did the General Manager’s May 5, 2009 report, “Implementation of New Performance Appraisal Forms,” address that problem.

Neither of the new PDAS forms accurately reflects what employees do on the job. Both violate Civil Service Rule 1,26. Long haul, both dumb-down the civil service system and waste scarce revenues!

As a concerned citizen, I cannot allow the current corruption of civil service to continue. Accordingly, I ask this Board, in keeping with Article X, Section 1004 of the current City Charter, to give public notice of its intention to promulgate a Civil Service Rule governing the city-wide use of probation.

If you fail or refuse to do your duty, I will put my life in your hands: I will announce a personal hunger strike, take up a position near City Hall and begin wasting away. Then we’ll see if the public supports a derelict board, or the concerned citizen trying to get the board to do what it should already be doing.

Contact Sam Sperling at samuelmsperling@yahoo.com.

Now, administering the civil service system means “attending to the running of” that system. It means “being responsible for the implementation of” that system. It means “wielding authority over” that system. It also means “directing, supervising or managing” that system. But none of these definitions describes what Manager Whelan has actually been asked—by three successive mayors—to do.

Consider: During her ten years as general manager, charter provisions relating to the Board of Civil Service Commissioners have been routinely trampled. The Board has been degraded, its role has been reduced, and its powers have been claimed by the mayor’s office. All these outrageous violations were committed “in-house.” They were committed secretly—without public notice, without a vote of the people. And they were committed with Ms. Whelan’s active support!

For the past ten years, the civil service system in Los Angeles has been manipulated by a herd of self-serving city officials. A succession of mayors, joined by council leaders and Personnel’s GM, stifled the Board of Civil Service Commissioners. They dismissed warnings that the city’s $4B workforce was grossly mismanaged. They refused to investigate charges that the continued use of invalid employment tests allowed poor performers to achieve career status and gain property rights to jobs for which they’d not been properly tested. And no one held the Personnel Department accountable!

Clearly, Manager Whelan was hired not to administer the city’s civil service system, but to facilitate its demise. Her role was to do whatever it takes to dismantle that system—to replace it with an array of separate, virtually independent, departments. It was Mayor Riordan’s dream that all departments would eventually be run much like Fortune 500 companies. To realize that dream, he needed a “friendly” Personnel Department, a “pliant” General Manager. Margaret M. Whelan got the job.

By agreeing to work with Mayor Riordan, Ms. Whelan decided it would be OK if each department were allowed to choose for itself whether civil service rules should be enforced. She decided that it would be OK for each department to measure the performance of all its employees—regardless of their job-class, regardless of their duties and responsibilities—against a single, invalid trait list. She decided, in fact, that measuring employee performance isn’t really important!

With the Board of Civil Service Commissioners limited to hearing appeals/grievances, and with the Personnel Department committed to Mayor Riordan’s “New Paradigm,” there was no one at City Hall working for the people of Los Angeles. No one working to raise efficiency; no one working to enhance productivity. And no one monitored the growing gap between revenues and expenditures at City Hall.

Given a situation like that, it was just a matter of time before our “leaders” would run city government in the ditch! It’s not at all surprising that creditors now think the City of Los Angeles is a bad risk!

samuelmsperling@yahoo.com  (626) 576-8396 04-16-10