Charter Section 242(b) provides that “…the duty of the Council and its committees is to become fully informed of the business of the City so as to oversee all the functions of the City government…”

But with respect to the City’s personnel function, Council has turned a blind eye to duty. It has — in my view — been criminally derelict. It has repeatedly refused to use its investigative powers to consider credible allegations of personnel mismanagement.

By refusing to do its duty, Council left the civil service system without any effective oversight. It allowed managers to use working tests that violate the “job-relatedness” requirement established by the United States Supreme Court.

By its dereliction, Council left managers free to use employee ratings that, like those described as “inherently unreliable” by an LAPD Board of Inquiry, do not accurately reflect what employees do on the job and that have little credibility throughput the City organization.

Without question, Council’s refusal to oversee the City’s personnel function has had a destructive impact on Civil Service in Los Angeles.

But long term, the most serious consequence of the Council’s failure is that it gives the Mayor — the City’s top politician — virtually unchecked control of the whole civil service system! Wow! That’s asking the fox to guard the hen house! Why on earth would the Council do that?

Someday, Angelenos will realize that the Mayor and the Council are ganging up on them. They’ll learn that a number of elected leaders are working to replace their civil service system, or at least to subject that system to a radical make-over!

While it’s not widely known, Civil Service in Los Angeles has been under attack since 1993. The City’s last three Mayors (Riordan, Hahn, and Villaraigosa) degraded the Board of Civil Service Commissioners and down-sized its role. They grabbed the Board’s powers, and turned the peoples’ civil service system into a collection of separate City agencies.

While the Mayors had the Council’s quiet cooperation, the changes they made are not legal! Equating Los Angeles with Havana, the Bosses didn’t put the proposed changes on the ballot! Have they no shame?

You can contact Samuel Sperling at samuelmsperling@yahoo.com.

To keep politics out of City Service, the Board built a system of competitive examinations and declared that appointment to positions in the classified service would follow the Merit Principle. While this didn’t completely eliminate politics at City Hall, it did replace the “spoils system” in which appointments were more likely to be based on connections than on competence.

To keep unqualified job-seekers off the City payroll, the Board adopted Civil Service Rule 1.26. That rule defined the probationary period as the working test and provided that probationers must be judged on what they actually do on the job. Regrettably, that rule was not — and is still not — enforced!

And to provide a pool of job-ready employees for City agencies, the Board kept a list of tested candidates for each job class in City Service. Agencies with a vacant position requested the Board to certify the names of all the candidates who could be considered for appointment. The agency would interview them and select the one best suited for the vacant position.

In these basic ways, the Board of Civil Service Commissioners has continued to serve the people of Los Angeles. While no one denies that it provides a reliable, generally competent workforce, some complain that it’s been reluctant to accept new developments in Human Resource Management — that it’s too inefficient.

Criticisms such as these cannot be ignored, but they would surely not justify the current effort to dismantle the system, degrade the Board, and usurp its powers. Nor do the Board’s shortcomings justify giving the City’s most powerful politician direct, unchecked control of the Civil Service! And how could anyone believe the system becomes more effective when Civil Service Rule 1.26 is routinely violated?

The simple truth is, beginning in 1993 the City’s Civil Service system has been under constant attack. A succession of three mayors (Riordan, Hahn, and Villaraigosa) stifled the Board, reduced its role, and grabbed its powers. And by changing the Charter without a vote of the people, they committed a criminal act.

There is an urgent need to restore the Board, to improve HRM throughout City Service. There is also a need to hold the power-grabbing mayors accountable.

You can contact Sam Sperling at samuelmsperling@yahoo.com

In City departments, managers are keenly aware that employees are their most expensive resource. By contrast, managers in effective service organizations are more likely to view employees as their most valuable resource.

In City departments, managers typically underutilize the abilities, initiative, and energy employees bring to the job. By contrast, managers in effective service organizations understand the conditions under which employees do their best. They create a workplace environment that supports and stimulates employees.

In City departments, managers record probationers’ performance on a legally indefensible rating form. By contrast, managers in effective organizations use probation as it’s intended to be used: to keep unfit employees off the payroll.

In City departments, employees get an annual evaluation on a one-size-fits-all rating form. In effective organizations, performance appraisal is used to appraise job performance. It gives managers usable information about employees’ work.

In some City departments, managers make all the decisions; they’re loath to share power with employees. By contrast, managers in effective organizations are more likely to encourage employee participation. Indeed! Some managers invite employees to help set performance standards for their own jobs.

In some City departments, managers who trash the Charter expect employees to live by the rules. But in effective organizations, managers are more likely to retain employees’ respect by setting a good example.

When I was in City Service, employees were seven times more likely to get a Notice to Correct Deficiencies than to get a Notice of Commendation. Good work by City employees is generally un-noticed and unrewarded. Managers in some effective organizations get it: They “Catch Employees Doing Something Right.”

In City departments, managers rarely see, or talk with, employees. They make an exception for holidays or other special occasions. By contrast, a manager cited by Peters and Waterman in their book, In Search of Excellence, built employee morale by visiting employees’ workplace, and getting to know them as individuals.

What do Angelenos get? They get managers who appear to think an underachieving, 4$B workforce is good enough for city government!

You can contact Sam Sperling at samuelmsperling@yahoo.com

Another way to consider the cost of liability claims is to recall that the Mayor recently declared the City faces a $72 million budget gap. Most of that gap would be closed by the $55-million allocated to pay off liability claims!

The City budget indicates that the $55 million allocation for liability claims is shared, unevenly, by 26 of the 34 funded departments. But the budget doesn’t explain why those departments are spending $55 million to settle liability claims. Nor does it identify the recipients of all that money.

But based on my experience at City Hall, I would bet that at least part of the money is provided to settle claims of illegal job discrimination, or to pay off employees who’ve complained about sexual harassment, etc.

Documents in my possession indicate that, earlier this year, a Sergeant in the LAPD won a $1.1 million jury award for job discrimination. The Sergeant claimed he’d been harassed and moved to a less prestigious unit because he’s gay. The City Attorney was reviewing its options in this case.

Also in my records is a newspaper clipping dated Aug. 12, 2009, that indicates the City Council had voted to pay $8.1 million to two Firefighters who won jury awards after they filed discrimination and retaliation lawsuits against the LAFD.

Another clipping in my files reports that the City Council had OK’d payment of $1.5 million to a former Engineer in the Department of Public Works. This clipping dates back to Nov. 27, 2002. It indicates that a successful suit had been brought against the City by an employee who charged that he’d been denied a promotion because he was born in Syria and is a practicing Muslim.

There are undoubtedly many reasons why the City Council agrees to settle liability claims. But lest we forget, the cost of all such settlements is borne by the people of Los Angeles. And let’s also remember that many of the claims that wind up wasting taxpayer dollars could be prevented!

What City government needs now is a management team that works effectively with the established employee unions — a team that, together with the unions, works with diligence and dedication to improve Human Resource Management.

Contact Samuel Sperling at samuelmsperling@yahoo.com.

Now, based on Exhibit G in the City’s budget for FY 2011-12, the Total Direct Cost of operating those 34 agencies comes to $6,074,621,405.

Two of the 34 funded agencies are the Mayor’s Office and the City Council. Taken together, those two agencies received position authority to maintain a work- force of 202 regular employees. And taken together, they received a Total Departmental Appropriation of $41,634,259. Both the Position Authority and the Departmental Appropriation would appear to be modest — not excessive.

It must be noted, however, that the total direct cost of operating these two agencies jumps from an Appropriation of $41,634,259 to a total Operating Cost of $73,807,907! How can such a large (76 percent) increase be explained?

Well, part of that additional $32,173,648 is earmarked for Human Resource Benefits and Retirements. And some goes for water, electricity, building services, and other department-related costs.

But based on official City reports, which are not readily available to the public, it’s a safe bet that a significant portion of the extra 32$M will pay for an army of exempt Aides the Mayor/Council have secretly authorized themselves to hire.

And if that is the case, asking a few questions would surely now be appropriate:

Do our elected leaders — the Mayor and Councilmembers — serve the public when they supplement their workforce of 202 regular employees by hiring an army of exempt (unknown, untested, perhaps unqualified) Aides? Or do they corrupt Civil Service and open the door for a return to the spoils system?

Do the Mayor and Councilmembers serve Angelenos when their secret deals raise the cost of government — when the budget they adopt provides incomplete and misleading information? Or do they fuel the growing distrust of City Hall?

In LA, the Mayor and Council are elected to serve the people. They are elected to do the people’s business in public. They are not elected to serve themselves — to make the public pay for their “sweet deals”!

You can contact Sam Sperling at samuelmsperling@yahoo.com.

One morning, a small hole appeared right in the middle of Anyplace. The hole was growing, but it was still small and the DDDN bunch did nothing.

While Nobody saw the hole as a real problem, Everybody thought Somebody would act to prevent the little hole from becoming a big problem. But no action was taken because “fixing holes” wasn’t part of Anybody’s position description.

During the night, that hole in the middle of Anyplace grew and grew. It grew so fast that by morning, downtown Anyplace had been swallowed up. And when the Disciples of DDDN did agree to act, Anyplace, USA, had completely disappeared.

Having led Anyplace to extinction, those lagging leaders moved to City Hall in Los Angeles. Indeed, at this very moment, they’re using their Deny, Delay, Do-Nothing style to mismanage 60 percent of the City’s budget — its workforce!

Taxpayers in Los Angeles give the Personnel Department’s Manager more than $200,000 a year to administer the civil service system. But she expects each City departments to administer its own affairs. The civil service system has been turned into a collection of independent agencies. It’s not administered by Anybody!

The good news: The Civil Service Commission is vested with the power and duty to make and enforce the rules and to oversee the system. But Somebody has stifled the Commission. It’s no longer allowed to do what the City Charter requires it to do. In effect, the civil service system has been dismantled!

Each City department is managed by an appointed Chief Administrative Officer, and Everyone with that title has full control of his/her department’s work. CAOs are authorized to hire, fire, suspend, and transfer employees. But they are legally required to take such actions subject to the civil service provisions of the Charter. Yet, they’re free to trample the rules that have historically defined Civil Service!

Finally, Nobody in Los Angeles controls all City agencies. But as the City’s Chief Executive Officer, the Mayor does have management authority over most of those agencies. And it’s his duty to make Civil Service work for all the people. With nothing more complicated than a backbone implant, Mayor Villaraigosa may yet find the courage to restore the civil service system Angelenos know and trust.

Contact Samuel Sperling at samuelmsperling@yahoo.com.

But he could have done more. He could have demonstrated a real concern for the boy who was raped. He could have confronted the rapist. He could have acted to protect Penn State’s reputation by ensuring that this brutal practice would not be repeated.

Ultimately, Paterno was fired because he didn’t do all he could to confront the existing situation, or to prevent its recurrence.

The Paterno scandal won’t soon be forgotten. It’s likely to be in the news for weeks, maybe months. It should remind City officials that the people of Los Angeles expect them to discharge the duties of their office to the best of their ability. That’s a promise every City official has made to his/her constituents.

And beyond their Oath of Office, City officials are required by the City Charter to “perform their functions with diligence and dedication on behalf of the people of the City of Los Angeles.”

In light of their Oath and their Charter mandate, how can any City official permit the routine violation of a civil service regulation specifically adopted to keep unfit employees off the City payroll?

How can the Mayor, Council, and Appointing Authorities withhold the tools City supervisors need to get the best from the employees they supervise? How can those officials sit and watch while, across the City organization, employee performance is badly mismanaged?

City officials, elected and appointed, who close their eyes to Charter violations may find themselves in a Paterno predicament. They may hope the public never learns that the City’s civil service system has been dismantled — that the public was illegally denied the right to vote on the Charter changes involved.

But ultimately, the people of Los Angeles will learn they’ve been betrayed by their last three Mayors. And when this scandal is finally exposed, City officials will be held accountable for not doing all they could to protect their constituents!

Send your questions and comments to samuelmsperling@yahoo.com.

Employees currently serving in the 20 classes above are part of the City’s civil service system. But while their duties and responsibilities are incredibly diverse, they were all hired in accordance with a rather simple selection process.

First, they filed a Civil Service application. Then they took, and passed, a general qualifications examination conducted by the Personnel Department. Next, they survived a certification interview conducted by a City department with a vacant position. And based on that interview, they were offered and accepted an appointment. With their appointments, all the employees in those 20 classes became probationary City employees. The only thing remaining for them to do was to pass the working test.

That’s the good news. To this point, the City’s selection process works fairly well. Together, the Personnel Department and the Appointing Authorities do a good job selecting employees for over a thousand separate job classes. With few exceptions, employees selected by this process are qualified to perform their duties and discharge their responsibilities. But, beyond appointment, the civil service system in Los Angeles goes absolutely crazy.

Classified civil service employees are appointed on probation. Under Section 1.26 of the Civil Service Rules, the probationary period must be used as a working test. Like all other tests or testing instruments used in employee selection, probationary ratings must be clearly job-related. They must accurately reflect what probationers do on the job.

It would be legally indefensible to lump all the probationary employees in those 20 classes together, and to report their job performance on the same rating form. But that’s just what the City’s current rating form, PDAS-28, does. Indeed, that foolish form has been prescribed for probationers in more than 1,000 civil service classifications!

Imagine, if you can, rating probationary Power Shovel Operators and Plumbers on “relations with members of the public.” Or rating probationary Tree Surgeons and Welders on “oral communication.” Or rating probationary Tire Repairers and Clerks on “performance in emergency situations.” Can you imagine actually hiring civil service employees on the basis of such an obviously phony working test?

While HRM authorities abhor rating forms like PDAS-28, and while the Courts have repeatedly ruled against such rating schemes, Mayor Villaraigosa and the Council seem to have no problem with its use. Together, those worthies support the continued use of the PDAS form. They know it doesn’t measure job performance. They know it doesn’t give Department Managers any usable information. They know it heightens the City’s risk of costly litigation. And they know that, long haul, it corrupts City Service and cheats the public.

Still, Mayor Villaraigosa and the Council Members won’t even consider replacing PDAS-28 with a valid, state-of-the-art approach to probationary ratings. They just go on trashing the Charter, ignoring EEOC Guidelines, violating civil service rules and driving up the cost of City government.

And they’re doing their dirty work in secret! Why won’t they talk openly about their “project”? If what they want is to permanently dismantle Civil Service, why don’t they put that to a vote of the people?

You can contact Samuel Sperling at samuelmsperling@yahoo.com.

According to Councilman Dennis P. Zine, who authored the new policy, adopting this measure is the first step in trying to bring some closure to a continual saga of misconduct in City government.

Zine may have had reference to recent news stories about wrongdoing in the Department of Animal Services, the Department of Building and Safety, the Housing Department, The Convention Center, the Community Development Department, the Transportation Department, the Seventh Council District, and—most recently—the theft of guns from the Police Department.

But if Zine, who wants to be the next City Controller, really wants to bring closure to wrongdoing at City Hall, he could take a giant step toward that goal by turning himself in—by admitting that for the past six years he’s been Mayor Villaraigosa’s active partner in a cynical, illegal attack on the City’s personnel system.

Until recently, Zine was Chairman of the Council’s Personnel Committee. Abusing the powers of his office, he helped the Mayor dismantle the City’s established personnel system. With no authority—but with Zine’s support—the Mayor stifled the Board of Civil Service Commissioners, claimed its powers for his office, and declared that the head of each City department, bureau and office would be accountable only to him.

As this column is written, the two Charter Sections that describe the City’s public employment system are not being enforced. Section 540 describes the duties of the Personnel Department. It tasks that Department to administer the civil service system. And Section 541 tasks the Board of Civil Service Commissioners to make and enforce the civil service rules and to oversee the civil service system.

But it’s precisely that civil service system the Mayor and Councilman Zine have been trying to change. They don’t want the Personnel Department to administer the system. They don’t want the Board to make and enforce civil service rules and they sure don’t want the Board to oversee the employment practices of all City agencies. They know it’s wrong to change the Charter without a vote of the people; they’re violating the Rule of Law, and they know it.

Zine says he wants to end a “continual saga of misconduct” at City Hall. And he seems to believe that if employees would just blow the whistle on their boss that may help. Well, his proposal would provide some protection against retaliation. It might, in fact, serve a useful purpose. For that, Zine deserves a pat on the back.

But while the Councilman does a bit of image-polishing, the people of Los Angeles should remember that, as Mayor Batman’s Boy Robin, Chairman Zine was actively involved in a criminal effort to make over the City’s civil service system without a vote of the electorate. For that, both the Batman and his Boy Wonder should be thrown out of office!

Contact Sam Sperling at samuelmsperling@yahoo.com.

These provisions were part of the Charter when it was approved by the Los Angeles electorate on June 8, 1999. They became effective July 1, 2000. Sadly, they’ve been violated by all three City Mayors who’ve served under the new Charter — Richard J. Riordan, James K. Hahn and Antonio R. Villaraigosa.

It’s my view that all three Mayors were well-intentioned; they were committed to the principle that “Managers Must Manage.” In effect, they were trying to raise the level of management throughout the City organization. That effort was surely commendable. But beginning with Riordan, the three Mayors seemed to assume that departmental management could be enhanced only if managers were freed from oversight by the Board of Civil Service Commissioners.

Based on that false assumption, and without voter approval, the three Mayors turned the City’s civil service system into a collection of separate agencies, each one headed by a mayoral appointee who is accountable only to the Mayor who appointed him/her.

The fact is, none of the Mayors required the Personnel Department to administer the civil service system. They seemingly didn’t care that the General Manager permitted agency heads to continue using invalid employment tests — to rely on performance appraisals that are inherently unreliable.

Moreover, each Mayor in turn degraded the Board of Civil Service Commissioners and grabbed its powers for himself. At the same time, duties assigned the Board by Charter Sections 540 and 1019(a) were ignored. Thus, Civil service rules are no longer enforced, the City’s employment practices are no longer monitored, and rule violations are no longer investigated.

The danger in this situation is that control of the City’s civil service system has been turned over to the City’s most powerful politician. That opens the door for a return of the Spoils System, with City jobs awarded on the basis of connections, rather than competence. It facilitates nepotism and corruption.

To make matters worse, the Los Angeles City Council has repeatedly refused to discharge its oversight responsibility — refused to investigate documented charges of rule violations, HR mismanagement and the waste of scarce tax dollars which accompanies the mismanagement of a 4$B workforce.

In Los Angeles, the personnel function is controlled by this Mayor-Council coalition. It has, effectively, dismantled the City’s civil service system. It tramples the Charter, violates the rules and serves itself.

The ugly truth is that residents of Los Angeles are betrayed by the politicians they elected to serve them. Their right to representative government is violated when politicians subject the civil service system to a radical make-over—without a vote of the electorate!

Angelenos must know that an investigation has been requested. They must also know that people get the governance they tolerate. Good government doesn’t just happen. It’s a second job for all of us!

You can email Samuel Sperling at samuelmsperling@yahoo.com.