|
|
However, both now and in past administrations, those who were active
in local politics could discern some troubling trends. One which came
most readily to the eye was the number of people active in running and
working on political campaigns—the winning political campaigns—who
could be found later in city staff positions. With expertise in politics,
or just the ability to pick a winner and put in the volunteer time, these
people often had no apparent management or technical background. They
could be found in the many programs under the Office of the Mayor, in
staff positions for the Board of Supervisors and other elected officials,
and occasionally in other agencies. If they could no longer be found at
one city job, they could usually be found in another, often functionally
completely unrelated. Often these people would take unpaid leaves of absence
during the election cycle, returning to paid city employment afterward.
Essentially, it becomes clear to the observer that public funds support
some elected officials’ political campaign staff between elections.
One also notices that the children of past and present elected officials
and commissioners are represented in city positions in numbers that are
well past statistical probability given their percentage of the hiring
pool.
Under the current administration, the number of special assistants has
increased to more than 500. With this huge increase, along with the legitimate
hires has come a new trend, broadening city patronage jobs beyond political
support staff and junior relatives to encompass unqualified representatives
of special interest groups. For instance, the Solid Waste Management Program,
with its high percentage of Special Assistant positions, has seen many
of them shift from professional to patronage appointments. Staff people
in many other agencies will tell the same story, off the record, of course.
It has been said that the way democracy works is to put your supporters
in the positions that are available, and that this is how it has always
been done. However, it should be made clear that the city charter explicitly
prohibits political appointments. The Director of Human Resources, upon
being sworn into office, makes an oath and files in the office of the
County Clerk the following declaration: "I am opposed to appointments
to the public service as a reward for political activity and will execute
the Office of Human Resources Director in the spirit of this declaration."
(§10.103). Nepotism and favoritism is prohibited and can be appealed
to the Civil Service Commission (§10.101).
There are several reasons why these practices are prohibited, both on
paper in San Francisco’s city charter and in fact in many well-run
governments. First, providing jobs to unqualified people undermines the
ability of government to perform the function to which the patronage appointment
is made. Second, it makes a gift of public funds in a way that benefits
the appointing officer, as a private individual, to the detriment of the
general public. Third, it undermines the morale of well-qualified people
working in the same agency, decreasing productivity and teamwork and increasing
turnover. Finally, it destroys the public’s faith in their government.
San Francisco has no auditing body expressly charged with comparing the
qualifications set forth for civil service-exempt positions with the résumés
of those appointed to them, or examining the process by which those people
are hired. It ought to have one. San Francisco has no program to encourage
confidential reporting of patronage problems and other internal malfeasance
to investigating authorities. It has a whistle-blower program, but that
is activated only after retaliation has taken place, something most staff
people will not want to risk. The official practice of the Ethics Commission,
upon receiving a complaint containing allegations such as those discussed
here, is to photocopy the complaint and send it to the agency chief complained
about. This practice hardly encourages employees to bring these matters
to light. The city desperately needs an expansion of its independent auditor
program to begin regular audits that will uncover past bad practice and
deter the future use of city staff positions as benefits for those close
to the people we elect to represent us.
Going to the root of the problem, there is no good reason why San Francisco
cannot reform its human resource function. Larger, more complex cities
fill civil service jobs in a matter of weeks, while here it takes months.
It is true that we have a complicated system of union representation,
but municipal personnel management is not rocket science. The agency should
be given the resources to create a reformed service that works as well
as that of Portland, San Jose, or any other well-run U.S. city, and the
incentive of knowing that if it doesn’t achieve significant improvements
on a speedy timetable, other agency managers will be found to do the job.
The Board of Supervisors should demand that the agency, working with employee
representatives, come up with a strategic plan for reform, implement it,
and measure its performance thoroughly and regularly. Civil service classifications
for managers and most other areas in which Special Assistants are now
used should be broad, with accountability for performance built in. With
reform of the system, most professional staff positions should be returned
to civil service, to avoid political patronage.
Until that time, appointing officers must commit themselves to the ethics
of the oath made by the Human Resources director—that appointments
to the public service should not be made as a reward for political activity—or
as a result of personal connections, or for any other reasons not related
to objective job qualifications. That express commitment, in writing,
will give a standard to which they can be held accountable.
Most importantly, the public must insist on accountability from its government.
It has been estimated that doubling the city’s independent audit
budget, from $400,000 to $800,000 per year, would produce an ongoing,
comprehensive program of performance audits of all city agencies. Past
audits by the Budget Analyst have always saved more money than they cost.
With this expansion of oversight, we would see the beginning of much-needed
reform, as San Francisco government begins to measure objectively and
regularly how well it spends the public’s money, and taxpayers learn
the value of the slogan, "Trust, but Verify."
Beryl Magilavy is president of the nonprofit organization Sustainable
City. She was director of the city’s Department of the Environment
from 1997 to 1998 and has served as head of the Commission on the Environment
and its predecessor, Citizens’ Advisory Committee. She is active
on SPUR’s Sustainable Development Committee.
|
|
|
