Posted by: thepinetree on 07/04/2008 09:26 AM
Updated by: Kim_Hamilton on 07/11/2008 12:08 PM
Expires: 01/01/2013 12:00 AM
:
A Former Union Steward Comments On Steve Wilensky's Grand Jury Rebuttal~ By Bill Schmiett
Mountain Ranch, CA...As a former union steward, I have to give Steve Wilensky high marks in the rebuttal information he passed on to the Enterprise. When you have an employee that you represent who is guilty of the charges that management charged them with, the defensive strategy is to pile things as high and deep as possible to try to create some uncertainty and doubt. Well done Steve! My question to Steve is...
why are you carrying the water on this issue? As you can plainly see, the mere fact of the GJ report has created an atmosphere of fear and loathing, where even if everything you say is true, the Director has been mortally wounded politically and the dysfunction of the CDA can only get worse by Moreno staying on.
To rebut the defense you put up in the Enterprise let me make the following observations;
1. The background investigation. You claim the background investigation file ended up in a different location than the personnel file and the GJ "PROBAB:LY DIDN'T SEE IT". If you knew where to find it, why didn't whoever provided it to you, not provide it to the GJ? Withholding evidence from a GJ is a criminal offense.
2. Chain of Command. You say that 3 different documents say 3 different things. The governing law is the county code. The CDA is more than happy to hide behind the county code when it suits their needs. So is the BOS. If the code says report to the CAO, then that's what should happen.
3. Job performance evaluations. When I worked for the county, I was supposed to have monthly evaluations for the entire first year I was on probation. I got 3. Bob Lawton is a pretty smart guy and in 6 months, I'm sure he has enough information to conduct a performance review, even if it's just a perfunctory one. Before creation of the CDA, Ray Waller got performance reviews from the CAO, after wards he got them from Moreno and the world changed.
4. Job qualifications. If the standards were low enough for someone without ANY experience in the building or planning areas to be hired, then the HR department needs to be the next topic for the GJ. The rumor exists that part of the employment contract with Moreno was that she attend some courses to get up to speed in the planning area. The GJ also recommends this. The lack of experience in both planning and building has caused numerous blunders which have cost stakeholders lost time and a considerable amount of money.
5. Funds Mismanagement. Ahhh the consultant problem. When you hired someone without the experience to run the agency, she naturally had to hire someone to tell her what to do. As a Board, you and your colleagues bear almost total responsibility for the hiring, but when you hire a consultant like Vali Cooper and their contract says in part "Develop policies and procedures" those of us that questioned whether this job was something we were already paying someone $105K to do, were ignored.
The resulting budget deficit you claim is 2/3rds due to the economy and 1/3rd due to consultants. OK. Even if your numbers a suspect, the Board agreed to waste $300K and the taxpayers want it back!
6. Accounting. At last a plausible explanation. A very minor point however, the GJ didn't question the results of the accounting, just the qualifications of the person who did it.
7. Code Compliance fees. Another plausible explanation. The BOS has almost always waived fees on Code Compliance cases where progress in remediating the problem was evident.
8. Management Style. Steve claims that the agency was "prime for confrontation after the massive changes that followed the merger of the building and planning departments...". My my. perhaps it was a stupid idea to merge them in the first place. But we digress. We can only wonder how so many grievances against the Director have been proven to be without merit and how, once again, this information was withheld from the GJ?
As to the team building exercise, if our esteemed outside consultant/referee told the management to leave, why didn't s/he inform the employees of this? How bad a manager would you have to be to be asked to leave a team building exercise? We would love to have the name and number of the person who conducted this training to come before the Board and explain.
9. The General Plan. The county decided to draft a new general plan rather than revamp each element one at a time, as was past practice, Wilensky said. The decision was made because numerous consultants found that Calaveras' documents were “legally inadequate” and often inconsistent. Numerous Consultants? is anyone else tired of this? How many times did we hear in public session "We're going to get sued, if we don't change the General Plan" Have we been sued? I can't imagine anyone trying to sue the county while they are in the middle of revising the plan in the first place. No judge or jury is going to find for the plaintiff while the defendant is moving toward fixing the problem.
When it comes to the General Plan, which is the constitution for land use in the county, it would have very nice if the CDA had bothered to have a working knowledge of it's contents. The legal access issue would never have made it to the table if the CDA had a grasp of the contents of the General Plan. But that is an entirely different issue.
Good try Steve, you are one of my favorite people in D2, but I think you know in your heart that this dog won't hunt. For those that think the Enterprise got favorable treatment on this, you should know that Steve is a self-confessed non-technology guy. Plus Buzz is friendly to the cause as well.
Bill Schmiett
Mountain Ranch
|
