By Luke Thomas and Fanny Dassie
March 12, 2009
Many of San Francisco’s early childhood development programs will be terminated in May due to funding cuts and strict civil service rules, confirmed Recreation and Park Department general manager Jared Blumenfeld during a hearing of the Budget and Finance Committee yesterday.
In a room filled with frustrated parents, youngsters and seniors who held signs in support of recreational center staffers and program directors, Blumenfeld said the Department’s plan to balance its 2009-2010 budget would involve raising fees and laying off 65 professionals to help close its $11.4 million budget cut.
In February, those selected for termination under civil service seniority rules, were notified that on May 1 they will no longer work for the Recreation and Park Department which manages over 230 parks in the city.
The rules dictate that seniority and job classification are the only criteria used in selecting staffers for termination, a procedure that will result in the termination of childhood development programs run by experienced program directors.
“We’d get rid of those people that don’t show up for work,” if civil service rules were not a factor in determining termination selection, Blumenfeld said, responding to Fog City Journal inquiry.
Recreation and Park Department General Manager Jared Blumenfeld.
In terminating the most experienced staffers, the Recreation and Park Department faces losing the confidence of thousands of parents across the city who rely on the centers’ program directors for the valued programs they administer, programs which include cooking, music, social skills development, gardening, motion skill development, sports and dance classes.
“Without the program directors that manage these wonderful programs, the rec-centers will effectively become empty buildings,” said Lucy McAllister, a mother who takes her two children to the Moscone Recreation Center run by Program Director Veronica O’Boyle who is being terminated. “Why are the most valued staffers being terminated? It doesn’t make any sense.”
Robert Chan, a 51-year-old retired attorney, has been driving all the way from the Marina where he lives to the Outer Mission for the past six years to drop his high school son at St. Mary’s Park and Recreation Center to play basketball.
“We go there just for Marty,” Chan said referring to St. Mary’s Park and Recreation Center Program Director Marty Arenas. “We need people with a firm hand and Marty demands respect from all the kids. He is one of the best employees I know.”
While the city faces a $576 million budget crisis, many are asking for the stringent civil service rules to be suspended to help save the program directors and the programs they manage from termination.
Board of Supervisors President David Chiu told Fog City Journal he is looking at the civil service rules and the city charter to evaluate the city’s options.
Supervisor Chris Daly said he believes the only way to change the civil service rules would be through a charter amendment ballot initiative, a procedure that would require six votes from the 11-member Board.
And on another front, Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi asked the City Attorney to examine a Children’s Fund provision in the city charter that permits the Board of Supervisors to “modify an existing Community Needs Assessment or Plan, provided that any modification shall occur only after a noticed public hearing.”
“As it relates to the Children’s fund,” Mirkarimi said, “there may be some flexibility – as long as those other stipulations as suggested are met.”
Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi.
Responding, Deputy City Attorney Sheryl Adams said restrictions to reassessment would apply to services created after a 2001 baseline and non-child specific services that benefit the population at large.
“Those are the issues and the problems that I see right now,” Adams said. “I will add this to our list of many things I know that we’re looking at to try and solve the problems with the budget.”
The Hunger Site
March 29, 2009 at 7:43 am
I was hired as a gardener for the recreation and parks department three years ago. Before working for the city I worked in the private sector for various landscaping companies. I understand that there is a long history behind many of the civil service rules and that many of them were created in response to past abuses. However, I believe that more could be done to provide incentives for those who measurably produce more and higher quality work. As the system stands the only variable that actually counts in relation to job security and salary scale is seniority. While I think seniority is certainly important I believe that the civil service rules as they stand create a false dilemma between honoring seniority and recognizing a good days work. Moreover, there are a number of locations in the park system that require specialized training (japanese tea garden) but do not require gardeners who choose to bid into those positions demonstrate that they have taken the initiative to aquire the skills that such positions demand. I believe that in the effort to guard against “favoritism” we have created a system that leaves no room for recognizing merit and initiative. The fact is that sooner or later our Union and the Dept are going to have to demonstrate to the taxpaying public that our workforce is qualitatively competitive with the industry as a whole. Where we can’t compete in low salary I know that, if given the proper incentives, we can out compete the private sector in terms of productivity and level of skill/education. As budgets continue to tighten we are going to have to be able to justify our very existence and as things stand today we just don’t measure up.
March 16, 2009 at 10:35 pm
ckalson, you must not have been brown nose enough for Gene Marie O’Connell or Sue Currin to save your position by reclassifying it or using one of the other dirty tricks they have been up to for years. The civil service rules are meanginless in this town, especially in the DPH. Believe me, I know because I and many others have been victimized by these two anti-labor administrators at SFGH. Somehow these two always manage to save the positions of their cronies and sychophants. Sue Currin has just been named the new Executive Administrator at a salary of over $240K with the retirement of Gene O’Connell. It is enough to make me throw up.
Chris Daly if you really are for workers please investigate the dirty tricks that HR and SFGH administrators have been up to with cutting positions and then designing MQ’s that only one of their cronies meets or forcing people to drop down one pay class and continue to do the same work while these two keep giving themselves huge pay increases. What are you doing for the CNA’s who are having their positions reclassified by these two hateful women and taking a 20-25% pay cut?
March 14, 2009 at 5:59 pm
I can’t completely agree w/Supervisor Daly on this one.
Two weeks ago, I received noticed that I will be “bumped” from my position, 2591 (Health Program Coordinator II) effective
May 1. The situation is particularly painful to me because I fought for 2-1/2 years to get this “promotion.” I’ve worked in Employee Health at SFGH since 2002. early on, I sensed the need for more professionalism in our department and set to work on improving operations. I was increasingly working out of my job class and in 2004 I asked my manager to promote me. She agreed, but as I found out after she took another position in the Hospital a year later, she had not submitted the paperwork I had prepared for her. I finally went to a senior administrator who helped me obtain the re-classification which was finalized October 6, 2008. In the meantime, I received my Masters degree in Health Administration and developed an excellent program.
Now I find that 5 months into my new, provisional appointment, I have been bumped by someone who was laid off and has more seniority than I do.
Before I leave on May 1, I am expected to train the person who is taking my place in the program that I designed, built, and love. If I refuse, I can be written up as insubordinate. My program is complicated and nuanced, and I do not envy the individual who is taking my place, the learning curve will be a long one.
The Civil Service System, at least when it comes to personnel matters, is broken, obsolete, counterproductive, and fosters mediocrity. You can be sure the people who prevail are often the ones who know how to play the system and do the least.
Surely, Supervisor Daly, there is room for improvement. This is not some sacred cow that can’t be touched. And I’m sure you’re well aware of the favoritism and back room dealings that go on between the C&C, the unions, and others. I maintain that an overhaul of the Civil Service System is long overdue.
March 13, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Yeah,
“Reform of seniority” means getting rid of protected senior employees who don’t fear for their jobs and will whistle-blow on contractual or personnel abuses by whatever administration is in office. Those are the people that Blumenfeld wants to fire. Newsom’s people make Willie’s people look benevolent. It’s no accident that the people he wants to “reform” into the streets are the #1 sources for reporters all over the City.
h.
March 13, 2009 at 1:21 pm
“We couldn’t see things with the eyes of 1962. We saw them with the eyes of 1905 through about 1917. Well, we certainly never heard of such a thing and we never thought it would be possible, that there would be social security or unemployment insurance…
Also, we never heard of vacations with pay. We never heard of vacations, let alone vacations with pay. We never heard of seniority as it is understood today. There were no pensions for retirement of workers.”
— Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, labor leader, activist, and feminist who played a leading role in the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW)
March 13, 2009 at 8:24 am
I think that progressives should be careful arguing for civil service reform. Downtown interests have used this issue as a hammer to try to weaken the strength of public employee unions and the City’s progressive coalition.
On the issue itself, civil service rules certainly have their downside. However, we have to consider the likely alternative of favoritism and possible corruption. Don’t forget the recent history of Willie Brown’s “special assistants” — this is likely what City government would look like without our current civil service rules.