Although the story below appeared in print over one year ago, it remains relevant as a tale of corruption within San Francisco Government. LHH executive administrator Mivic Hirose remains in place. The Controller's Office has never explained why its audit of the Laguna Honda Patient Gift fund failed to discover that Laguna Honda administrators took approximately $350,000 from the fund to cover a capital fund deficit, pay for staff training and for other wayward hospital accounting purposes.
Award-winning whistleblowing Doctors Derek Kerr and Maria Rivero, on the other hand, remain out of San Francisco Government and have yet to receive thanks from an ungrateful bureaucracy . . .
http://www.examiner.com/hospital-in-san-francisco/part-1-audit-restores-350-000-to-laguna-honda-patient-gift-fund
http://www.examiner.com/hospital-in-san-francisco/part-2-audit-restores-350-000-to-laguna-honda-patient-gift-fund
http://www.examiner.com/hospital-in-san-francisco/part-3-audit-restores-350-000-to-laguna-honda-patient-gift-fund
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Friday, November 4, 2011
The (possible) glacial pace of SF civil service change
One month after running their article on the corruption with San Francisco Government's Rec and Parks Park Patrol, the SF Weekly published an item stating that Park Patrol head honcho Marcus Santiago may be on his way out. That's a big "may be."
San Francisco whistleblowers know that the City and County government acts only when the corruption within is exposed by the media--and even then, it's a delicate dance. San Francisco leaders, even when shamed by public attention, don't like to feel as if they're being bullied into anything (which is ironic, as their status quo consists of kowtowing to the more powerful labor unions who have organized their employees and the assorted cast of bullies within their ranks). And, more often than not, San Francisco bureaucracy goes out of its way to bilaterally move or actually promote the few they do decide to get rid of, albeit to positions in which the miscreants are responsible for overseeing less of their fellow employees.
So the answer to the question of whether or not the Park Patrol's Marcus Santiago is on his way out is decidedly unanswered. And as to whether or not the Rec and Parks' corruption unearthed by the SF Weekly will be rooted out altogether? The odds are slim indeed.
EXTERNAL LINK:
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/10/marcus_santiago_1.php
San Francisco whistleblowers know that the City and County government acts only when the corruption within is exposed by the media--and even then, it's a delicate dance. San Francisco leaders, even when shamed by public attention, don't like to feel as if they're being bullied into anything (which is ironic, as their status quo consists of kowtowing to the more powerful labor unions who have organized their employees and the assorted cast of bullies within their ranks). And, more often than not, San Francisco bureaucracy goes out of its way to bilaterally move or actually promote the few they do decide to get rid of, albeit to positions in which the miscreants are responsible for overseeing less of their fellow employees.
So the answer to the question of whether or not the Park Patrol's Marcus Santiago is on his way out is decidedly unanswered. And as to whether or not the Rec and Parks' corruption unearthed by the SF Weekly will be rooted out altogether? The odds are slim indeed.
EXTERNAL LINK:
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/10/marcus_santiago_1.php
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Further Tales of Corruption Within San Francisco Government
San Francisco Weekly's September 21-27, 2011 cover story is "Ranger Noir: Accusations of wrongdoing at S.F.'s Park Patrol have gone into overtime." Written by Weekly columnist Matt Smith, "Ranger Noir" provides ample evidence of the top-down corruption of San Francisco government's Park Patrol.
It should come as no surprise to learn that the administrative corruption within the Park Patrol--which includes cronyism, favoritism, the manipulation of favored employee's time-sheets, the false billing of Park Patrolmen time to Golden Gate Park event holders and retaliation against personnel brave enough to complain about same--has been made known to "top officials at city agencies including Recreation and Parks, the Civil Service Commission, the Department of Human Resources, and the City Controller's Whistleblower Program," but these new revelations are, indeed, shocking.
Whistleblowers throughout San Francisco Government have followed a similar chain of command resulting in the same lack of action taken by City and County of San Francisco leaders. Rather than clean up such corruption--which would provide a huge boost to both employee morale and the efficient provision of City services to the public--San Francisco Government's caretakers seem content instead to defend the guilty and pay out taxpayers' monies to those employees and members of the public who win civil lawsuits and equal employment opportunity cases filed against the City and County.
San Francisco Government's leader's cowardice in the face of such internal corruption is a past and present disgrace.
EXTERNAL LINK:
http://www.sfweekly.com/2011-09-21/news/marcus-santiago-sf-park-patrol-overtime-fraud-matt-smith/
It should come as no surprise to learn that the administrative corruption within the Park Patrol--which includes cronyism, favoritism, the manipulation of favored employee's time-sheets, the false billing of Park Patrolmen time to Golden Gate Park event holders and retaliation against personnel brave enough to complain about same--has been made known to "top officials at city agencies including Recreation and Parks, the Civil Service Commission, the Department of Human Resources, and the City Controller's Whistleblower Program," but these new revelations are, indeed, shocking.
Whistleblowers throughout San Francisco Government have followed a similar chain of command resulting in the same lack of action taken by City and County of San Francisco leaders. Rather than clean up such corruption--which would provide a huge boost to both employee morale and the efficient provision of City services to the public--San Francisco Government's caretakers seem content instead to defend the guilty and pay out taxpayers' monies to those employees and members of the public who win civil lawsuits and equal employment opportunity cases filed against the City and County.
San Francisco Government's leader's cowardice in the face of such internal corruption is a past and present disgrace.
EXTERNAL LINK:
http://www.sfweekly.com/2011-09-21/news/marcus-santiago-sf-park-patrol-overtime-fraud-matt-smith/
Sunday, August 21, 2011
St. Francis Continues to Weep
Significant change has occurred within San Francisco government since this blog's first post on May 30 of this year--but not enough. Nathaniel Ford and Carter Rohan have left the numbers one and two positions, respectively, at San Francisco Municipal Transportation Authority. San Francisco's Ethics Commission appears to have been awakened from its years-long hibernation by the June San Francisco Civil Grand Jury report condemning the Commission for failing to perform its titular duty. Ed Reiskin, SFMTA's newly installed Executive Director, begins his second week in office today. Reiskin offers hope by virtue of not being a member of San Francisco government's dog-tired, old-boy network of bringing long-overdue change to one of the City and County's most dysfunctional government offices.
Significant change has occurred within San Francisco government, but not enough. The City and County's Whistleblower program, which was designed to allow San Francisco civil servants to report "misuse of government funds, and improper activities by City government officials, employees and contractors" remains an empty shell. The Laguna Honda Hospital administrators responsible for the reprehensible workplace harassment campaign against Doctors Derek Kerr and Maria Rivero, which began after the two reported to the Whistleblower Program the misuse of hundreds of thousands of dollars of Patients Gift Fund money for lavish staff parties, remain in place. Neither Kerr nor Rivero have yet to be offered a well-deserved return to duty at Laguna Honda.
Debra A. Johnson, SFMTA's deputy director in charge of the agency's morally bankrupt equal employment opportunity and human resources offices, remains in her position, despite news reports that she has applied for the top post at Bay Area Rapid Transit. (MTA’s latest organizational chart, updated August 15, no longer lists Johnson as overseeing MTA’s EEO office, however.)
MTA's Department of Parking and Traffic Assistant Directors remain in place, as does Elias Georgopolous, the parking control supervisor who is the subject of multiple legal cases. Vidalina "Bebe" Pubill, the parking control officer who was fired by the MTA for blowing the whistle on Georgopolous, remains unemployed after being fired in May.
It has been difficult to remain silent in the month since this blog’s last post. Parking supervisor Georgopolous has continued to act as if the restraining order issued against him by San Francisco Superior Court is meaningless—which it is, so long as San Francisco’s City Attorney’s Office, the MTA, Parking and Traffic’s AD office and Service Employees International Union Local 1021 continue to support him.
We have also learned recently that another Parking and Traffic officer has suffered irreparable career damage due to their fear that revealing their same-sex sexual preference would lead to their firing. No other information can be provided about this matter due to the officer’s legitimate concern. What can be said is that San Francisco’s Parking and Traffic’s assistant directors office continues to maintain its de facto hostile workplace environment towards lesbians and gays because San Francisco City Hall and the MTA allow them to remain in office. This intolerable human rights crisis must end.
Rogue San Francisco government administrators continue to hide their misdeeds behind pledges of allegiance to personnel record confidentiality and ongoing/possible lawsuits. These officers are allowed to pick and choose which legitimate civil service and legal concerns they honor by virtue only of their illegitimate hold on positions of authority.
All of the above issues and many similar others have been made known to San Francisco government leaders for years and, in some cases, even decades. Sanity still needs to be restored to the ways in which the City and County’s Government delivers its services to the public.
Postscript: It is no surprise to followers of San Francisco’s public transportation system that new Executive Director Ed Reiskin would not be able to complete his first week in office without a tragedy occurring on his watch. On the afternoon of Friday, August 19, 2011, a Muni bus struck and killed a pedestrian in a crosswalk at the corner of 18th and Hartford Streets. There are stop signs at all four corners of the intersection. The Muni bus driver was either in too much of a hurry to reach his or her destination, was not paying close enough attention to the street onto which he or she was turning, or thought that the pedestrian was close enough to reaching the far corner to make the turn safely. In any case, the driver made a tragic error in judgment that led to the loss of life.
Too many San Francisco pedestrians have died in the past due to such driver negligence. It is hoped here that director Reiskin will institute a zero tolerance policy for such incidents, beginning with this one, terminate the employment of the driver and forward all relevant evidence to the San Francisco District Attorney's office for possible criminal prosecution.
Significant change has occurred within San Francisco government, but not enough. The City and County's Whistleblower program, which was designed to allow San Francisco civil servants to report "misuse of government funds, and improper activities by City government officials, employees and contractors" remains an empty shell. The Laguna Honda Hospital administrators responsible for the reprehensible workplace harassment campaign against Doctors Derek Kerr and Maria Rivero, which began after the two reported to the Whistleblower Program the misuse of hundreds of thousands of dollars of Patients Gift Fund money for lavish staff parties, remain in place. Neither Kerr nor Rivero have yet to be offered a well-deserved return to duty at Laguna Honda.
Debra A. Johnson, SFMTA's deputy director in charge of the agency's morally bankrupt equal employment opportunity and human resources offices, remains in her position, despite news reports that she has applied for the top post at Bay Area Rapid Transit. (MTA’s latest organizational chart, updated August 15, no longer lists Johnson as overseeing MTA’s EEO office, however.)
MTA's Department of Parking and Traffic Assistant Directors remain in place, as does Elias Georgopolous, the parking control supervisor who is the subject of multiple legal cases. Vidalina "Bebe" Pubill, the parking control officer who was fired by the MTA for blowing the whistle on Georgopolous, remains unemployed after being fired in May.
It has been difficult to remain silent in the month since this blog’s last post. Parking supervisor Georgopolous has continued to act as if the restraining order issued against him by San Francisco Superior Court is meaningless—which it is, so long as San Francisco’s City Attorney’s Office, the MTA, Parking and Traffic’s AD office and Service Employees International Union Local 1021 continue to support him.
We have also learned recently that another Parking and Traffic officer has suffered irreparable career damage due to their fear that revealing their same-sex sexual preference would lead to their firing. No other information can be provided about this matter due to the officer’s legitimate concern. What can be said is that San Francisco’s Parking and Traffic’s assistant directors office continues to maintain its de facto hostile workplace environment towards lesbians and gays because San Francisco City Hall and the MTA allow them to remain in office. This intolerable human rights crisis must end.
Rogue San Francisco government administrators continue to hide their misdeeds behind pledges of allegiance to personnel record confidentiality and ongoing/possible lawsuits. These officers are allowed to pick and choose which legitimate civil service and legal concerns they honor by virtue only of their illegitimate hold on positions of authority.
All of the above issues and many similar others have been made known to San Francisco government leaders for years and, in some cases, even decades. Sanity still needs to be restored to the ways in which the City and County’s Government delivers its services to the public.
Postscript: It is no surprise to followers of San Francisco’s public transportation system that new Executive Director Ed Reiskin would not be able to complete his first week in office without a tragedy occurring on his watch. On the afternoon of Friday, August 19, 2011, a Muni bus struck and killed a pedestrian in a crosswalk at the corner of 18th and Hartford Streets. There are stop signs at all four corners of the intersection. The Muni bus driver was either in too much of a hurry to reach his or her destination, was not paying close enough attention to the street onto which he or she was turning, or thought that the pedestrian was close enough to reaching the far corner to make the turn safely. In any case, the driver made a tragic error in judgment that led to the loss of life.
Too many San Francisco pedestrians have died in the past due to such driver negligence. It is hoped here that director Reiskin will institute a zero tolerance policy for such incidents, beginning with this one, terminate the employment of the driver and forward all relevant evidence to the San Francisco District Attorney's office for possible criminal prosecution.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
The best possible outcome in the search for new SFMTA leadership!
Ed Reiskin is a solid government administration professional. His rise through San Francisco government has been rapid--from the director of San Francisco 311 to the director of Public Works to the Executive Director of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency.
There is still hope yet!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/07/20/BAJP1KD48G.DTL
There is still hope yet!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/07/20/BAJP1KD48G.DTL
Monday, July 18, 2011
San Francisco Government's LGBT problem
San Francisco was the last place on Earth I expected to find a discriminatory and hostile work environment for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community, but find it here I did. It took a few years to learn this about the City and County's Department of Parking and Traffic's enforcement division. Such things are not discussed openly. Instead, employees live in fear.
The Municipal Transportation Agency, the entity responsible for administering DPT, will tell you that both the agency and the department are in full compliance with all relevant equal employment opportunity law. Whenever the MTA executive offices receive a report about a LGBT employee being harassed or threatened at DPT, the agency is quick to pull in the suspect employee and have a talk with them. They will also instruct the General Enforcement Division's Assistant Director office to post (ad nauseum) the city's Workplace Non-Harassment policy, where employees are sure to see it. These actions, MTA will assure, prove the the agency does not tolerate a discriminatory and hostile work environment. What MTA will not tell you is that most of DPT's LGBT community knows better than to file sexual preference discrimination complaints, because they have proven to be a waste of time.
"Gays employed at the MTA are afraid to stand up for other gays," a former MTA administrator who keeps in touch with some former workmates wrote to me recently, "because of the fear they might lose their jobs. Gays stand by and watch as promotions and new positions go to family and friends of favored and powerful SFMTA/DPT employees, who may or may not be qualified, instead of to eligible gay candidates.
"Management is sidestepping the laws and policies in place, without any consequences, to prevent such favoritism and nepotism from occurring. Morale is very low for gay employees, except for those who are in the favored group. The MTA is very slow to enforce equal employment opportunity laws for gays," the former administrator concludes, "simply because cronyism, favoritism and nepotism are deeply engrained in the new hire and promotional protocol."
Such corroded hiring and promoting practices may have something to do with the low morale of gay employees at DPT's General Enforcement Division, but there is something afoot there that is even more sinister. LGBT employees know that a gay officer worked fruitlessly for years, beginning in 2000, to see that justice was done after he walked in on two other DPT parking officers attempting to assault another gay colleague. They also know that, more recently, at least one of their own has suffered a nervous breakdown due to a fear that DPT's Assistant Directors would become aware of their sexual preference.
All of these issues have been reported for years to City Hall--including the Mayor's office when Gavin Newsom was at the helm. But MTA and DPT remain cesspools of employment law malpractice.
Since May of this year, San Francisco civil grand jury and news reports have revealed the breakdown of the City and County's self-regulating policing mechanisms. Both the Ethics Commission and San Francisco civil servants' Whistleblower Program have been shown to be shams. San Francisco employees who have dared to take on the corruption after their own offices have failed to do the right thing in response to their complaints have known this about CCSF administration for years.
When KGO-TV aired an expose in May of the breakdown of the Whistleblower Program, San Francisco County Supervisor Mark Farrell, who sits on the Board's Government Audit and Oversight Committee, told KGO's reporter "If we have a lot of complaints and a lot of people coming to us . . . talking about how this might not be as effective as they want it to be, it's absolutely something that we're going to look at." It is still unclear if the Board of Supervisors will take a look, even after a civil grand jury issued a report since then stating "The whistleblower program could be described as (a) bad joke, except there's nothing funny about employees suffering abusive and career-killing treatment."
Nor is there anything funny, or even understandable, about the hostile work environment at SFMTA/DPT that exists for LGBT employees.
When will the "good" people within San Francisco government take action of behalf of all of the employees who serve within their ranks?
The Municipal Transportation Agency, the entity responsible for administering DPT, will tell you that both the agency and the department are in full compliance with all relevant equal employment opportunity law. Whenever the MTA executive offices receive a report about a LGBT employee being harassed or threatened at DPT, the agency is quick to pull in the suspect employee and have a talk with them. They will also instruct the General Enforcement Division's Assistant Director office to post (ad nauseum) the city's Workplace Non-Harassment policy, where employees are sure to see it. These actions, MTA will assure, prove the the agency does not tolerate a discriminatory and hostile work environment. What MTA will not tell you is that most of DPT's LGBT community knows better than to file sexual preference discrimination complaints, because they have proven to be a waste of time.
"Gays employed at the MTA are afraid to stand up for other gays," a former MTA administrator who keeps in touch with some former workmates wrote to me recently, "because of the fear they might lose their jobs. Gays stand by and watch as promotions and new positions go to family and friends of favored and powerful SFMTA/DPT employees, who may or may not be qualified, instead of to eligible gay candidates.
"Management is sidestepping the laws and policies in place, without any consequences, to prevent such favoritism and nepotism from occurring. Morale is very low for gay employees, except for those who are in the favored group. The MTA is very slow to enforce equal employment opportunity laws for gays," the former administrator concludes, "simply because cronyism, favoritism and nepotism are deeply engrained in the new hire and promotional protocol."
Such corroded hiring and promoting practices may have something to do with the low morale of gay employees at DPT's General Enforcement Division, but there is something afoot there that is even more sinister. LGBT employees know that a gay officer worked fruitlessly for years, beginning in 2000, to see that justice was done after he walked in on two other DPT parking officers attempting to assault another gay colleague. They also know that, more recently, at least one of their own has suffered a nervous breakdown due to a fear that DPT's Assistant Directors would become aware of their sexual preference.
All of these issues have been reported for years to City Hall--including the Mayor's office when Gavin Newsom was at the helm. But MTA and DPT remain cesspools of employment law malpractice.
Since May of this year, San Francisco civil grand jury and news reports have revealed the breakdown of the City and County's self-regulating policing mechanisms. Both the Ethics Commission and San Francisco civil servants' Whistleblower Program have been shown to be shams. San Francisco employees who have dared to take on the corruption after their own offices have failed to do the right thing in response to their complaints have known this about CCSF administration for years.
When KGO-TV aired an expose in May of the breakdown of the Whistleblower Program, San Francisco County Supervisor Mark Farrell, who sits on the Board's Government Audit and Oversight Committee, told KGO's reporter "If we have a lot of complaints and a lot of people coming to us . . . talking about how this might not be as effective as they want it to be, it's absolutely something that we're going to look at." It is still unclear if the Board of Supervisors will take a look, even after a civil grand jury issued a report since then stating "The whistleblower program could be described as (a) bad joke, except there's nothing funny about employees suffering abusive and career-killing treatment."
Nor is there anything funny, or even understandable, about the hostile work environment at SFMTA/DPT that exists for LGBT employees.
When will the "good" people within San Francisco government take action of behalf of all of the employees who serve within their ranks?
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Report: San Francisco Whistleblower Program "a bad joke"
CIVIL GRAND JURY
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
2010-2011
WHISTLING IN THE DARK:
THE SAN FRANCISCO WHISTLEBLOWER PROGRAM
SUMMARY
Whistleblowing in San Francisco is a high-risk decision.
Government transparency is vital in a democracy, and San Francisco’s citizens demand it. There is no denying that bona fide policy reform can and does occur when a witness to organizational misconduct steps forth to report it.
Whistleblowers serve a particularly important role in curbing unchecked authority and abuse of power. Often uniquely situated as witnesses to “the people’s business,” government workers can function as important agents of change, forcing organizations to reform policy and enhance accountability.
Nearly eight years after its re-launch under a 2003 charter amendment, the Jury finds that the San Francisco's Whistleblower Program has failed in its mission to promote the identification of waste, fraud and abuse.
The existing program deals with mostly low-level issues, does not foster transparency, lacks a comprehensive tracking system, angers and confuses whistleblowers, lacks an appeals system, and fails to create effective and independent oversight.
The Civil Grand Jury decided to investigate the operation of the Whistleblower program and its effect on the whistleblowers themselves.
*********************************************************************
WHISTLEBLOWERS FACE THEIR FEARS
“ALL your work was done FOR you. All the evidence was presented to you. No one has even attempted to deny irrefutable facts that state a prima facie case of fraud and false claims against government funds. Yet all of you just sit there and collect your salaries as the defendants turn around and retaliate against whistleblowers. Amazing. Absolutely amazing!”
Excerpt, San Francisco Whistleblower Complaint
Whistleblowers Face Their Fears
No discussion about public policy and whistleblowing can ignore the toll that is exacted from a man or woman on the inside who refuses to look the other way. Nor can we ignore the profound effect, cumulatively, of listening to so many credible, often harrowing accounts from the whistleblowers whom we interviewed.
A long time San Francisco General Hospital employee filed his first whistleblower complaint in 2004. After filing two more whistleblower complaints, he was placed on involuntary sick leave in 2007. Believing this to be retaliation for his whistleblower complaints, he filed a grievance through his union. The whistleblower suspected the Department of Public Health may have been involved with his involuntary sick leave. From 2007 to 2011, the whistleblower reported experiencing many challenges: an inability to retire with the benefits earned, being denied his Social Security disability benefits, and facing ostracism from his former colleagues. In 2009 the whistleblower filed a lawsuit against the City. In 2011, it was settled for an undisclosed amount.
Personal Sacrifice and the Emotional Toll Endured
“It’s as if you become radioactive.”
–– Witness Interview
Former city employee, describing the experience of being shunned by long-time colleagues as a direct result of blowing the whistle on managerial misconduct.
WHISTLEBLOWER
Imagine the pressure. Your boss, your boss’s boss, and even your co-workers turn against you. You are mistreated daily, and threatened with suspension, demotion, termination. You have your family to consider, your security, your career, and your future. The personal toll extracted from those who stand alone in voicing their dissent can be overwhelming.
From a program policy perspective, there are several issues. Most glaringly, once a complaint is filed, the whistleblower is from that point forward, essentially shut out of the entire process and left to navigate a “black hole” where further access to the investigation is denied.
During witness interviews, whistleblowers repeatedly indicated that they weren’t given, because of the confidentiality statutes, any specific information about the current status or the results of the investigation beyond a one line nebulous phrase (see section Complaint Status Updates below). As a result the complainants feel “left out in the cold” which reinforces whatever sense of isolation they are experiencing.
A member of the Ethics Commission staff filed five whistleblower complaints. The subject of one complaint was an incriminating e-mail sent erroneously to the unit where the staffer worked. He was directed by his supervisor to delete the e-mail. However, the staffer believed doing as he was told constituted a felony. Receiving a reprimand for his refusal, the staffer was told he was "insubordinate".
This employee was bumped from his position in early 2010 and felt this was done in retaliation for his whistleblowing activities. The Ethics Commission's sole duty under the Whistleblower program is to investigate complaints of retaliation. Where could this Ethics Commission staffer turn?
Like a number of whistleblowers who filed complaints through the Controller's Office, the former staffer felt frustrated, unprotected, and decided to take his story to the news media. In the Jury's interview, he stated that had he to do it all over again he would have never been a whistleblower.
No Appeal Process and the Problems With Confidentiality
One of the problems with the Whistleblower program is the lack of an appeals process. The following illustrates one example of where an appeals process might have been appropriate. For the purpose of this report, we will call this next whistleblower "Ms. X.” She detailed the difficulties encountered with filing a complaint related to a San Francisco non-profit. City and Federal funding, in the amount of $100 million, was provided through the City to the non-profit in question.
Filed through the Controller's Whistleblower program, Ms. X explained her complaint was related to non-compliance with federal grant reporting requirements, deficiencies in the nonprofit's internal financial accounting controls, and negligent management.
In response to Ms. X's whistleblower complaint, the Controller's Office indicated after, an “informal review”, they found "no violations" and stated there was no budget for even a cursory audit that could have substantiated her complaint. Additionally, her case was closed with no explanation and no information provided.
Ms. X requested a return of any and all information relating to her complaint and was informed that she could not have the documents due to the confidentiality of investigation records. She declared she was in fact the whistleblower and waived her rights of confidentiality. The Controller's Office would not release even redacted documents. Believing this was not a satisfactory end to her complaint, Ms. X filed a request with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force for her documentation and information about the investigation.
Ms. X stated “...information is being kept from the public, and confidentiality should not preclude transparency.” This San Francisco whistleblower has made continuous attempts to obtain the information related to her complaint and has expressed frustration over the lack of communication from the Whistleblower Program.
The Jury notes that confidentiality is an important aspect of the Whistleblower Program. Confidentiality protects individuals interviewed, and it guards alleged violators from having to face unsubstantiated complaints.
However, confidentiality is the proverbial “double-edged sword.” While protecting the individuals in an investigation, it can also result in a lack of transparency as it relates to investigations. Confidentiality, as described by the whistleblowers interviewed, should not be a shield. Confidentiality should be a tool used carefully with balance provided to those being investigated and those whistleblowers filing complaints.
If a complainant is dissatisfied with the outcome of the whistleblower investigation, there is no process for appeal.
Limited Publicity of the Whistleblower Program
A simple fear for all is the fear of the unknown. In our interviews with some employees with grievances it was clear that they did not know about the Whistleblower Program. A case in point, employees from a first responder's department told the Jury they had not been informed about the Whistleblower Program. Instead they filed a union grievance and ultimately filed a suit against the City.
To further illustrate this point, The Jury was told that not all employees in the six city departments that received the most whistleblower complaints received training on the Whistleblower Program.
The City's employee handbook does little to promote the Whistleblower Program, devoting only a single paragraph to the subject. It is located near the end of the 45-page manual on page 42:
If You Suspect Improper or Criminal Activity on the Job
As a City employee, you have a duty to report any incidents of improper or
illegal activity involving your department or another City department. Never
confront an employee whom you suspect is involved in illegal or criminal
activity. Discuss the matter with your supervisor or departmental personnel
officer. If you feel it necessary to protect your safety or avoid retaliation, you
may report illegal or improper conduct to the Whistleblower Hotline at 554-CITY.
You may make an anonymous report on the hotline. However, keep in mind
that anonymous reports are more difficult to investigate. ”
Reduce the fear of workplace retaliation;
Give employees information on what to expect when filing a whistleblower
complaint.
Read the full report at http://www.sfsuperiorcourt.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2884
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
A Pandora's Box Of Workplace Horrors
In February 2006, a group of Department of Parking and Traffic employees met with Stuart Sunshine and Diana Buchbinder, two San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency directors. They met to discuss a statement sent to MTA by the group that included a request to relieve various Parking and Traffic directors and supervisors from duty. The statement provided evidence of favoritism, nepotism and retaliation on the part of the Department's administrative offices. Examples of doctoring internal work records to excuse chronic unexcused absenteeism were included.
The two directors listened to the employees, asked questions and thanked them. No apparent action was ever taken as a result of the reports.
As a former DPT employee and a participant at this meeting, I myself was a victim of harassment and retaliation. I knew first hand of injustices suffered by other colleagues within the Department.
For two years, my workplace presented an emotional and physical threat to my well-being on a daily basis. I followed internal protocol in reporting and documenting my complaints through all of the proper channels. I began to help other colleagues who were suffering worse violations, including homophobia, intimidation and actual threats, for even longer periods of time. The only action taken on my behalf, in the end, was to temporarily move me from my workplace to another MTA facility--while the culprits remained in place. I subsequently found another position--a wonderful position, as it turns out--within San Francisco government.
By the end of 2006, two other parking supervisors brought additional nepotism charges to SFMTA management. They both claimed that the assistant directors office was attempting to list the daughter of Assistant Director Marie Holland above them on the seniority list. Their charges were confirmed by SFMTA.
All of the Assistant Directors and supervisors identified by the 2006 DPT employee group--except for one, who has retired--remain in the employ of The City and County of San Francisco. When ABC local television affiliate KGO ran its May 2011 story on rogue DPT supervisor Elias Georgopolous, and when the SFMTA quickly fired the supervisor who had "blown the whistle" on Georgopolous, I was not surprised. San Francisco government's defense of such employees goes back years and even decades.
Reform of San Francisco civil service is long overdue.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Justice Denied
What appears below is as it seems. I have edited some of the original statement, and have also omitted the names of those innocent of the charges contained within.
***********************************************
March 22, 2006
I was harassed on February 13, 2006, by Parking Control Officer James Hudson in retaliation for the protected union activity I engaged in on February 8. On February 15, 2006, I learned additional information about Hudson to conclude that he presented a reasonable threat to my physical wellbeing. I informed my supervisor at DPT on February 15 of Hudson’s harassment and the threat that he presented to me.
***********************************************
March 22, 2006
Civil Service Commission
25 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
Dear Commission Members:
I am in receipt of a February 22, 2006 letter from Philip A. Ginsburg, Human Resources Director for the City and County of San Francisco. In Mr. Ginsburg’s letter, the Department of Human Resources approves the Municipal Transportation Agency’s “action to dismiss your complaint of sexual harassment due to insufficient evidence” against Department of Parking and Traffic supervisor Nancy Amaya.
Mr. Ginsburg advises me in his letter that I am given thirty (30) calendar days to appeal to the Civil Service Commission to reverse the Department of Human Resources’ affirmation of MTA’s denial of my complaint. Please find this letter as my appeal to the Civil Service Commission to do so. I am also asking the Civil Service Commission’s assistance in ending—in as expeditious a manner as possible--Ms. Amaya’s continued and ongoing sexual harassment of me.
Mr. Ginsburg’s February 22, 2006 letter affirms the decision reached by MTA’s Equal Employment Opportunity Section office in my case against Ms. Amaya as detailed in EEO Section Manager Vernon Crawley’s February 13, 2006 letter to me. Mr. Crawley’s detailing of the MTA EEO Section office’s investigation of my case makes it appear to be run-of-the-mill in its ordinariness: Although my allegation that Ms. Amaya asked me to her home between 6-10 times between mid-2003 and January-February 2005 was confirmed, and that my allegation that Ms. Amaya’s invitations to me became more sexually suggestive in nature during the course of the relevant period was also confirmed, Mr. Crawley’s MTA EEO Section office concluded that Ms. Amaya’s harassment of me did not “contain the required elements of frequency, severity or pervasiveness sufficient to establish an abusive work environment. . . . The nature of the alleged sexual comments were not lewd, malicious, or vulgar, but more consistent with simple and infrequent teasing.”
The simplicity of MTA’s EEO Section office response to my sexual harassment complaint against Ms. Amaya is a model of brevity. The EEO Section office’s succinctness, however, does not address the “more complicated and complex” nature of the complaints of mine forwarded to the MTA EEO Section office as described by Mr. Crawley in a February 15, 2006 e-mail to me (Copy enclosed). In addition to the sexual harassment charge made by me against Ms. Amaya, the Department of Parking and Traffic also forwarded to the MTA EEO Section office:
1) A retaliation complaint of mine against Ms. Amaya for an action she took against me after I cosigned a departmental misconduct complaint with two other DPT officers for the unacceptable conduct she took against each of us (See my May 20, 2005 letter to DPT Assistant Director Marie Holland), conduct defined as unacceptable by the DPT General Enforcement Division Policy and Procedures Section 2.1 ACCEPTABLE CONDUCT (Copy enclosed).
2) The retaliation Ms. Amaya engaged in against DPT Senior Clerk ____________, a witness to Ms. Amaya’s sexual harassment of me, which I reported to Mr. Crawley in an August 2005 meeting.
3) A verbal misrepresentation to me on May 26, 2005 by DPT Assistant Director Marie Holland of corroborating evidence she gained from __________ about Ms. Amaya’s sexual harassment of me in Ms. Holland’s departmental investigation into my retaliation complaint (See my May 31, 2005 letter addressed to SFPD Commander Sylvia Harper), and
4) Either a verbal misrepresentation or the filing of a false report concerning the same corroborating evidence Ms. Holland learned from __________ in their meeting, which immediately preceded my own meeting with Ms. Holland on that date.
Mr. Crawley’s February 13, 2006 letter to me addresses none of these “more complicated and complex” matters. And yet, in his February 15 e-mail to me, they are the basis for his justifying the EEO Section office’s sitting on the outcome to a case I first presented to Mr. Crawley on June 2, 2005. (In that meeting, requiring no prompting of mine, Mr. Crawley volunteered the information to me that the EEO Section office had recently been receiving other complaints against Ms. Amaya. . . .)
Why are the additional complaints of mine forwarded to the MTA EEO Section office not addressed? Ms. Amaya’s disruptive and/or unprofessional conduct while on duty or on DPT property, and her abusive, intimidating, and threatening manner while serving as an officer for the City and County of San Francisco . . . and Assistant Director Holland’s providing cover for Ms. Amaya to abuse, intimidate, and threaten other DPT employees . . . has helped to create and maintain “an abusive working environment” for far too many of the men and women of CCSF DPT’s General Enforcement Division for far too many years. This was precisely the nature of the work environment I entered in December 2001 (as hostile and toxic an employee workplace as I have ever experienced) and this was the work environment that came to include Ms. Amaya’s sexual harassment of me.
Surely, Ms. Amaya’s initial retaliatory action taken against me—in which, during her conversation with __________, who is a neighbor of my now-fiancee, Ms. Amaya asked who was the passive character and who was the aggressive character in the relationship between my fiancee and myself—provides proof of a "woman scorned.” (I made this point to Mr. Crawley and to EEO Section Assistant Manager Kim Holman, who conducted the investigation into my charges against Ms. Amaya, but that evidence of her sexually-tinged harassment of me is not mentioned.) The other complaints about Ms. Amaya brought to the MTA EEO Section office that Mr. Crawley alluded to in our initial June 2005 meeting (and his additional characterization of Ms. Amaya to me in our August 2005 meeting as being “an equal opportunity harasser”) substantiate the sexual harassment complaint I have lodged against her.
Despite all of the above, the MTA EEO Section office chose to delay the issuance of a finding in my case for eight months. It is my contention that the EEO Section office’s failure to enforce EEO guidelines against the likes of Ms. Amaya and Ms. Holland has led to the continued harassment of me by Ms. Amaya into 2006, and it is this ongoing harassment that I am also asking the Civil Service Commission to take action to end.
In January 2006, I was appointed by the DPT General Enforcement Division chapter of Service Employees International Union Local 790 to serve as a voting member of Local 790’s Negotiating Committee with the City and County of San Francisco for a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Flyers announcing the appointments of myself and three other DPT employees were distributed well in advance of a February 8, 2006 chapter meeting, at which time the chapter’s Negotiating Committee members were introduced.
During that meeting, I introduced a “DPT Code Of Conduct and EEO Guidelines Resolution.” The resolution condemned the General Enforcement Division’s Assistant Directors, the liaison SFPD Commander’s office and certain DPT Supervisors for failing to abide by and enforce DPT’s own code of conduct and all relevant EEO guidelines. Ms. Amaya’s November-December 2005 appointment by Commander Harper to work out of the Assistant Directors office was so destructive to the morale of DPT’s General Enforcement Division personnel that it provided the crowning evidence of the Department’s failure to enforce its own code of conduct and all relevant EEO guidelines contained in the DPT “Code of Conduct” resolution. The DPT chapter members present at the February 8 meeting voted overwhelmingly in favor of approving the “Code of Conduct” resolution. . . .
In late February 2006, a special chapter meeting was held to accept nominations for the same DPT Negotiating Committee team that DPT chapter leadership had appointed earlier. (Another DPT employee and I had been moved to a different location at the time due to the harassment by another DPT employee described below.) According to an “Emergency Chapter Meeting for DPT” flyer dated February 21, 2006, which was posted at DPT’s General Enforcement Division facility at 505 7th Street, the call for an election was due to “several concerns as to how the Negotiations Team had been selected.”
The “Emergency Chapter Meeting for DPT” flyer smacks of Ms. Amaya’s hand in forcing an extraordinary nomination process on the DPT chapter after DPT chapter leadership faithfully executed the appointive process in selecting its Negotiating Committee membership. Ms. Amaya’s subsequent victory in the election balloting—in which she replaced me as a voting member of DPT’s Negotiating Committee team—also smacks of her interference in my protected union activity as an appointed member of the DPT chapter body, and of her continued sexual harassment of me.
I was harassed on February 13, 2006, by Parking Control Officer James Hudson in retaliation for the protected union activity I engaged in on February 8. On February 15, 2006, I learned additional information about Hudson to conclude that he presented a reasonable threat to my physical wellbeing. I informed my supervisor at DPT on February 15 of Hudson’s harassment and the threat that he presented to me.
My Supervisor wrote a letter summarizing my February 15 comments to her and forwarded the letter to Assistant Director Holland. On the morning of February 16, Hudson appeared at the second floor Dispatch Center at 505 7th Street with a copy of my supervisor’s report in his hands. I believe that copy of my supervisor’s report was given to Hudson to provoke him to further acts of harassment and possible physical assault. I have learned since then that Ms. Holland did not provide to Hudson the copy of my supervisor’s report. I suspect that Ms. Amaya was the DPT officer who supplied a copy to him of my Supervisor’s report in order to feed her own sexual harassment of me.
I look forward to your reply.
Alex Reyes
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
DPT Code of Conduct and EEO Guidelines Resolution
In January 2006, a group of San Francisco Department of Parking and Traffic dispatchers, parking officers and supervisors joined together in an effort to "change the culture" at the Department's General Enforcement Division. In a meeting with Service Employees International Union Local 790 (now merged into SEIU Local 1021) representatives, it was agreed that the Local would support the group's effort if they were able to get approved by the DPT chapter the resolution that follows.
The resolution was passed on a near unanimous vote. Despite the earlier agreement, the Local 790 staffers then withdrew their promise of support.
Although the San Francisco Police Commander listed in the resolution was soon relieved of her duty at DPT, Assistant Directors Debbie Borthne and Marie Holland remained in place. If SEIU Local 790's officers had kept their word, the General Enforcement Division's assistant directors may have been removed and a more professional atmosphere instituted. Instead, DPT, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency and San Francisco government have remained corrupted. Rogue parking supervisor Elias Georgopolous enjoys the support of the City Attorney's office and SEIU Local 1021. Whistleblowing supervisor Vidalina "Bebe" Pubill, a highly popular and professional officer, has been fired. The rest of DPT's 300-plus employees at the General Enforcement Division remain hostage.
Whereas, all City and County of San Francisco employees who work as officers for the Department of Parking and Traffic are bound to perform their duties in accordance with the General Enforcement Division Policy and Procedures Section 2-1 Conduct, and by city and county, state, and federal equal employment opportunity guidelines, and
Whereas, in the past two years, the General Enforcement Division Commander and Assistant Directors have failed to act upon and have denied valid departmental misconduct and EEO violation complaints brought by numerous DPT personnel against Department Assistant Directors, Supervisors, and other personnel, and
Whereas, the Manager and Assistant Manager for the Metropolitan Transportation Agency Equal Employment Opportunity office, who are responsible for the enforcement and oversight of EEO guidelines at both the Department of Parking and Traffic and at . . . Muni, have failed to act upon and have denied valid departmental misconduct and EEO violation complaints forwarded to them by the Department of Parking and Traffic, and
Whereas, since mid-2005, the Office of the Mayor of the City of San Francisco, and certain members of the County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors, have been advised of the breakdown of DPT’s enforcement of departmental conduct and EEO guidelines, and
Whereas, the administrative corruption of DPT’s code of conduct and adherence to EEO guidelines has been made known to every appropriate CCSF agency in the past ten years, and
Whereas, on November 2, 2005, the current Departmental corruption of the MTA EEO’s investigation into complaints arising from DPT was confirmed. In a meeting on that date with DPT personnel, the EEO investigator in charge of numerous complaints against DPT Assistant Directors and Supervisors thrice denied advising the Commander and the Department to ensure the rotation of a Supervisor with multiple pending departmental misconduct and EEO charges against her to a non-505 7th Street-based facility effective with the October 22, 2005, Supervisor Detail posting, and
Whereas, the same Supervisor was appointed in November or December 2005 by the Commander and the Department to perform assistant director duties from a desk in the Assistant Director’s Office in the DPT facility from which she was ordered removed.
Therefore, be it resolved, that the CCSF DPT membership of SEIU Local 790 call upon the SEIU San Francisco Regional Conference (to) support their chapter’s effort to establish a faithful enforcement of the employee Code of Conduct and EEO guidelines to the administration of their Department.
Therefore, be it further resolved, that the DPT membership also call upon Local 790 to appeal to the government of the City and County of San Francisco on their behalf to ask CCSF to effect all necessary changes. The chapter asks that such changes include the assignment of a member of San Francisco’s Human Rights Commission, who is acceptable to the membership, to investigate the multiple departmental misconduct and EEO complaints filed against DPT personnel, and to take all appropriate action from the time of the Commission’s appointment.
Approved by the DPT Enforcement Division Chapter of SEIU Local 790 on February 8, 2006.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
A sea change for SFMTA?
San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency’s June 15 announcement that Executive Director Nathaniel Ford will leave his position June 30 has been met by nearly universal acclaim. Of those commenting on San Francisco Chronicle’s sfgate website, many railed against both Ford’s severance package totaling $384,000 and the $300K annual salary paid to him at the time of the termination.
Most of the public wrath towards Ford arises from the eternally troubled performance of Muni, the city’s public transportation system. Fed-up citizens voted in 1999 for a local proposition demanding that Muni increase its on-time performance to 85%. During Ford’s five-plus-year tenure, Muni reached a high of 75% on-time delivery performance at the beginning of 2010. Its latest on-time rate sits at just over 71%.
San Franciscans are all too aware of the administrative headaches that plague Muni managers. A prolonged economic downturn, decrepit rail lines, long-past-their-prime vehicles and a driver force that is as likely not to show up for work as it is to do so--and to behave unprofessionally while on the job--are the operational norm for Muni. An announcement of a June 7 press conference and rally in defense of a whistle-blowing Muni driver states that Executive Director Ford is himself “in court here and in Atlanta for sexual harassment . . . and financial malfeasance.” Reading between the lines of MTA’s decision not to keep Ford as its Executive Director, it is easy to imagine that his personal troubles have as much to do with his departure as the agency’s public performance.
The public transgressions of Muni’s outgoing director are more than matched by SFMTA’s internal administrative wrongdoings. News stories about the state of the agency routinely refer to “employee gripes and suggestions.” Such reports tend to focus upon the daily, ongoing struggles between bus drivers, parking control officers and a demanding public. But there is also a longstanding internal tension within MTA that adds to employee demoralization: MTA’s coddling of rogue employees at the expense of the overwhelming majority of its truly civil civil servants.
SFMTA recently fired a 19-year veteran parking supervisor for blowing the whistle on a fellow supervisor. City and County government is defending him in three concurrent legal cases (two assault charges and a federal sexual harassment complaint). This employee has also been accused of attempted ticket fixing and the illegal use of a state disabled parking placard. Additionally, he is the subject of a restraining order secured by a subordinate whom he attacked.
Rather than provide their nominal services, MTA’s equal employment opportunity, human resources and worker's compensation offices are often involved instead with mitigating the financial and legal responsibility of employees who have a propensity to misbehave in reprehensible ways. (These actions mirror the transit operators union, who defend any and every driver who is accused of betraying the public trust.) At the Department of Parking and Traffic’s General Enforcement Division, for example, employees have suffered severe emotional breakdowns due to workplace harassment. Such harassment can come from many directions: administrators, directors, managers, supervisors or peers. After years of such abuse, these employees have then had to suffer the slings of the agency’s apparatchiks, who work to deny them their legal employment rights. Having worked at SFMTA/DPT for five years, I have first-hand knowledge of this history.
Ford’s departure presents a golden opportunity for the City and County of San Francisco to bring the SFMTA in compliance with existing workplace law. One of those named in news reports as a possible successor is Deputy Executive Director Carter Rohan. Rohan is responsible for the agency’s EEO office. If he were to be interviewed for the job, one of the questions that should be asked is “What would you do as executive director to reverse SFMTA’s support of workplace injustices?”
Any answer other than “I will make it a top priority” should not be accepted. The San Francisco public and its civil servants deserve nothing less.
Update: Carter Rohan has announced his resignation from SFMTA. SFMTA's Executive Board has appointed Debra Johnson as InterimExecutive Director. In her role as MTA Director responsible for the Agency's Human Resources, Labor Relations and Workers Compensation offices, Ms. Johnson signed the termination letter of whistleblower DPT Supervisor Vidalina Pubill on behalf of former director Ford.
Update: Carter Rohan has announced his resignation from SFMTA. SFMTA's Executive Board has appointed Debra Johnson as Interim
Monday, June 13, 2011
Saint Francis Weeps
A human rights crisis exists within San Francisco government.
ABC Television San Francisco affiliate KGO's May 12, 2011 report on San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) Parking Control Supervisor Elias Georgopolous stated that the City Attorney is representing him as a defendant in three concurrent legal cases. These include two civil court lawsuits charging physical assault and a federal equal employment opportunity sexual harassment complaint. KGO-TV's report featured a number of City and County parking officers who have filed complaints for years about Georgopolous' antisocial on-duty behavior. KGO's investigative "I-Team" even unearthed a San Francisco Superior Court judge’s 2000 written complaint about Georgopolous’ “rogue” employee conduct.
San Francisco government is using excessive administrative resources to defend an out-of-control parking officer.
KGO’s report on the weight of Georgopolous’ legal problems was added to by the showing of a City and County Whistleblower complaint about him. SFMTA Parking Control Supervisor Vidalina “Bebe” Pubill filed that complaint in 2008. Pubill was one of four San Francisco employees featured in a May 25 investigative report about San Francisco’s broken employee misconduct Whistleblower program.
In the May 25 report, Pubill says that a Whistleblower program employee followed up with her after she had filed her complaint in 2008, but broke off communication with her in mid-2009. The Whistleblower Program lists Pubill’s Georgopolous complaint as “Closed: Resolved by the Department or Agency.”
If San Francisco government has ever taken disciplinary action against Georgopolous, it is not apparent in his continuing hostile conduct. In April of this year, another parking officer corroborated Pubill’s account that Georgopolous flashed his vehicle’s lights upon her as she approached her own vehicle in a DPT parking lot. Pubill reported that Georgopolous also revved his engine in a threatening manner.
On May 19, 2011, parking officer Brian Tanabe called the San Francisco Police Department to respond to his report that Georgopolous, Tanabe's supervisor, was in violation of a restraining order. Tanabe secured the order after Georgopolous attacked him outside of Parking and Traffic’s main enforcement facility. Georgopolous targeted Tanabe after his subordinate learned that he and his wife, another parking control officer, were using a state disabled parking placard.
***********************************************
KGO’s May 12 report about Georgopolous ended with a reporter asking SFMTA Executive Director Nathaniel Ford “Is any employee untouchable?”
“No, not at all,” Ford responded. “What you’ve presented is disturbing and we will get to the bottom of it.”
Ford’s MTA has taken action: By the time KGO's May 25 San Francisco Whistleblower Program had finished airing, whistleblower Vidalina Pubill was fired.
***********************************************
The history of administrative misconduct shown by San Francisco government and its Department of Parking and Traffic dates back to the 1997 operational start date of the Department. Now that DPT is overseen by SFMTA, its administrative offices have also become corrupted by their failure to enforce and maintain a truly civil civil service. Such a decade-plus long hostile work environment is a crime against not just innocent San Francisco employees' work rights, but against their human rights as well.
In 2006, a Parking and Traffic employee died of a heart attack at her desk. Three male employees in front of the Department’s main enforcement facility harassed her shortly before she died. Two of the three DPT employees who followed her to a nearby garage were identified at the time to SFMTA Management. Both remain on the job.
A human rights crisis exists within San Francisco government.
EXTERNAL LINKS:
Monday, May 30, 2011
About this effort
In Spring 2005, I slipped an anonymous letter underneath the door of the Police Department Commander who headed San Francisco's Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT). The letter asked that the Commander reassign the parking control supervisor who oversaw DPT's enforcement division dispatch center. I had no idea that my cautious, hopeful action on behalf of my fellow employees at DPT's main enforcement facility would lead to so much drama. In the next twelve months I experienced retaliation, the removal of another DPT employee and myself from our work facility, a lack of promised union support and knowledge about similar civil service corruption throughout San Francisco government. It is an education I never expected to earn. It is an education from which I cannot turn away.
I had the good fortune to leave DPT in February 2007 and transfer to San Francisco 311. I have served as a Customer Service Agent at the call center since then. The difference in management styles between 311, which is overseen by the City Administrator's office, and SFMTA/DPT could not be more stark. Where San Francisco 311 is run on a modern, high tech business model, SFMTA/DPT is a relic from the bygone days of San Francisco government's corrupted past. I wish that was the case, anyway. For SFMTA/DPT remains a modern-day template of government administration gone bad.
Why have I decided at this time to go public with a reform effort which, at DPT anyway, has led to other employees being harassed and fired? Why go public with a hidden history of civil service misconduct that has led to emotional breakdowns and physical assaults? I am as staunch a "Union Man" as any. (My father, a union activist, was threatened with jail by small-town cops if he didn't leave his union's picket line--my first lesson in how unequal social power dynamics play themselves out.) The answer to the above questions is that I cannot abide injustice in the workplace and society whether or not it is perpetrated by those at the top or those within "the rank and file."
Human society is full of too many bullies. The DPT employees I joined five years ago--supervisors, parking control officers, fellow dispatchers--shared this sensibility. One of them--Vidalina "Bebe" Pubill--has now been fired by SFMTA in retaliation for her effort to help remove a rogue DPT supervisor from his position.
There are bullies backing bullies within San Francisco government. Their time of unchecked influence within San Francisco government must now come to an end!
I had the good fortune to leave DPT in February 2007 and transfer to San Francisco 311. I have served as a Customer Service Agent at the call center since then. The difference in management styles between 311, which is overseen by the City Administrator's office, and SFMTA/DPT could not be more stark. Where San Francisco 311 is run on a modern, high tech business model, SFMTA/DPT is a relic from the bygone days of San Francisco government's corrupted past. I wish that was the case, anyway. For SFMTA/DPT remains a modern-day template of government administration gone bad.
Why have I decided at this time to go public with a reform effort which, at DPT anyway, has led to other employees being harassed and fired? Why go public with a hidden history of civil service misconduct that has led to emotional breakdowns and physical assaults? I am as staunch a "Union Man" as any. (My father, a union activist, was threatened with jail by small-town cops if he didn't leave his union's picket line--my first lesson in how unequal social power dynamics play themselves out.) The answer to the above questions is that I cannot abide injustice in the workplace and society whether or not it is perpetrated by those at the top or those within "the rank and file."
Human society is full of too many bullies. The DPT employees I joined five years ago--supervisors, parking control officers, fellow dispatchers--shared this sensibility. One of them--Vidalina "Bebe" Pubill--has now been fired by SFMTA in retaliation for her effort to help remove a rogue DPT supervisor from his position.
There are bullies backing bullies within San Francisco government. Their time of unchecked influence within San Francisco government must now come to an end!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)