Top

Let state workers speak for themselves on Service First

Re: "Service First did not eliminate Career Service," ( Letters, Aug. 8).

While Department of Management Services Secretary Bill Simon may believe Democrat Political Editor Bill Cotterell "correctly characterized the efforts by critics of Gov. Bush's Service First initiative," Simon has not correctly characterized Select Exempt Service employees - at least not this one.

I can no longer stand by and allow others to speak on my behalf regarding my reclassification from Career Service to Select Exempt status - especially in light of the fact that not one state worker, taxpayer, politician or pundit has personally asked me how I feel. With that in mind, I am but one of 16,000 affected employees. I can only speak for myself when I say the reason I have not spoken publicly about my reclassification until now was out of fear of reprisal from management. There, I said it!

But for Simon and others to take my silence and attempt to convey it as being "content with the added benefits ... as evidenced by the low number of appeal requests" - well, let's just say history is full of people who stood by and said nothing. And we know from hindsight what those inactions invariably led to.

However, my fear of reprisal is not the loss of job, as I firmly believe one's work will speak for itself. My fear is that if I were to file an objection to my reclassification, it would send a message to management that I don't want the added responsibility that comes with being placed in a managerial position. That somehow I don't want to take on new challenges or seek career advancement within the agency. That I will not be considered for professional development opportunities or that somehow I am not a team player.

Yet, allowing others to paint the canvas with such large brush strokes seems to be causing greater harm than staying silent on the subject.

I personally didn't benefit to any great degree from the reclassification, which is what taxpayers are being led to believe. I already received (and continue to receive) medical insurance from another company, not the state. In a couple of years, I would have received the added annual and sick leave hours that are being promoted as another benefit. Besides, statistics show staff in management positions use less leave, so it remains in the balance anyway.

It also wasn't too difficult finding the 47 cents I needed to pay bi-weekly for the group life insurance. No real added benefit there, either. As far as the other opportunities Service First was supposed to offer, such as allowing the state to "compensate me more fairly for performing those critical duties," no performance bonuses were awarded last year in our agency. Nor were there any promotions based on outstanding performance in our section.

While it is implied that I am entitled to "the rights and privileges under a collective bargaining contract," mediation is not available to me to resolve this matter of reclassification. So one has to wonder what tangible benefits were actually gained from the Service First initiative and the resulting reclassification of my position.

I still work just as hard to produce the best product at the least expense to the taxpayer, which was the case prior to Service First. I haven't taken additional annual or sick leave days as a result of the increase.

What are other benefits gained from Service First? It spawned the People First initiative, which continues to cut into the number of staff left to perform the same duties as before, but only now they have to perform them smarter and faster. But that's a different story altogether.

I don't want to leave anyone with the impression that I'm a disgruntled state worker who has seen better days, because I'm not. But in the six short years I have worked for the state, I have become a somewhat disenfranchised state worker who wishes that when someone stands up and claims to speak on my behalf, he or she at least takes the opportunity to find out exactly where I stand on the issue.
...DW, from op-ed at http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democrat/news/opinion/6543039.htm 8/16/03

top

Court allows Service First redos - Employees can challenge their reclassification

http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democrat/news/local/6337308.htm

By Bill Cotterell
DEMOCRAT POLITICAL EDITOR

Thousands of state employees who lost Career Service protection can try to regain their job security under a court ruling that shot a hole in Gov. Jeb Bush's "Service First" personnel system.

Aides to the governor said Bush is confident that most employees in the 16,300 jobs that were reclassified two years ago like the added vacation time and free health insurance they gained as Selected Exempt Service employees. But the head of the employees union that challenged Service First, and her attorneys, said the ruling by a three-judge First District Court of Appeal panel might knock down the whole system.

"The court's ruling does what the governor should have done when he moved all those people to Selected Exempt," said Jerry Traynham, who argued the case for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. "It may go a long way to restoring some morale to Career Service."

Appellate Judges Michael Allen, Anne Booth and Edward Barfield ruled in favor of five employees — four in the Department of Children & Families and one in the Agency for Health Care Administration — who challenged their reclassification from Career Service to Selected Exempt. All five were fired without cause, which is permitted in Selected Exempt Service and Senior Management Service.

"We agree that appellants should have been provided a point of entry into the administrative process when their positions were reclassified as Selected Exempt," said the brief, unanimous ruling. The judges ordered "administrative proceedings to determine factually whether appellants' positions at the time they were reclassified to Selected Exempt status met the Legislature's specific statutory criteria of Career Service exemptions..."

State agencies will start contacting employees next week, giving them 21 days to ask for a hearing if they think they were improperly moved from Career Service to Selected Exempt.

Bush's office has drafted a form letter emphasizing bonuses, free insurance and annual leave benefits of Selected Exempt Service status — but none of the disadvantages, such as loss of overtime pay or protection against "at will" firing.

Traynham and Ben Patterson, who also represents AFSCME, said Bush and his department heads made a wholesale reclassification of any workers they considered "managerial, supervisory or confidential" under Service First. The lawyers said some DCF workers who "supervise" patients at state hospitals, but don't oversee any co-workers, were reclassified — and that some clerical workers who had access to test scores or planning documents got a blanket reclassification as "confidential."

Traynham said the legislative standard for "supervisory" employees is that they spend more than half their time managing other workers "and there's virtually nobody until you get to the bureau-chief level that actually does that much supervision."

Service First moved 16,300 positions out of Career Service, making it easier for managers to reassign the employees, redefine their duties, and promote or fire them.

The new system was accompanied by a bonus plan that rewards top performers. Selected Exempt Service employees do not pay for life and health insurance, and they get 176 hours of vacation per year — compared with 104 to 156 in Career Service, depending on length of service.

"The court's decision is a clear setback to the administration's attempt to make all state employees at-will," said Jeanette Wynn, state president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. Employees who can't appeal a dismissal or reassignment are known as "at-will" workers, since they hold their jobs at the will of their bosses.

"The court ruled that the administration violated the law in transferring Career Service workers to Selected Exempt without affording them appeal rights that all Floridians enjoy," Wynn said. "Just as we have defended their rights in court, now we will assist these employees in challenging their transfers and rejoining the Career Service."

Department of Management Services spokesman Towson Fraser and Jill Bratina, Bush's communications director, said they don't expect a flood of appeals. The governor's legal staff has decided not to appeal the district-court ruling, and agencies will send a letter to affected employees next week, they said.

"I think most employees at this point see the benefits and believe they are better off than they were two years ago," Fraser said. "I don't think many employees will want to go back to Career Service."

The letter advising employees of their appeal rights praises them for helping to "make our government stronger and better." It does not actively try to deter Selected Exempt Service workers from seeking hearings but restates the benefits of their new status.

"The renewed dedication of our employees under Service First has helped place Florida in a very strong position relative to other states," said a draft of the letter, furnished to the Tallahassee Democrat by the governor's office Friday. "While many other states struggle with huge deficits, Florida's state budget continues to grow and we continue to lead the nation in job growth. You have helped our state continue to deliver services effectively to our citizens, and I hope you share the pride in what we have accomplished together."

A survey by some Florida State University researchers in March indicated widespread employee dissatisfaction with Service First. The survey of 457 employees who had been moved from Career Service to Selected Exempt said that 57 percent thought one goal of the new system was to "increase the state's flexibility to hire, fire, reward and punish employees," while only 10 percent thought that Service First led to better pay.

The study, conducted after the first year of Service First, showed that 74 percent of those who were moved did not expect the new plan to improve their benefits.

Service Worst Update

Re: Child abuse duties shift to sheriffs
The governor likes the change, but sheriffs who take over DCF investigations expect more funds.

Today's Saint Petersburg Times has taken note of a story that effects Pinellas County and a few others right now, but may be coming to your county soon. FL DCF's work is being parceled out to the various counties sheriff's offices. 

This is just one manifestation of J.E.B.'s assault against previously mandated state agencies that the good people of Florida put into place to serve a public need. It also serves to aid in diminishing the second largest organized labor organization in the state: Council 79 (Florida) of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. (AFSCME) This is one aspect of what's at stake in the move to put DCF services into Sheriff's depts. 

The article does point out that the Pinellas County Sheriff's dept. "...got something that had eluded DCF: more than $1.6 million for 71 new Ford Contours and laptop computers. He also increased pay for investigators and put money in his budget for overtime." This begs the question: Why did DCF not get these things? 

Later in the article it does mention: "In Pinellas, child abuse investigators have gotten things they had been demanding for years: lighter case loads, cell phones and cars. Those changes have boosted morale and made it easier to focus on the job of protecting kids." This again begs the question: Why were these requests made by DCF and it's employees bargaining agent (AFSCME) NOT HEEDED previously? 

Could it be "...DCF's long history of problems has eroded its credibility..." (Again quoted from the article.) because underfunding from J.E.B.'s budgets undercut DCF's ability to do the job? 

The article goes on to point to some highly publicized events caused by overloading DCF caseworkers to the point of creating an impossible to manage workload. (Remember: caseloads for Sheriff's workers are cut, they get new vehicles, cell phones, and laptop computers, higher pay, and new money for overtime. Is it any wonder morale is increased?) 

How will it save the state money to make such a transition when: "State Rep. Sandra Murman, R-Tampa, said the Legislature won't force the job of sheriffs. Instead, lawmakers hope money will be an incentive, said Murman, who heads the House subcommittee that handles social service spending. 

The next paragraph states: "Legislators know it will cost more money, Murman said. Even when social programs are being cut, Murman said, lawmakers are willing to spend millions on this." This begs the question: Why was that money NOT allocated to DCF in previous years, when the state was actually fisically stronger?

The article goes on to quote Sandra: "Child protection is the top, highest priority right now, and we know that we have to fund that right to get what we want out of it. We haven't been doing that in the past," Murman said. 

WHAT!?! What does "...right now...." mean? Now that we have destroyed DCF's credibility through underfunding which cause predictable problems? Now that the transition is taking place to displace these services into reluctant Sheriff's hands? Now, while the public eye is on us? What is in store down the road? 

After all, all one has to do is look across the same page of the newspaper to see: STATE LAGS IN PROMISE TO MATCH DONATIONS - After promising donors it would match their gifts to Florida universities, the state has failed to come through with $105.2 million. ..... Gov. Jeb Bush's proposed budget unveiled last week includes just $1.7 million toward the $105.2 million...." OH, promises are so much better to make than to keep, aren't they J.E.B.?

The article on the transfer of DCF responsibilities goes on to say the Hillsborough Sheriff's Office is negotiating a contract with DCF in which they seem to be asking for about $13 million for the first year! Why not see what DCF could do with the $13 million? What could DCF in Pinellas have done with $11 million? What will be the overall costs to the citizens of Florida for this transition state-wide over the years? Why not just fund the existing agency to the same tune? Could it be because the "new-hires" - many of them the same people - will not be covered by a labor union that has worked in opposition to both his and his brothers election campaigns? Could this govt. decision have anything to do with politics? Is it really in the public interest? Someone needs to ask! Someone needs to question! Someone needs to be looking out for the public interests when the state is playing political games with our social service needs! 

This is not the first article by the St. Pete. Times on this subject mentioning this situation. It has reported on it. However, I must ask: Why did they not interview the communications director for AFSCME council 79 for this somewhat lengthy article which did include quotes from other concerned parties? Do they not have a view? A view worth noting? 
....JH, 1/26/03

Top

Governor doesn't waste any time   (Update 1/11/03)

Forced resignations were insensitive, disrespectful

On Dec. 6, 65 Department of Education employees were effectively spat in the face and forced to resign three weeks before Christmas.

I know many of these individuals personally and two very well. One had 17 years with DOE; another had nearly 28 years. Both had repeatedly demonstrated a commitment to the agency and its mission. Both saw numerous team awards and superior accomplishment awards over their career.

In thanks for their years of service and dedication, security officers and lawyers coldly read these employees a script, and within hours they were escorted out of the building. No "thank you," no warning, no time to gather their belongings and no time to say goodbye to the co-workers and friends with whom they worked for decades.

The timing, depth of insensitivity and lack of respect shown to these people is unfathomable and sickening, yet Education Secretary Jim Horne was quoted as saying he had no problem with how the forced resignations were handled.

The remaining employees at the Department of Education should stop and ask themselves if they really want to be associated with an agency that would act this way.

RCT, letter to Tall Democrat, 123/20/02

Top

Kid caution: If private groups founder state must be ready to act

What's the point of handing child protection services off to private groups? 

If the goal is cost savings, Florida's experiment with privatization was doomed to failure from the start. The child-protection system was underfunded and overstressed in 1997, when the first privatization efforts began. Under Gov. Jeb Bush, the state's child- protection budget increased by more than $60 million -- but it's still not enough. 

If the point is to do a better job of protecting children, the prognosis isn't too good either. Caseworkers are routinely overseeing double the number of children they can reasonably handle. The state can't locate all the children in foster care, which must rank as a miserable failure no matter what system is in place. 

Keeping children safe is a fundamental mission of the state. Handing that duty off to private groups -- no matter how well-intentioned, no matter how experienced -- puts accountability at arms-length, adding overhead and in some cases, profit margin. 

From all accounts, the privatization effort in Volusia County is in serious disarray. Last month, Community Based Care, the not-for-profit organization contracted to oversee the 1,500 children in foster care in Volusia and Flagler counties, said it was struggling to maintain the level of service previously provided by the state. The head of the agency said his program faced a $1.4 million budget deficit and caseloads that were far too high to ensure child safety. 

Last week, the state Department of Children and Families released a review of Community Based Care's performance that echoed many of the contractor's own concerns. Children are being placed in unlicensed homes, reports needed to track children's' progress are missing, and staff turnover has soared to more than 60 percent. 

Circuit Judge Julianne Piggotte also vented frustration in a pointed letter detailing months of attempts to work with the group. 

Nobody seems happy with the current state of affairs in Volusia and Flagler counties. It's up to DCF Secretary Jerry Regier and Gov. Jeb Bush to make sure these children are getting the care they need, and the evidence is that the level of care has gone down since privatization occurred here. 

Similar problems are cropping up in other areas. The state abruptly severed nearly $5 million in contracts with the Florida Task Force for Abused and Neglected Children in March, saying the private group wasn't fulfilling its duties. Reviews of privatization in Pasco and Pinellas counties aren't encouraging either. 

Yet the Bush administration appears determined to privatize all child-protection services by next year. With so little evidence of success, the state should -- at the least -- slow down the privatization effort. 

Community Based Care and its parent organization, the Childrens Home Society, presented local DCF officials with a recovery plan Tuesday and say they're already showing improvement. That's promising -- because shifting the program back to DCF would bring even more turmoil to children who have already suffered enough. But if CBC can't meet its commitments, a drastic -- and swift -- change would be better than allowing children to languish inside an experiment gone bad. 

Daytona Beach News-Journal editorial, 11/29/02

Top