Feinstein Staff Turnover

* The article (June 7) on the turnover in the staff of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) makes one point but misses an even more important one. It is correct in saying that Feinstein is demanding of herself and her staff. But it misses the central point that these are tough and demanding times, requiring the very best efforts of everyone in government.

A troubled economy, severe divisions in our society, crime, poor schools and a world bristling with weapons and antagonisms are but the most conspicuous of the burdens a conscientious and concerned public official must daily shoulder.

For all but the first few months of her administration as mayor of San Francisco, I was her chief deputy and know the remarkable dedication and sense of purpose she brought to her job each day.

Budgets were balanced, the AIDS crisis was confronted, public transit was expanded and modernized, more police were put out on the streets, and her staff, unquestionably challenged and proud of all that was accomplished, willingly gave their all. In her nine years as mayor, there was very little turnover in her staff, and essentially those with her in the beginning were still there when she left City Hall. As mayor, she set high standards for staff, and even higher standards for herself; I’m sure her commitment is no less today.

HADLEY R. ROFF

San Francisco

* For purposes of identification, I was a feminist before the term even existed. And I voted for Dianne Feinstein. Now I read that her staff members are quitting in droves because the senator is a slave driver. In her defense, Feinstein says, “I think when a man is strong, it is expected. When a woman is, it is not.”

Might we have a moratorium on this nonsense? Gender is no justification for boorishness. When a man or woman behaves badly to underlings, that person is not being strong; that person is being a damn bully. And a self-righteous hypocrite, to boot, if she then wraps herself in the feminist flag.

BURT PRELUTSKY

North Hills

* Really! For the first time in many years, California has the great fortune to be represented by two qualified U.S. senators and the best your paper can do is worry about staff turnover.

As someone who lived in Washington for seven years and knows all about “life on the Hill,” I can assure you that any new senator will have a number of changes in staff. But, what is the real issue? Would your paper devote as much space to other senators, particularly male senators who have staff turnover? I don’t think so.

While Feinstein is working hard to make California a better place for all of us--including The Times--your paper continues to thank this public servant by looking for empty issues which demean her character. Next time, just print an article that deals with substance instead of innuendo.

KATIE WALKER

North Hollywood

* The other day I was called by a fund-raising committee for Sen. Feinstein. Like many who have at one or another time lived and worked in California, I rather admire the senator and was inclined to make a modest contribution. However, my telephone interlocutor did not stop with intimating a need for funds. I was told that there was proof of the senator’s extreme devotion to the public interest: She had cut her senatorial staff by 25%. Upon reflection, I do not think that I will send any money.

California and the nation suffer from problems of the most varied kinds, all summed up by President Clinton (on one of his good days) as a “social deficit.” We need investment in public infrastructure, including education, health and transportation; we need to work out an immigration policy for the long run; we need to reconsider federal-state relations; we need to develop a concept of government for the 21st Century, one that rests on a conception that goes beyond the vulgar know-nothingism of the Perots of this world.

In addition, a senator has to do a lot for constituents, and it is difficult to see how a 25% staff cut would help California in that respect. From a national perspective, however, one would have hoped that Feinstein would offer much more than capitulation to the belief that, somehow, government is the enemy. One good reason for her to increase her staff, again, would be to find some time to do some critical thinking.

NORMAN BIRNBAUM

Georgetown University Law Center

Washington

* I think the article on Feinstein was a cheap shot. I am not interested in changeover in her staff; I am interested in her producing as a senator. I care about what she is trying to do to create more jobs for Californians, base closures and tackling other critical problems facing our state. I’m impressed by an officeholder willing to cut 25% in office expenses. How many others in the Senate have done that? I would like to be informed about what she is accomplishing on substantive matters, not trivia.

LESA ANN PEDRIANA

Los Angeles