The Gaping Omission in All the Charter-Reform Talk

As the content of charter reform fitfully emerges, one of the most important sources of the frustration that led to the endeavor in the first place almost has been left out of the discussions: the rules that govern how city government works. The city’s limited financial means is one reason why traditional services like tree trimming and pothole filling have become less frequent. But another reason is the inflexibility of the many rules that govern the employees who perform such tasks.

The civil-service system takes up a good chunk of the charter, but it is only one of many systems of rules that govern city workers and their managers. In most cases, the civil-service regulations are redundant. For example, the state of California mandates collective bargaining. So does the city Personnel Department. So do many individual city departments. While we should all be proud of the fine record of Los Angeles’ city workers, there are many promising alternatives to just following the current rules and procedures. For example, binding arbitration in all discipline cases; extending probationary periods; encouraging meaningful performance evaluations, and, perhaps most important of all, using incentives and disciplinary tools to encourage good workers and discourage poor ones. The ordeal of rewriting the city charter should include a close examination of these alternatives, while raising the broader question of whether civil service even belongs in the new charter.

The problem with the L.A. system is that it has been extraordinarily difficult to reward a good worker or punish a bad one. Promotions are based on passing exams and length of service, not on job evaluations. If city government must be leaner, flexibility in deciding how to use the best workers in the best way is mandatory. The issue is not one of stripping away worker protections. Rather, it is one of how to ensure the fairest, most flexible and efficient performance based on workers and managers cooperating.

Civil service in the United States was designed to protect government workers from undue--to say nothing of the vagaries of--political influence. Before it was instituted, there were no protections for workers in either the public or private sectors. Organized labor and ethics laws were weak to nonexistent. Support for a winning candidate frequently translated into a job on the public payroll, even if it meant firing the current job holder. The system had a certain benefit in that it encouraged political participation, but it was hardly an effective way to run a government.

Beginning in 1883, with passage of the Pendleton Act in Congress (adapted to Los Angeles in 1903 and by California 10 years later), reformers sought to assure both honesty and professionalism on the government job. They also sought to guarantee a system fair for both public employees and the public whom they served. Employment was based on objective criteria, such as exams. One result was that government became the best employer for women and minorities who had been denied jobs in the private sector. In return for job security, government got a loyal, capable work force.

Today, public employees in California are bound by collective-bargaining agreements and arbitration mandated by state law. Public and private employees are protected by both federal and state laws to the point that almost no worker can be fired without cause. There are whistle-blower protections. Even the media, in its role of watchdog, is a protection of sorts.

At the very least, since organized labor backed most of the members of the elected charter-reform commission and has strong ties to the City Council, it should take the lead in pushing for a reconsideration of the need for civil service in the new charter. Nobody knows the limitations, frustrations and opportunities to make the system better than the city-employee unions. Most of civil service probably should be stripped from the charter, with its rules and regulations incorporated into the administrative code. Amending them would require only passage of an ordinance instead of a vote by the people. Such basic guarantees as open and fair testing at entry-level positions should stay in the charter, along with language supporting the goals of protection from undue political influence. But since the unions negotiate the contracts anyway, collective bargaining is a far more responsive tool and is fair to both sides.

Twenty years ago, the League of Women Voters of Los Angeles polled the then-42,000 city employees in the course of a study on the civil-service system and made recommendations that included the extension of probationary periods; taking seriously performance evaluations and making them part of the promotion process; and greater use of bridge classifications and other mechanisms to expand opportunities for talented employees. There is some movement in these directions today. But there is still no way to demote poor workers. Nor is there much effort devoted to experimenting with new approaches to resolving disputes. Given the need to employ people coming off welfare, the program in the Department of Recreation and Parks employing “vocational workers,” who get benefits but lower salaries, could be an important model for other departments.

Allowing the current opportunity to rethink civil service to slip away will produce a city government only partly reformed. Both charter-reform commissions should not let that happen.