Below is an article and TV news segment revealing widespread nepotism in the huge water department of city of San Diego. I’ve got a sound bite in the video.
But this rigged hiring process is not an isolated instance. Not hardly!
In California, local government nepotism is widespread. It’s most predominant in the few highly-prized firefighter openings. LA and Oakland recently had huge nepotism scandals revealed.
It should not take a fraud hotline call to find these rigged hiring practices. Just routinely and VIGOROUSLY audit all departments’ employment processes. Better yet, contract out more government functions via open, COMPETITIVE bidding.
Most CA state and local government employment provides considerably higher compensation than equivalent private sector jobs. It’s become our state’s version of an aristocracy — complete with hereditary positions.
City Public Utilities Department Hit with Cronyism Accusations
Public Utilities oversees the city’s water and sewage services
By Gene Cubbison
A new auditor’s report says dozens of candidates hired in recent years had inside “influence and connections.”
Investigators uncovered an employee vetting process they allege was “abused” — so that in a third of the cases reviewed, “friends and family members” of city staff were hired “to the detriment of public job applicants.”
“The selection process that was prescribed was not followed,” says City Auditor Eduardo Luna. “The appointing authority had given specific directions, and they didn’t insure that the staff followed those directions to have a fair and objective process.”
The audit was sparked by a whistle-blower’s hotline tip, and found that 41 out of 120 labor applicants selected between December 2012 and September of last year should not have been hired.
Also, that those with “connections” to city staff: family, friends, relatives “presumably benefited from a word-of-mouth selection process”.
The report cited bad record keeping, and abuses that “compromised the City’s ability to defend itself against alleged violations of State and Federal employment laws.”
Taxpayer advocates are outraged, but hardly surprised.
“Basically, the fix is in,” Richard Rider, chairman of San Diego Tax Fighters said in a Friday interview with NBC 7.
“It is an unspoken but given policy that when possible,” Rider added, shifting to a bureaucratic point-of-view in the telling: “‘we’re going to hire relatives; we’re going to hire friends. We’ll also hire other people, once the relatives and friends are hired. And you don’t hire 100 percent, because that would be too obvious’.”
The auditors pointed out possible misdemeanor implications, and confidentially referred names and cases to Public Utilities for further investigation.
The department is said to be undertaking a series of recommend reforms, with top tier city officials urging employees to “call out” improprieties.
Follow us: @nbcsandiego on Twitter | NBCSanDiego on Facebook
Comments 10
It doesn’t make it right, but I don’t think nepotism is limited to the public sector.
HQ, I realize the difference between public and private funds escapes you, but let me try to help you in this matter.
Public funds are extracted from others using force. Private funds are earned through voluntary exchange. The uses of such public funds must meet a higher public standard. In this case, stolen property should not be used to improve the multi-generational wealth of a family.
A private company that chooses to allow nepotism in its hiring harms no one outside the company. The owner who chooses to hire his dumb-ass kid harms only himself — and he is using HIS money.
Nepotism often is not a good business practice, but no one outside the company (and its shareholders) is harmed. To the extent it hurts a company, that gives competitors an advantage, with consumer choice serving as a self-correcting penalty for hiring less than optimum talent.
Government nepotism is just a subset of the spoils system of years gone by, where patronage was the rule of the day. If you wanted a government job, you supported the people running the government. We have laws against just such “Tammany Hall” operations, and for good reason. That’s why the concept of an independent “civil service” came into being — a concept one would THINK that you would champion.
Perhaps not.
Richard,
It would be nice if you could respond to a comment without the need to add personal insults. I would blame this on your party’s Presidential nominee, but the personal insult has been your trademark long before Mr. Trump started his campaign.
As for the issue at hand, you would be correct if all private sector companies were for-profit and none were government subsidized. I have no problem with the local shop owner hiring his daughter but what about the non-profit corporation, the regulated monopoly or the company who receives a bulk of their income, directly or indirectly, through government grants? Do you have an issue with nepotism in those cases?
Soooo, your theory is that government should regulate nepotism in any private business that is “subsidized” by government. That covers a LOT of ground, don’t you think? Arguably your side would claim that MOST businesses are in some way subsidized by government. After all, government builds the streets — ergo, all businesses are subsidized, right?
The claim of “subsidies” is one of the favorite back doors through which you and your allies try to control every aspect of commerce. No sale.
BTW, no one forces people to give money to nonprofits. Except government grants, of course. You inadvertently make a good case for getting government out of the grant business. Let nonprofits seek private funding in the marketplace.
As for monopolies — most are government entities — protected from competition by government. So as government entities, they should not be allowed “employ” nepotism any more than government should. But in many instances that begs the question — is it good policy (or fair) for government to grant monopolies in the first place?
Speaking of monopolies — that’s what government is. As such, the cost of their nepotism is a mandatory “pass through” cost to taxpayers. The market competition cannot offset such inefficiencies. But then again, perhaps some of what government monopolies now do should be better handled by competition. Indeed, MOST of what they do would be done more efficiently if it were contracted out via competitive bidding.
Richard, I’ve had a major problem with pay and benefit scales of the public sector for a long time. At one point I emailed every council member in my town (Encinitas) and asked them to comment on the fairness of private sector vs. public sector compensation. Not one of them replied. It’s been my experience that neither conservative nor liberal office holders want to touch this subject (Carl Demaio excluded). This is banana republic B.S. at it’s finest. I may be an evil “liberal” but I do believe in basic fairness. I was a high end engineer and never made the kind of money that the lowest paid firemen in my town makes today. The retired fire chief (Mark Muir) pulls 180K a year in “retirement” pay. There are liberals like myself that agree with you on certain points. If you respond to this post try not to be a dick.
Richard,
By subsidies, I meant direct government subsidies (think agriculture) or indirect government subsidies through a pass through (think of the businesses who receive money from all of the “second chance” organizations), but since you refrained from personal insults, I won’t even argue the point.
“Public funds are extracted from others using force. Private funds are earned through voluntary exchange. ”
That’s the important distinction. Shareholders or partner could oust the errant Godfather, doling out favors to the family. In government, nepotism is rampant.
“but what about the non-profit corporation, the regulated monopoly or the company who receives a bulk of their income, directly or indirectly, through government grants?”
That’s a good point as well. This should apply to the subsidized as well:
“The uses of such public funds must meet a higher public standard. In this case, stolen property should not be used to improve the multi-generational wealth of a family.”
The simple solution is, of course, stop all subsidies and regulatory privileges in civil society
Taxes are not taken from others by force.
We vote for representatives who have a tax policy, and they attempt to build majorities or supermajorities to enact their tax policy ideas.
We are free to elect legislators and executives who advocate zero taxation policy, but that would be a terrible idea, and no serious voter would do so. Even your preferred candidates this Fall don’t advocate for zero tax, and so you are a part of the social contract that consents to taxation.
I think your utopia existed for eight years. It was the United States under the Articles of Confederation, and the Federal government was funded by whatever contributions the States decided to give. Unfortunately, it didn’t go well and ended very quickly. Most rational people realized that giving the Federal government the power to tax was better, so we collectively drafted and ratified a new Constitution.
Things have gone pretty well for us since then.
“Taxes are not taken from others by force.”
That’s an inaccurate statement. Had you said “all taxes are not taken by force,” you might be accurate but even that is dubious. How do I know this? Wesley Snipes spent a few years in a cage, sent there by armed men, for resisting force.
“We vote for representatives who have a tax policy, and they attempt to build majorities or supermajorities to enact their tax policy ideas.”
We also constrain what they can or can not do with laws which of the minority against certain usurpations against their life, liberty, and property.
What you described was mob rule. What I am describing is the rule of law.
Nepotism that happens in both the public and private sector are equally bad for keeping qualified people from having a job!