Under the heading of “Recommendations of Constituents,” it
said, in part:
“To comply with the prohibition against giving unwarranted
privileges imposed by Section 23(b)(2) (Chapter 268A of the Massachusetts
General Laws), an elected public employee should have some reason to believe
that the constituent possesses the minimum qualifications for the position for which he is being recommended. The elected public employee may already be
familiar with the constituent’s qualifications for the desired position. If not, the elected public employee should
obtain sufficient information to satisfy himself that the constituent possesses
the minimum qualifications for the position before making the recommendation.”
There are problems in advancing the candidacies of job
applicants possessing only minimal qualifications, as any unit of state
government with more than a few minimally qualified persons in its ranks is
bound to defeat the hopes of the citizens in need of its services, but there
are bigger problems, in the first place, in having elected public employees,
especially legislators, who are supposed to be making laws and deciding on
public expenditures, routinely involved in the hiring and promoting of public
employees.
Yes, I know it’s always been that way, and, yes, I understand
that legislators have taken on the burden of facilitating hiring and promoting
in the public sector at the behest, nay the insistence, of we the public.
(One member of the House, called to testify Wednesday at the
Probation trial, said he had often joked that his State House office was “the
Eighteenth Suffolk Employment Agency,” suggesting how thoroughly the demand for
job placement services had overtaken the agenda of the representative from the
18th district in Suffolk County.)
But that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea or that there are not
superior alternatives to arming our lawmakers, de facto, with inordinate powers
in the realm of human resources. The
trial in federal court of John O’Brien, the former Probation Commissioner, and
two of his former deputies, Elizabeth Tavares and William Burke, on charges
related to an allegedly fraudulent hiring system, has served, if as nothing
else, as a sorry reminder of how a vital public safety function in a democracy,
i.e., the supervision of criminals ostensibly travelling a path to redemption,
may be drained of vitality by too much politics.
It would be asking too much, it would be aiming too high, it
would be contending too strenuously with human nature, to propose that elected
public employees be prevented by law from providing any help whatsoever to constituents
aspiring to the public payroll.
I’d settle for changes in our general laws stipulating that no
more than 20 percent of the employees in any unit of state or local government
at any time could possess only minimal job qualifications, and that at least 20
percent of those employees be maximally qualified.
Going back to the Probation trial, did you see that the defense
attorneys declined today to present any of their own evidence? They obviously believe their clients will be acquitted.
If O’Brien, et al. are found not guilty, as now
seems quite likely, make no mistake, they still will have lost a great deal. And those losses may prove irreparable. Having your reputation continuously assailed
over a period of years and losing your life savings, if not your home, to lawyer’s fees
is but the half of it.
While it does not always have the ability to convict, our government
is always able to destroy.
1 comment:
You seemed to have opened the door on another dusty practice that is in need of a little sunlight and scrutiny. Much on Beacon Hill has been embedded, handed down and accepted as: “has always been that way.” The commonwealth was so named because it is supposed to be a valuable resource for the benefit of all the citizenry – as you point out; politics can easily drain that treasure.
Good thoughts Mr. Hahesy.
Post a Comment