Opinion: State job reform should be built on partnership

Gov. Jeb Bush is currently attempting to reform state government, to make the services provided by the state's 132 executive branch agencies more efficient and effective. He has hired an "efficiency czar," Ruth Sykes, to head the effort to streamline government and cut spending. It is her stated intention to ultimately form teams "to determine the best opportunities for outsourcing among the governor's agencies," as reported in the Times.

Since the early 1990s, federal agency reinvention teams have worked to downsize and provide services more efficiently and effectively. I chaired, co-chaired and served on a number of such reinvention teams within the U.S. Department of Labor. The secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, staffed such teams with management, employee and union representatives, and each team had labor and management representatives with equal voice. Each team was trained in "partnership" principles, to define problems and reach solutions by consensus. The level of success the reinvention efforts ultimately reached was directly related to the level of partnership (including the level of trust and respect) achieved and sustained throughout the process among management, employee and union team members.

With this in mind, I find some recent statements appearing in the Times troubling. In a Jan. 4 article, State employment guarantees must end, Al Hoffman, vice chairman of the Florida Council of 100, a group of business leaders, relates the leaders' opinion that all state agency employment should be "at will." That is, any state employee could be terminated at the will of management. Hoffman says that stripped of "protected status," all employees performing below the expectation of their supervisors could then be easily terminated and replaced by employees who would perform as expected by their supervisors. In a Jan. 9 article, New "efficiency czar" to look at downsizing, Sykes reportedly said her first priority will be competitive sourcing: state employees competing with outside contractors for jobs they're now performing.

So why am I troubled? Because I know that any effort to achieve more efficient and effective state government will depend greatly on the level of partnership and cooperation exhibited by the stakeholders in the enterprise (management, employees, union). Pretend for a minute you're a state employee. You read in the newspaper that the Council of 100 wants the governor to give your supervisor the right to fire you "at will" so that state government may be made more efficient. Right now, your supervisor may fire you "for just cause." "At will" means the boss can fire you for no reason. "Just cause" means the boss can fire you only with legitimate justification.

No reason: You went out with one of his/her flames. Justification: You went out with one of his/her flames on the clock. So, do you cooperate? Suspecting that downsizing may be necessary (jobs lost) in order for the state to become more efficient and effective, do you want your fate to be decided at the will of your supervisor solely? Now do you cooperate?

Now, pretend you are an official of the union that represents state employees, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees . Are you eager to cooperate in the government's efforts to improve state government, a process to include teams of managers and union employees, a process yet to begin, after reading in the newspaper that it has been predetermined that jobs of state workers will be outsourced? Are you eager to cooperate in the formation of a state employment system that leaves the individual job status of union employees solely to supervisory discretion? Do you begin to question motives toward collective bargaining? Now do you cooperate?

Reinvention or reform attempts in governmental agencies (public employment) without partnership among the stakeholders (cooperation, trust and respect among management, employee and union team members) are doomed to failure.
-- Ken Zeeb, Palm Harbor

Ashcroft is a moral, Christian man

Re: A wrong choice, Jan. 22.

Your editorial couldn't be more wrong. Your editor needs to read Jeff Jacoby's column to fully appreciate how ridiculous his piece is.

The very fact that the Times is against John Ashcroft is a strong argument for why he would be a great attorney general.

What do you have against a decent, moral Christian man? Do you actually believe a left-leaning, bleeding-heart liberal would be able to make better decisions? Don't be silly.

I believe he should be and probably will be approved. The sooner the better so he can fumigate Janet Reno's office.
-- Jim Gardner, Homosassa

Religion is focus of his enemies

Re: A wrong choice.

The summary at the top of your editorial said that "John Ashcroft isn't the man for the job of attorney general because his record as a far-right ideologue makes it hard to believe that he could be fair." You also stated that the opinion polls show that Americans are evenly divided over Ashcroft's nomination. What opinion polls are you looking at?

I won't go into any more of what you wrote as your opinions are as far left as Sen. Ted Kennedy's are.

Then I got to smile as I finished your article and glanced across to the column by Jeff Jacoby, Ashcroft's enemies are the zealots. Jacoby states, "Ashcroft's enemies want to bring him down because he is a religious conservative, but they lack the integrity to admit it."

Enough said.
-- Kenneth J. Toeppe, Spring Hill

A man worthy to be in the Cabinet

Your editorial on Jan. 22 judged Sen. John Ashcroft as not being a man of his word and not able to do as our Bible tells us: "To render under Caesar that which belongs to him." I believe that Sen. Ashcroft is a man who can do that.

When Sen. Joseph Lieberman was nominated and running for vice-president, you did not run an editorial saying he could not make fair choices under the law because of his staunch beliefs. Were Sen. Ashcroft anything but an evangelical Christian with a strong sense of morality, would you have written such an editorial? I, for one, don't think so.

You have a right to your opinion and so does everyone else. That is a right worth fighting for. Many of us believe that Ashcroft is a worthy candidate for President Bush to have in his Cabinet.
-- Shirley Dunn, St. Petersburg

Ashcroft would endanger our rights

Any woman who thinks that its okay for John Ashcroft to be attorney general must think again. Ashcroft's inflexible stance against abortion and even birth control makes it crystal clear that women's reproductive rights will be rolled back at every opportunity. This is simply unacceptable.

But opposition to this nomination is not just about abortion: Ashcroft as attorney general of Missouri opposed the ERA; as governor he consistently resisted desegregation; and as senator he supported all kinds of legislation awarding public funds to church-run programs. Stating that government should legislate morality, Ashcroft thinks homosexuality is a sin but opposes gun control. Just look, moreover, at the real agendas of those who crusade on his behalf. Did the new administration win a mandate for discriminating against women, people of color and potential victims of hate crimes or gun violence? If John Ashcroft is a man of such "great integrity," he should admit that his strongly held personal beliefs are wholly incompatible with protecting the civil rights of all Americans and withdraw his name from consideration. If not, the U.S. Senate -- including our own Bob Graham and Bill Nelson -- should immediately reject this nomination.
-- Paula Xanthopoulou, president, National Women's Political Caucus of Florida, Miami

Clinton weasels out again

Re: Clinton off the hook, Jan. 20.

"Bounce Back Bill" has done it again: weaseled out of situations that other folks would have to stand and face! Bill Clinton is luckier than most. He doesn't seem to be embarrassed by his outrageous behavior and shows no remorse.

Thank goodness we can look forward to George W. Bush and his lovely family.
-- Dorothy E. Karkheck, Palm Harbor

History's judgment of Clinton

This business with Bill Clinton's copping a plea at the last possible moment is indelibly reminiscent of his postscripts to so many other tawdry acts. I am satisfied to view his admission, fine and disbarment as an end to a seamy saga in our nation's history.

But I know from the man's track record and his lust for recognition that he will be unable to avoid more rationalizing and excusemaking. And in the final analysis, no matter what he says or does, history, once it purges itself from the current "spin," will accurately characterize him as the second president of our country to have been impeached.
-- John C. MacKercher, Brooksville

Memorable oratorical moments

Bill Clinton was known as a good speechmaker, and now that he's out of office, it's interesting to speculate on what speech will be the defining one of his presidency. And it's instructive to compare his most memorable speech to those of some of his predecessors.

Lincoln: "Four score and seven years ago . . ."

FDR: ". . . a day that will live in infamy . . ."

Kennedy: "Ask not what your country can do for you . . .

Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman . . ."
-- Joe Wisinski, Largo

Contribution stirs anger

I am outraged by the contribution made to the George W. Bush inauguration by Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Florida. I contacted my agent but never did find out with whom I could speak regarding this.

There are thousands of Floridians who find medical insurance very difficult to afford. Here we find a medical insurance company squandering $100,000 on the inauguration. What was the contribution made to our Bush's presidential campaign? Those amounts of money might have made some Floridians' premiums equitable.
-- Diane Aldrich, Largo

Health care crisis goes on

Re: Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Florida contributes $100,000 to 2001 Bush inaugural festivities.

Now, in part, I understand why my Blue Cross Health Options HMO monthly fee was increased from $35 a month in 2000 to $63 a month in 2001. Thanks again, everyone, for helping us senior citizens in this health care crisis.
-- Kenneth Meyers, Seminole

For the sake of public safety?

It is good to know the Tampa police are keeping the people "safe" at night. I know I will sleep much better knowing they are stopping lap dances! What a joke! Just who is the victim in this "crime"?

While I do not agree with the act, I believe the time (and money) would be better spent on stopping murders, drugs and other crimes.
-- Christopher M. Hoekzema, St. Petersburg

Share your opinions

Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com or by fax to (727) 893-8675.

They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number.

Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page