Extra Fizz: Planned McGinn Firings Spark Large Turnout at City Hall

In case anyone is wondering, this is exactly what happened in the bad old days. The new guy fired a bunch of people, making it possible to provide jobs for his friends and promotions for sycophants. It’s exactly the situation civil service laws were intended to prevent.

In case anyone is wondering, this is exactly what happened in the bad old days. The new guy fired a bunch of people, making it possible to provide jobs for his friends and promotions for sycophants. It’s exactly the situation civil service laws were intended to prevent.

or it’s just a way to save some $$ in these desperate times by trimming some of the fat that accrued during Nickel’s reign (no personal jab at Nickels intended). The number of strategic advisors increased by 50% during Nickels’ tenure, while overall number of employees at the ity grew by 2 or 3%.

or it’s just a way to save some $$ in these desperate times by trimming some of the fat that accrued during Nickel’s reign (no personal jab at Nickels intended). The number of strategic advisors increased by 50% during Nickels’ tenure, while overall number of employees at the ity grew by 2 or 3%.

Comparing the 50% increase in the # of the Strategic Advisors to the total increase of the # of employees is not a apt comparison. A large number of the increase in the number of strategic advisors came from reclassifying existing filled positions based upon changes in job descriptions, not based upon creating new positions.

I bet if you looked at the just the New Strategic advisor positions created in comparison to all new positions created that % would be a lot lower.

Comparing the 50% increase in the # of the Strategic Advisors to the total increase of the # of employees is not a apt comparison. A large number of the increase in the number of strategic advisors came from reclassifying existing filled positions based upon changes in job descriptions, not based upon creating new positions.

I bet if you looked at the just the New Strategic advisor positions created in comparison to all new positions created that % would be a lot lower.

According to Wikipedia, we’re the #25 most populous United States city:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population

We’re below Milwaukee & Denver and above Nashville & Washington, DC. But let’s not use DC, as it’s huge, and a unique critter of it’s own. The next city in line is Las Vegas, so let’s use that instead.

I wonder:

1. How many strategic advisers those cities employ?
2. What is the management to labor ratio in city government for those cities, compared to ours?
3. How many total people those cities employ?

According to Wikipedia, we’re the #25 most populous United States city:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population

We’re below Milwaukee & Denver and above Nashville & Washington, DC. But let’s not use DC, as it’s huge, and a unique critter of it’s own. The next city in line is Las Vegas, so let’s use that instead.

I wonder:

1. How many strategic advisers those cities employ?
2. What is the management to labor ratio in city government for those cities, compared to ours?
3. How many total people those cities employ?

How many of the new strategic advisors were created to replace regular employee positions with Nickels’ cronies?

How many of the new strategic advisors were created to replace regular employee positions with Nickels’ cronies?

Yes, Joe, let’s definitely use Milwaukee, Nashville, and, um, Las Vegas as comparison points to Seattle. Way to strive for the middle.

Yes, Joe, let’s definitely use Milwaukee, Nashville, and, um, Las Vegas as comparison points to Seattle. Way to strive for the middle.

Joe-
That’s going to be an awfully tough comparison to make. Some cities own all of their utilities, others none. Here we have a bit of both with the City owning City Light and SPU (water) but private utilities provide gas (pse) or are contracted for services like garbage hauling (SPU) that are often done by public employees. Some cities contract out nearly all DOT work- SDOT does a bit of both.

If one could calculate around those variables, I would interested in a similiar index as well.

Joe-
That’s going to be an awfully tough comparison to make. Some cities own all of their utilities, others none. Here we have a bit of both with the City owning City Light and SPU (water) but private utilities provide gas (pse) or are contracted for services like garbage hauling (SPU) that are often done by public employees. Some cities contract out nearly all DOT work- SDOT does a bit of both.

If one could calculate around those variables, I would interested in a similiar index as well.

News reports in the abstract like this one (sorry Erica) make it impossible to know how much of a literal impact this would be if “200″ people were cut. Is that 200 workers that actually contribute to day to day city operations in a meaningful fashion? How many were political appointees that didn’t go through a normal hiring process? How many are ‘advisors’ versus workers or management?

You could take the talk of cuts as presented as being McGinn punting a bunch of people Nichols brought in to “help” or as him doing an actual layoff to contain costs by pulling out otherwise needed people for purely budgetary reasons. You can’t tell, that’s why I tossed it out there to see how this plays out to cities with comparable populations and (presumably) comparable tax bases.

News reports in the abstract like this one (sorry Erica) make it impossible to know how much of a literal impact this would be if “200″ people were cut. Is that 200 workers that actually contribute to day to day city operations in a meaningful fashion? How many were political appointees that didn’t go through a normal hiring process? How many are ‘advisors’ versus workers or management?

You could take the talk of cuts as presented as being McGinn punting a bunch of people Nichols brought in to “help” or as him doing an actual layoff to contain costs by pulling out otherwise needed people for purely budgetary reasons. You can’t tell, that’s why I tossed it out there to see how this plays out to cities with comparable populations and (presumably) comparable tax bases.

“Strategic Advisor” is a poorly chosen job title dreamed up by “personel scientists.” The title makes everyone having it appear to be a navel gazer and waste of flesh. I’m sure some are and some are not. What McGinn’s folks need to do is look at job functions and City prioritities and eliminate or recycle the unnecessary.and give a meaningful title to the rest. This is called management.

“Strategic Advisor” is a poorly chosen job title dreamed up by “personel scientists.” The title makes everyone having it appear to be a navel gazer and waste of flesh. I’m sure some are and some are not. What McGinn’s folks need to do is look at job functions and City prioritities and eliminate or recycle the unnecessary.and give a meaningful title to the rest. This is called management.

It is inaccurate and insulting to generalize that all Strategic Advisors are “cronies” or “political appointees.” Of the 57 Strategic Advisors at City Light, only 4 are exempt from Civil Service, which means that 53 of them were either reclassified into their positions by City Personnel or they were competitively hired into their positions. Of the 4 that are exempt from Civil Service and for which no competitive process was required, I know that at least 3 of them were competitively hired with extensive, lengthy hiring processes and background checked prior to being employed (the 4th may have been as well, I just have no personal knowledge of it).

It is inaccurate and insulting to generalize that all Strategic Advisors are “cronies” or “political appointees.” Of the 57 Strategic Advisors at City Light, only 4 are exempt from Civil Service, which means that 53 of them were either reclassified into their positions by City Personnel or they were competitively hired into their positions. Of the 4 that are exempt from Civil Service and for which no competitive process was required, I know that at least 3 of them were competitively hired with extensive, lengthy hiring processes and background checked prior to being employed (the 4th may have been as well, I just have no personal knowledge of it).

Agree with the last comment that the Mayor’s people should be looking at job functions and eliminate positions that are not necessary — it is ludicrous to just cut 200 strategic advisors and managers without actually knowing what they do. And I can’t imagine that in the short time he’s been in office they’ve figured out who’s adding value and who isn’t — at least not to the magnitude of firing 200 positions.

Agree with the last comment that the Mayor’s people should be looking at job functions and eliminate positions that are not necessary — it is ludicrous to just cut 200 strategic advisors and managers without actually knowing what they do. And I can’t imagine that in the short time he’s been in office they’ve figured out who’s adding value and who isn’t — at least not to the magnitude of firing 200 positions.

Some good comments there. I might add, to respond to So Sea Resident, that the small # of Nickels political appointments, cronies, etc. are mostly already gone. They could see the writing on the wall and left.

So, for the people who are currently working at the city, it’s just a career. Something they don’t take lightly.

I’ll wager that the number of people McGinn has on a hit list for his own political reasons is greater than the number of unqualified Nickels cronies working for the City right now.

Some good comments there. I might add, to respond to So Sea Resident, that the small # of Nickels political appointments, cronies, etc. are mostly already gone. They could see the writing on the wall and left.

So, for the people who are currently working at the city, it’s just a career. Something they don’t take lightly.

I’ll wager that the number of people McGinn has on a hit list for his own political reasons is greater than the number of unqualified Nickels cronies working for the City right now.

Agree with last couple of comments.
-These are not political appointees. These are competitively awarded positions. The great irony here is the Mayor’s 5 strategic advisors are exactly the political appointees that he’s trying to eliminate.
-If there’s a growth in the title “strategic advisors,” it’s due to a flawed classification system, not to political cronyism. The strats and managers in various departments across the City are front-line managers, technical advisors, scientists, subject matter experts, analysts etc etc etc – a wide variety of positions. Oh, and definitely not “executive” or “senior level” management.
-Finally, if this was truly about the budget shortfall, there would be a City-wide functional exercise that would assess all programs and positions, instead of the functional exercise that targets only these positions.

Agree with last couple of comments.
-These are not political appointees. These are competitively awarded positions. The great irony here is the Mayor’s 5 strategic advisors are exactly the political appointees that he’s trying to eliminate.
-If there’s a growth in the title “strategic advisors,” it’s due to a flawed classification system, not to political cronyism. The strats and managers in various departments across the City are front-line managers, technical advisors, scientists, subject matter experts, analysts etc etc etc – a wide variety of positions. Oh, and definitely not “executive” or “senior level” management.
-Finally, if this was truly about the budget shortfall, there would be a City-wide functional exercise that would assess all programs and positions, instead of the functional exercise that targets only these positions.

it was a campaign applause line — lets get rid of 200 people. no thought on who what where when and why. now you have main line employees on the verge of a “slow down”

it was a campaign applause line — lets get rid of 200 people. no thought on who what where when and why. now you have main line employees on the verge of a “slow down”

I don’t think McGinn had a clue what the strategic advisors do before he arbitrarily decided to cut 200 of them. Most of these positions are in City Light, SPU (water/drainage), and SDOT and were competitively hired. Now McGinn has painted himself into a corner where he is either going to have to back down from the 200 position reduction or he’s going to make some cuts that will have real effects on the city’s ability to provide services. It would be one thing if McGinn had taken the time to learn a little about how the City provides services and then made thoughtful choices about what areas he wants to cut back. It’s another thing to have had him make up a completely arbitrary number that now we’re all stuck with.

I don’t think McGinn had a clue what the strategic advisors do before he arbitrarily decided to cut 200 of them. Most of these positions are in City Light, SPU (water/drainage), and SDOT and were competitively hired. Now McGinn has painted himself into a corner where he is either going to have to back down from the 200 position reduction or he’s going to make some cuts that will have real effects on the city’s ability to provide services. It would be one thing if McGinn had taken the time to learn a little about how the City provides services and then made thoughtful choices about what areas he wants to cut back. It’s another thing to have had him make up a completely arbitrary number that now we’re all stuck with.

The City of Seattle’s strategic advisor position description is written so that nearly anyone can qualify. It has been used to bring talented people into the organization, but also as a tool of patronage.

In fields such as IT and engineering, the city’s pay scale did not keep pace with private sector wage increases. The strategic advisor position has a broad pay band and it was used to retain and hire qualified professionals while the personnel department caught up on compensation. Many of the underpaid technical disciplines are now back level with the market. The sensible approach with these employees is to move them back to equivalent represented positions, assuming they qualify.

For every qualified strategic advisor or manager it seems there is one who reached their position because they were well connected. The job market alone does not explain what Fujii noted in his memo to department heads, that the number of executives, managers and strategic advisors increased 46% (639 to 951) while the general workforce increased only 2% between 2002 and 2009. Nickels’ campaign contributions from same city employees hint at patronage. There are many talented advisors and managers, but also a large group who do less, bring less and make more than their peers or even the people they supervise.

To reach the net 200 reduction, McGinn should, to the extent possible, re-classify and re-compete positions. This approach would keep only the best people.

The City of Seattle’s strategic advisor position description is written so that nearly anyone can qualify. It has been used to bring talented people into the organization, but also as a tool of patronage.

In fields such as IT and engineering, the city’s pay scale did not keep pace with private sector wage increases. The strategic advisor position has a broad pay band and it was used to retain and hire qualified professionals while the personnel department caught up on compensation. Many of the underpaid technical disciplines are now back level with the market. The sensible approach with these employees is to move them back to equivalent represented positions, assuming they qualify.

For every qualified strategic advisor or manager it seems there is one who reached their position because they were well connected. The job market alone does not explain what Fujii noted in his memo to department heads, that the number of executives, managers and strategic advisors increased 46% (639 to 951) while the general workforce increased only 2% between 2002 and 2009. Nickels’ campaign contributions from same city employees hint at patronage. There are many talented advisors and managers, but also a large group who do less, bring less and make more than their peers or even the people they supervise.

To reach the net 200 reduction, McGinn should, to the extent possible, re-classify and re-compete positions. This approach would keep only the best people.

Do we know for sure that McGinn and his advisors didn’t actually decide what 200 positions to cut before he took office — i.e., he’s not just randomly slashing out with a machete on the spur of the moment? It wouldn’t have been terribly difficult for him to find out who’s employed by the City. If we don’t know for certain that he didn’t research it, we shouldn’t accuse him of “arbitrarily” cutting 200 people.

Do we know for sure that McGinn and his advisors didn’t actually decide what 200 positions to cut before he took office — i.e., he’s not just randomly slashing out with a machete on the spur of the moment? It wouldn’t have been terribly difficult for him to find out who’s employed by the City. If we don’t know for certain that he didn’t research it, we shouldn’t accuse him of “arbitrarily” cutting 200 people.

Strategic Advisors (an inaccurate job title) include many engineers and other professional occupations that are necessary for the safe and continuing operations of the City.

Yeah, let’s fire the bridge inspectors and people that keep multimillion dollar projects on budget. Makes a lot of sense.

Strategic Advisors (an inaccurate job title) include many engineers and other professional occupations that are necessary for the safe and continuing operations of the City.

Yeah, let’s fire the bridge inspectors and people that keep multimillion dollar projects on budget. Makes a lot of sense.

Sarah68- yes we know for a fact that McGinn and his advisors didn’t decide what positions to cut before he took office.

Sarah68- yes we know for a fact that McGinn and his advisors didn’t decide what positions to cut before he took office.

The large number of city employees at yesterday’s Civil Service Commission meeting stems from the Mayor promise in the campaign to eliminate 200 of what he labeled “these political appointee positions (Strategic Advisors). Targeting large numbers of individuals in one particular civil service classification “generically” across the board for elimination based upon this incredibly inaccurate assumption (that they are political appointees) reflects a woeful lack of understanding, grasp, and knowledge of the tenets, principles, and requirements of Seattle’s charter-based Civil Service System. As such, the Mayor’s plan has in effect created the exact kind of scenario that Seattle’s Civil Service System was established to protect public employees from… losing their jobs due to what is in essence a political whim.

This is going to be a train wreck, and members of Seattle’s Civil Service Commission should plan on keeping the night oil burning over the next year or so to handle all the activity that will be coming their way should the Mayor proceed as planned. And, employment attorneys across the Puget Sound are licking their chops given the potential paydays that lie ahead via individual or class action suits. The Mayor would be well served to spend some time boning up on Seattle’s Civil Service System and rethinking his approach.

The large number of city employees at yesterday’s Civil Service Commission meeting stems from the Mayor promise in the campaign to eliminate 200 of what he labeled “these political appointee positions (Strategic Advisors). Targeting large numbers of individuals in one particular civil service classification “generically” across the board for elimination based upon this incredibly inaccurate assumption (that they are political appointees) reflects a woeful lack of understanding, grasp, and knowledge of the tenets, principles, and requirements of Seattle’s charter-based Civil Service System. As such, the Mayor’s plan has in effect created the exact kind of scenario that Seattle’s Civil Service System was established to protect public employees from… losing their jobs due to what is in essence a political whim.

This is going to be a train wreck, and members of Seattle’s Civil Service Commission should plan on keeping the night oil burning over the next year or so to handle all the activity that will be coming their way should the Mayor proceed as planned. And, employment attorneys across the Puget Sound are licking their chops given the potential paydays that lie ahead via individual or class action suits. The Mayor would be well served to spend some time boning up on Seattle’s Civil Service System and rethinking his approach.

It makes no sense to randomly target the best and the brightest employees. In my experience the people who become SA,s, managers and executives are promoted to those positions from within because they are highly qulaified, or they are highly skilled people that the City has been able to attract who have unique and valuable experience.

It makes no sense to randomly target the best and the brightest employees. In my experience the people who become SA,s, managers and executives are promoted to those positions from within because they are highly qulaified, or they are highly skilled people that the City has been able to attract who have unique and valuable experience.

-Jane B – Nice try. It’s not a well-kept secret at all (I know, fer cryin’ out loud) that McGinn made a list before he took the oath of office, and that the list does specifically target some people he just doesn’t like. He is the new boss, but he will have to follow the pre-established labor rules.
-Jesse – Your message resonates loud and clear. This will not lower the City’s deficit. It will bring on legal battles and drain resources even further – reducing the ability to provide basic services to citizens/voters.
- My last question – What’s with the deafening silence from the Mayor, his spokesman, everyone….???? Not just on this issue, either. It seems, from the outside, like a bunker mentality. For those of us who are, um, skeptical about the Mayor’s readiness for the job, the wisdom of his decisions, his motives, etc., this only heightens our concerns and encourages us to fill the void with angry,skeptical voices. What’s up, Mike? We’re adults. Talk to us.

-Jane B – Nice try. It’s not a well-kept secret at all (I know, fer cryin’ out loud) that McGinn made a list before he took the oath of office, and that the list does specifically target some people he just doesn’t like. He is the new boss, but he will have to follow the pre-established labor rules.
-Jesse – Your message resonates loud and clear. This will not lower the City’s deficit. It will bring on legal battles and drain resources even further – reducing the ability to provide basic services to citizens/voters.
- My last question – What’s with the deafening silence from the Mayor, his spokesman, everyone….???? Not just on this issue, either. It seems, from the outside, like a bunker mentality. For those of us who are, um, skeptical about the Mayor’s readiness for the job, the wisdom of his decisions, his motives, etc., this only heightens our concerns and encourages us to fill the void with angry,skeptical voices. What’s up, Mike? We’re adults. Talk to us.

Note – If you eliminate all the Strategic advisors of some deparments….you eliminate the entire department or any of the brainpower for that matter (OSE, Housing, much of the SPU project staff)

Note – If you eliminate all the Strategic advisors of some deparments….you eliminate the entire department or any of the brainpower for that matter (OSE, Housing, much of the SPU project staff)

Soapboxin – I agree with you. What I was trying to say in my earlier comment is that the 200 number was a completely arbitrary number; I don’t think McGinn had any logical basis for coming up with it.

Soapboxin – I agree with you. What I was trying to say in my earlier comment is that the 200 number was a completely arbitrary number; I don’t think McGinn had any logical basis for coming up with it.

I suspect the Mayor would argue that “200” is not “arbitrary” but is the number of SA positions which need to be eliminated to roll back to 2001 levels in order to reduce the cost of government. But, it is still “arbitrary” since the # is not remotely linked or derived from any comprehensive (even cursory) review of the array of City’s 2010 programs, services, etc. So, starting with rolling back one specific city job classification to 2001 levels is not only “arbitrary” but is an ass-backwards, crippling, approach to reduce the cost of government, and one which I implied above in earlier comment will send the Mayor to Civil Service Jail.

The common sense, transparent approach to reduce the cost of government is pretty simple: Set an overall budget target, based upon projected budget deficits, and then identify those City programs, projects, services, and processes that can be eliminated, revised or made more efficient to meet that target without jeopardizing the delivery of critical, core City programs and services. From there, both non labor savings and revised position levels will be determined, and the elimination of positions across what would likely be a variety of job classifications – staff and management — would follow accordingly, based upon contemporary business needs of the City, not arbitrary position reductions.

Interesting enough, the Mayor can employ this common sense approach very soon and address the whole range of issues tied to the cost of government to his heart’s content in the upcoming 2011/2012-budget process which will begin in the early spring. That is the appropriate forum to make these kinds of decisions that impact the quality and level of City program and services, and I hope the Mayor sees the wisdom of taking this route.

I suspect the Mayor would argue that “200” is not “arbitrary” but is the number of SA positions which need to be eliminated to roll back to 2001 levels in order to reduce the cost of government. But, it is still “arbitrary” since the # is not remotely linked or derived from any comprehensive (even cursory) review of the array of City’s 2010 programs, services, etc. So, starting with rolling back one specific city job classification to 2001 levels is not only “arbitrary” but is an ass-backwards, crippling, approach to reduce the cost of government, and one which I implied above in earlier comment will send the Mayor to Civil Service Jail.

The common sense, transparent approach to reduce the cost of government is pretty simple: Set an overall budget target, based upon projected budget deficits, and then identify those City programs, projects, services, and processes that can be eliminated, revised or made more efficient to meet that target without jeopardizing the delivery of critical, core City programs and services. From there, both non labor savings and revised position levels will be determined, and the elimination of positions across what would likely be a variety of job classifications – staff and management — would follow accordingly, based upon contemporary business needs of the City, not arbitrary position reductions.

Interesting enough, the Mayor can employ this common sense approach very soon and address the whole range of issues tied to the cost of government to his heart’s content in the upcoming 2011/2012-budget process which will begin in the early spring. That is the appropriate forum to make these kinds of decisions that impact the quality and level of City program and services, and I hope the Mayor sees the wisdom of taking this route.

More preachin’ to the choir. Too bad all we can do is ‘suspect’ what the Mayor might say. Maybe what we need is an experienced manager like Joe Mallahan…

More preachin’ to the choir. Too bad all we can do is ‘suspect’ what the Mayor might say. Maybe what we need is an experienced manager like Joe Mallahan…

Cutting 200 jobs without regard to the value these positions (and the people in them) add to their department, and simply because they fall in a particular job category, is a CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT WAITING TO HAPPEN. I agree with the previous comments that the Manager and Strategic Advisor classifications are just broad catch-all names that Personnel preferred because, at one point, it was trying to cut back on the large number of too-specific job titles. From my experience, Managers and Strategic Advisors are the hardest working and most productive employees of the City. Most did go through a competitive hiring process and were selected from a pool of candidates that are all highly qualified, so the finalists who are hired are the best of the best. And of the Managers and Strategic Advisors that are Exempt positions (i.e., exempt from competitive hiring processes), most were selected through a competitive process, even though it was not a requirement, because the department choose to hire that way. Political appointments to Exempt positions is the exception, except in the Mayor’s Office itself.

Proper management of a business — government included — determines first WHAT needs to be done and then makes sure the right people to do that are retained in the business. Do we really want to eliminate employees — that may be critical to getting work done in the City — just because of their job title? And why would you not consider eliminating staff at other job classifications — we all know of some — who have been under-performing for years but are protected by Civil Service rules and years of senority? Why not address how to get WORK DONE instead of making a sweeping generalization that reducing the number of Managers and Strategic Advisors will reduce costs?

Cutting 200 jobs without regard to the value these positions (and the people in them) add to their department, and simply because they fall in a particular job category, is a CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT WAITING TO HAPPEN. I agree with the previous comments that the Manager and Strategic Advisor classifications are just broad catch-all names that Personnel preferred because, at one point, it was trying to cut back on the large number of too-specific job titles. From my experience, Managers and Strategic Advisors are the hardest working and most productive employees of the City. Most did go through a competitive hiring process and were selected from a pool of candidates that are all highly qualified, so the finalists who are hired are the best of the best. And of the Managers and Strategic Advisors that are Exempt positions (i.e., exempt from competitive hiring processes), most were selected through a competitive process, even though it was not a requirement, because the department choose to hire that way. Political appointments to Exempt positions is the exception, except in the Mayor’s Office itself.

Proper management of a business — government included — determines first WHAT needs to be done and then makes sure the right people to do that are retained in the business. Do we really want to eliminate employees — that may be critical to getting work done in the City — just because of their job title? And why would you not consider eliminating staff at other job classifications — we all know of some — who have been under-performing for years but are protected by Civil Service rules and years of senority? Why not address how to get WORK DONE instead of making a sweeping generalization that reducing the number of Managers and Strategic Advisors will reduce costs?

Jesse’s comment (at 11:43) is exactly the right kind of strategic approach that should be taken — not just in hard times, but to run an organization effectively. I wish the Mayor could “appoint” Jesse into one of those Strategic Advisor jobs to talk some sense into the guys on the 12th floor. Telling the public that you are cutting “managers” is just a way of getting unthinking approval from the masses, not a way to make informed decisions that could benefit the organization or the city as a whole.

Jesse’s comment (at 11:43) is exactly the right kind of strategic approach that should be taken — not just in hard times, but to run an organization effectively. I wish the Mayor could “appoint” Jesse into one of those Strategic Advisor jobs to talk some sense into the guys on the 12th floor. Telling the public that you are cutting “managers” is just a way of getting unthinking approval from the masses, not a way to make informed decisions that could benefit the organization or the city as a whole.

One other item that is not getting much play in this discussion, or in regards to civil service protections but that should be considered is the new hiring process that was also implemented by McGinn.

As I understand it:
- New positions are requested by the department
- positions are first approved by the mayors office
- then the department goes through their internal hiring process (typically panel run… to reduce any conflicts or individual panel members biases)
- then they submit the position again to the mayors office with the name of the department selected candidate and the proposed salary .
- a panel (Dively, Fuji and Goldberg) in the mayors office then reviews the named candidate and salary.
- the mayor then gives a final thumbs up or thumbs down to the named candidate and salary.

This seems like a direct violation Civil Service Protections. For a mayoral canidate who was railing against political influence an cronyisim in the managment he sure has instituted a process by which he the Mayor gets to decide specifically who gets a job with the city.

If you apply for a job with the City of Seattle, I hope you didn’t give a campaign donation to Mallahan.

One other item that is not getting much play in this discussion, or in regards to civil service protections but that should be considered is the new hiring process that was also implemented by McGinn.

As I understand it:
- New positions are requested by the department
- positions are first approved by the mayors office
- then the department goes through their internal hiring process (typically panel run… to reduce any conflicts or individual panel members biases)
- then they submit the position again to the mayors office with the name of the department selected candidate and the proposed salary .
- a panel (Dively, Fuji and Goldberg) in the mayors office then reviews the named candidate and salary.
- the mayor then gives a final thumbs up or thumbs down to the named candidate and salary.

This seems like a direct violation Civil Service Protections. For a mayoral canidate who was railing against political influence an cronyisim in the managment he sure has instituted a process by which he the Mayor gets to decide specifically who gets a job with the city.

If you apply for a job with the City of Seattle, I hope you didn’t give a campaign donation to Mallahan.

The people referred to in many of the posts (Managers and Strategic Advisors) are nearly all extremely committed, innovative, and very productive public sector employees. They have chosen to commit their careers to the City of Seattle. Most could be elsewhere making more money but they stay because they CARE. And they’ve accomplished great results. The new MAYOR, here for just a short time then gone, looked every one of them in the eye (metaphorically speaking), took his two fingers, and poked. He said I DON’T NEED YOU AND I DON’T WANT YOU. If his plan succeeds then only a portion of these folks will be gone, but he has alienated every one of them. Fortunately they are so DEDICATED and can see through the politics that the citizens can rest assured that the ones remaining will continue to do the great work that they have been doing (I know this for a fact) and ride out this storm. BUT, the Mayor doesn’t seem to realize that these people actually LIVE in Seattle, have neighbors and communities with whom they interact, and word of what’s going on in city leadership is getting out.

The people referred to in many of the posts (Managers and Strategic Advisors) are nearly all extremely committed, innovative, and very productive public sector employees. They have chosen to commit their careers to the City of Seattle. Most could be elsewhere making more money but they stay because they CARE. And they’ve accomplished great results. The new MAYOR, here for just a short time then gone, looked every one of them in the eye (metaphorically speaking), took his two fingers, and poked. He said I DON’T NEED YOU AND I DON’T WANT YOU. If his plan succeeds then only a portion of these folks will be gone, but he has alienated every one of them. Fortunately they are so DEDICATED and can see through the politics that the citizens can rest assured that the ones remaining will continue to do the great work that they have been doing (I know this for a fact) and ride out this storm. BUT, the Mayor doesn’t seem to realize that these people actually LIVE in Seattle, have neighbors and communities with whom they interact, and word of what’s going on in city leadership is getting out.

The Mayor, right off the bat, has managed to alienate the very people in his organization responsible for implementing his initiatives for the next four years. The vast majority of us are hardworking career public servants who love our work and put in long hours in service to the City. Funny thing is, we will continue being professionals despite being made into a cheap applause line during the Mayor’s recent public appearances.

Way to go boss!!

p.s. talk about political patronage, I understand that the current Mayor’s Office is staffed with very young people with little actual work experience. Their only qualification is that of political hack.

The Mayor, right off the bat, has managed to alienate the very people in his organization responsible for implementing his initiatives for the next four years. The vast majority of us are hardworking career public servants who love our work and put in long hours in service to the City. Funny thing is, we will continue being professionals despite being made into a cheap applause line during the Mayor’s recent public appearances.

Way to go boss!!

p.s. talk about political patronage, I understand that the current Mayor’s Office is staffed with very young people with little actual work experience. Their only qualification is that of political hack.

If the Mayor’s goal is to reduce Management and Senior positions, why are so few of the City positions at a Management or Senior level being targeted? Based on the list of positions and salaries on the COS job website (“Pay titles and rates” available at http://www.seattle.gov/personnel/employment/compensation.asp), it looks like there are more than 450 position titles with the words Manager, Chief, Executive, Senior, Supervisor, etc. The current layoff target looks like it only includes 85 positions – why are those the only ones considered? How was “Senior” defined?? There are many positions at the city paid more than some of the targeted positions. The lowest level ‘Strategic Advisor’ (SA1) which is targeted for potential layoff has a starting salary of $31.38/hour, while an Electrical Engineering Supervisor (not included in layoff targets) has a starting salary of $43.67, and an Information Technology Professional Level A (not included) starts at $37.61. Are Union positions being avoided or is the new administration just not familiar with the positions they are now responsible for managing? Either way, it looks like a poorly thought-through scheme to earn political points without regard to whether it actually achieves the stated goals or what the impact will be on City services. I think the new Mayor and his young, eager staffers would be well advised spend some time understanding how the City they are now responsible for managing works now before they try to change it.

If the Mayor’s goal is to reduce Management and Senior positions, why are so few of the City positions at a Management or Senior level being targeted? Based on the list of positions and salaries on the COS job website (“Pay titles and rates” available at http://www.seattle.gov/personnel/employment/compensation.asp), it looks like there are more than 450 position titles with the words Manager, Chief, Executive, Senior, Supervisor, etc. The current layoff target looks like it only includes 85 positions – why are those the only ones considered? How was “Senior” defined?? There are many positions at the city paid more than some of the targeted positions. The lowest level ‘Strategic Advisor’ (SA1) which is targeted for potential layoff has a starting salary of $31.38/hour, while an Electrical Engineering Supervisor (not included in layoff targets) has a starting salary of $43.67, and an Information Technology Professional Level A (not included) starts at $37.61. Are Union positions being avoided or is the new administration just not familiar with the positions they are now responsible for managing? Either way, it looks like a poorly thought-through scheme to earn political points without regard to whether it actually achieves the stated goals or what the impact will be on City services. I think the new Mayor and his young, eager staffers would be well advised spend some time understanding how the City they are now responsible for managing works now before they try to change it.

My husband is a strategic advisor. He is in what has been described here as a technically specialized position. He moved up from a union position through a regular hiring process. He doesn’t know Greg Nickels, has never once talked to him during his entire career at the city, and is certainly not anybody’s crony. He works hard and thinks hard about how to be a good steward of the citizens’ money and trust.

Of course the unions have been gunning for these positions (and I am not anti-union, not by a long shot). They hate that these are non-union jobs, and it’s their job to prevent union layoffs.

So – the strategic advisors in particular have become scapegoats, all around. If you gotta cut, then cut. But don’t demonize an entire class of people as shiftless cronies in order to score more political points, or to assuage your conscience about the fact that you’re bringing real hardship upon real human beings. Do have enough respect for the city as an institution, and the taxpayers who fund it, to find out what work gets done by whom, and make decisions based on functional priorities.

My husband is a strategic advisor. He is in what has been described here as a technically specialized position. He moved up from a union position through a regular hiring process. He doesn’t know Greg Nickels, has never once talked to him during his entire career at the city, and is certainly not anybody’s crony. He works hard and thinks hard about how to be a good steward of the citizens’ money and trust.

Of course the unions have been gunning for these positions (and I am not anti-union, not by a long shot). They hate that these are non-union jobs, and it’s their job to prevent union layoffs.

So – the strategic advisors in particular have become scapegoats, all around. If you gotta cut, then cut. But don’t demonize an entire class of people as shiftless cronies in order to score more political points, or to assuage your conscience about the fact that you’re bringing real hardship upon real human beings. Do have enough respect for the city as an institution, and the taxpayers who fund it, to find out what work gets done by whom, and make decisions based on functional priorities.

New memo went out. Lots of gloom in the Muni Tower. SPU, City Light, and SDOT will be the hardest hit. There is a process. It’s tough and seems inevitable. No one should ever applaud about people losing their jobs. Wishing misfortune upon others is generally not cool.

New memo went out. Lots of gloom in the Muni Tower. SPU, City Light, and SDOT will be the hardest hit. There is a process. It’s tough and seems inevitable. No one should ever applaud about people losing their jobs. Wishing misfortune upon others is generally not cool.

I work for the City of Seattle. Yes, I’m one of ‘those’. A Strategic Advisor. I have experience (going on 26 years) in both the public and the private sector. When I started at the City, friends in the private sector would ask me “how are you going to be able to put up with the slow moving bureocracy? you are such a fast moving person”. My answer again and again was: I have never been in such a fast paced environment, with people who are not only extremely capable and professional, but who also care. As a rookie I was supported and helped by many people (mainly at the manager and strategic advisor levels) to help me do the best job I could.

I am used to the change of the guard. People are let go every time. But I always thought that I was too small a fish for any new official to care. That my consistently doing an excelent job would help me weather political storms. Maybe that’s not enough. This threat of getting cut just because I’m senior management (are you kidding? I had no idea I was senior management!) is unsettling to say the least.

The irony is that it’s going to be me (and other strategic advisors) who will be doing the lion share of the work for this ‘exercise’. That is on top of our regular jobs.

If I get cut I will survive. If I’m not wanted at the City, then I’ll go somewhere else where I’m appreciated. It just feel very silly to be rid of because of my job title without considering the quality of my work and my contribution to the City of Seattle.

I work for the City of Seattle. Yes, I’m one of ‘those’. A Strategic Advisor. I have experience (going on 26 years) in both the public and the private sector. When I started at the City, friends in the private sector would ask me “how are you going to be able to put up with the slow moving bureocracy? you are such a fast moving person”. My answer again and again was: I have never been in such a fast paced environment, with people who are not only extremely capable and professional, but who also care. As a rookie I was supported and helped by many people (mainly at the manager and strategic advisor levels) to help me do the best job I could.

I am used to the change of the guard. People are let go every time. But I always thought that I was too small a fish for any new official to care. That my consistently doing an excelent job would help me weather political storms. Maybe that’s not enough. This threat of getting cut just because I’m senior management (are you kidding? I had no idea I was senior management!) is unsettling to say the least.

The irony is that it’s going to be me (and other strategic advisors) who will be doing the lion share of the work for this ‘exercise’. That is on top of our regular jobs.

If I get cut I will survive. If I’m not wanted at the City, then I’ll go somewhere else where I’m appreciated. It just feel very silly to be rid of because of my job title without considering the quality of my work and my contribution to the City of Seattle.

I run a small business. No family involved in the city– and the only real friend I know is in a safe job.

That caveat aside– it bugs me as a taxpayer that we are cutting good people out of city government.

This Mayor I voted for has not done the work involved laying out his vision.

It is almost as if we traded in a bully Mayor who bullied city council for a mayor who bullied.

I don’t like it.

It bugs me to hear the new attorney for the city fire long standing staff — with emails and voice mails. This is not why we pay taxes. The means matter Mike.

You have not laid out wtf you are doing.

Go to the gym dude. Then get someone on your staff to say: here are the next twelve months. By the way, we’re a progressive Democratic city. What jobs are you CREATING, not cutting?

And figure out how to communicate it.

We wanted change, and we want to be let in on the herky jerky first days.

This seawall thingee is a no go. No more special elections that cost a million bucks.

Basta.

Tim

I run a small business. No family involved in the city– and the only real friend I know is in a safe job.

That caveat aside– it bugs me as a taxpayer that we are cutting good people out of city government.

This Mayor I voted for has not done the work involved laying out his vision.

It is almost as if we traded in a bully Mayor who bullied city council for a mayor who bullied.

I don’t like it.

It bugs me to hear the new attorney for the city fire long standing staff — with emails and voice mails. This is not why we pay taxes. The means matter Mike.

You have not laid out wtf you are doing.

Go to the gym dude. Then get someone on your staff to say: here are the next twelve months. By the way, we’re a progressive Democratic city. What jobs are you CREATING, not cutting?

And figure out how to communicate it.

We wanted change, and we want to be let in on the herky jerky first days.

This seawall thingee is a no go. No more special elections that cost a million bucks.

Basta.

Tim