|
One Commissioner's Irresponsible Behavior
Posted
12-26-2001
The reason I created this web site was to share with readers the real
story behind what takes place in county government. Too often, when the
local newspapers report a story, they just don't give the full details. This
week Commissioner Scott Conner conducted a unilateral, unauthorized,
irresponsible negotiating session with SEIU Local 585, the county's biggest
union.
The way it took place shows
the irrational action of Commissioner Conner. He was at Westmoreland Manor
serving food for the employees' Christmas party when he walked into the
negotiating session. He made some comments about unions always supporting
Democrats instead of Republicans, and, at that point, our chief negotiator
Chuck Dominick, took a recess. I must point out that Mr. Dominick is the
person authorized by the board (including Mr. Conner) to conduct
negotiations. Commissioner Ceraso has sat in on many negotiations, but he
understands that it is Mr. Dominick that puts forth the county's positions
and has acted accordingly.
Mr. Conner has had very
little dialogue with anyone on how the negotiations are doing and, in fact,
did not sit in on the last session with our health insurance consultant to
even find out the cost variations between different health plans. During the
recess, he asked Mr. Dominick what the key issues were and then returned to
the bargaining room. While the rest of our negotiating team was still
recessed, he began throwing out offers that were not even on the table. His
efforts have compromised much of the work Mr. Dominick has been doing for
the last two months.
No one commissioner is
authorized to place offers on the table, certainly not ones that we weren't
even advancing. Also, the time line for these negotiations was not
problematic. The contract doesn't expire until the end of the year, and
there was already an agreement to extend talks into next year. It is hardly
unusual for us to negotiate with unions beyond the end of an existing
contract. In fact, almost every contract happens in that fashion. For Mr.
Conner to throw out issues that would be resolved at the end of a contract
hurts both sides. There were a number of issues that had to be resolved
first, that would lay the groundwork for the economic issues. Until they are
resolved, it is hard for the county or the union to fully appreciate the
impact of the economic issues.
The most irresponsible part
of Mr. Conner's actions is that he made offers without even knowing their
economic impact. His actions create an expectation for the union's
negotiating team of things that the county may simply be unable to deliver.
It makes Mr. Dominick's job more difficult. Mr. Conner's actions are
grandstanding at its worst. They are what we are beginning to see regularly,
an ego starving for credibility. Credibility is earned by consistent well
thought-out policy decisions over time. It is not swept in by irrational
high-profile showings that do more harm than good.
This event is part of a
recurring effort by Scott Conner to "step out". His home rule effort is more
of the same. In less than two years in government, he wants to change things
because of what he claims to be his desire for a taxpayers referendum.
Frankly, before I put a poll question on this web site about home rule,
Scott Conner wasn't even talking about home rule. The exposure from the poll
question spurred his effort. But, it is really about him becoming county
executive. Mr. Conner is frustrated that in the commission form of
government, you must have two votes to implement policy.
You may wonder why I say his
amateurish effort at negotiations is part of a recurring theme. He also is
doing nothing more than grandstanding about his "zero growth budget". He
participated in budget hearings the last two years and had input that was
part of our shaping of the county's budget. But, it wasn't good enough to be
part of a team and share in creating the budget. It had to be his way only.
First, he announced that he was creating a 5% reduction in the budget for
2002. When he realized that wasn't possible, he concocted this zero growth
idea. However, he sat in on each of our sessions. Rather than offer ideas
that we could have acted upon to shape one budget, he listened to our ideas
and then tried to shape his own version. It is nothing more than a shallow
attempt at "one-upmanship" for someone to whom "building consensus" are
foreign words.
Our budget will hold expenses
at about 2% growth. Even at those numbers, it will take tremendous fiscal
discipline during the year to manage the budget. Mr. Conner's budget slashes
numbers to such levels that all we would be doing is spending contingent
funds half way through the year. Anyone could shape a budget that cuts to
impractical numbers, but it won't work and it isn't responsible public
policy.
I understand in politics
there are always egos involved. It is the nature of the business. But when
they start running amuck, it can be dangerous and certainly
counterproductive. While we all have egos and want things our way, it is a
sign of maturity to recognize that we never get anything our way 100% of the
time. Public policy, labor negotiations, and budgeting are all a series of
compromises that advance things with everyone getting a part of what they
want, but rarely getting everything their way. After all, isn't that what
life is all about? |
