For years it seems, ADL has stated the opinion that LAAS Dept. deadwood should be shown the door by intelligent, compassionate, hard-working, legally-savvy, feminist cronies of Pam Ferdin. Her contention was/is that if you get a female lawyer (or a feminist Winograd protege) as AGM or GM, all personnel problems will be resolved instantaneously. Even one of those legally savvy Compassionazis whom Pam was talking about gave me the same opinion. "If they don't do their job, it is out the door."
Pam's latest post repeats this same opinion:
Julie Butcher, represents the LADAS employees and supervisors, and she has fought tooth and nail against anyone who attempts to discipline, transfer or fire an LADAS employee who is unfit and unqualified. LADAS General Manager, Ed Boks, is just not savvy enough in legal matters to know the steps to take in order to be able to get rid of unfit and unqualified LADAS employees (hence the need for an individual with a legal background who cares about animals to be in charge of the LADAS - NOT some former preacher).
In Fact, the following is the reality:
ADL is demonstarting their ignorance about civil service and union rules.
It's almost impossible to get rid of non-exempt employees without going through at least a three-step process (oral warning, write-up, dismissal) followed by a level or two of appeals that are often successful.
The bottom line is that, faced with such an arduous process, no "garden variety screw-up" would be out the door yet, even if Boks had begun the process in the first month he was on the job.
The rules allow someone to be fired for some kind of egregious behavior, but what those rules call egregious and what ADL calls egregious are two very different things. The rules don't care about puppies and kitties. They care about work rules and theft and violating ethics codes.
Now, this is City policy and does not even factor in informal employee protection from the union.