The probation scandal is about legislators recommending people for jobs. The leadership of the probation department engaged in systematic fraud in order to accommodate legislative recommendations.
It’s worth thinking through several different kind of recommendations and considering which kinds feel OK and which don’t.
Is a legislative recommendation of a job seeker to a public agency OK if . . .
- . . . the legislator knows that the agency will falsify records to place his candidate at the top of the list? No, probably illegal.
- . . . the legislator makes the recommendation in return for a campaign contribution? No, probably illegal.
- . . . the legislator recommends a close relative? No, probably violates conflict of interest rules.
- . . . the legislator knows or should know that the agency will place his candidate at the top of the list, more or less regardless of merit? No, clearly unethical, not so clearly illegal.
- . . . the legislator recommends an active campaign supporter (contributor or volunteer)? Probably OK if the legislator extends the same degree of consideration to other constituents and there is no direct link between the support and the recommendation, but this is hard to keep clean.
- . . . the legislator recommends a constituent who is neither a relative nor a campaign supporter? Certainly OK, but even here, there is always a risk that the recommendation will bear undue weight
In practice, many good candidates will be effectively excluded if going through a legislator is the best way to get a public job. The problems in the probation department were especially egregious, but other agencies are known for patronage. The Turnpike Authority, now dissolved, was known as a patronage haven and generally, the problems may tend to be worst in agencies outside direct gubernatorial supervision. (Those under gubernatorial supervision are at risk of gubernatorial patronage, but much less at risk of legislative patronage.)
There are already laws against fraud, bribery, nepotism and subtler conflicts of interest. The question we will face over the next few months is: would the public be better served if legislators did not engage in job recommendations at all or did so only subject to new limitations?
Imagine a scenario in which legislative recommendations were simply prohibited by rule or law. In practice, this wouldn’t stop legislators from serving their constituents — legislators could still mentor job seekers about their goals, help them to think through options in the public sector, and suggest people to talk to. That’s not such a bad scenario and would certainly put the issue to rest in a health way.
I think the main alternative to an outright prohibition is a disclosure requirement — legislative recommendations should be in writing and filed in a public place like the House Clerk’s office.
My own practice when constituents call about employment issues is to arrange a meeting for them with me and my legislative aide. My aide and I help brainstorm options and possible job listings that should be considered. After some discussion, I reach out to friends that I know (either in the private sector or the public sector or both) and express my hope that they will meet with job-seeker for networking purposes. If there is a prospect of a particular opening, my practice is usually to write a letter or email reciting my level of acquaintance with the candidate and my perceptions. I don’t think I’ve ever crossed any legal or ethical lines in this process, but some more clarity about where the lines are would be helpful.
Interested in people’s comments on where the lines should be.
I believe that the reason the civil service system was invented was to prevent this kind of problem. The System in Massachusetts is very weak. Most of these jobs should have been filled based on skill merit and ability. Not who your friend is.
I would suggest that the state consider moving the administrative and personnel offices of all state agencies out of Boston, to a place that is at least 45 minutes by car from the state house. This would reduce the opportunity for Legislative micro management of these agencies, keep the patronage hires from having lunch with the “friends” on Beacon Hill. And make it more difficult for the Leadership, and its staff from getting a lunch time insiders briefing on an agency’s ability to be helpful to its patrons without missing work time at Beacon Hill.
” I reach out to friends that I know (either in the private sector or the public sector or both) and express my hope that they will meet with job-seeker for networking purposes” – why do you make the call at all if you “write a letter or email reciting my level of acquaintance with the candidate and my perceptions”?
There are two situations: (1) A person is just trying to find their way and looking for advice and ideas. I reach out to friends to ask them to offer advice and ideas to the person. In fact, usually, I ‘reach out’ by email. (2) A distinct situation is when someone has an interest in a particular job and contacts me for support. Then I meet with them and write a letter or email as described above.
You know, I understand the issues of patronage and abbuse of position, but (and maybe this is because I’ve always worked in the private sector) I also understand the value of personal recommendations in finding the “right person for the job”. As a hiring manager, I’ve hit about a 50-70% success rate with “blind interviews” (respondents to job postings) verses a 100% success rate to “recommended hires” (recommendations mostly coming from friends or collegues).
When the referral system works, it works well. I also noticed that when I actually check references (there’s a shool of thought that says “don’t bother, since a reference is sourced from the candidate they are primed to say only nice things”) my success rates improves!
I can understand a set of “professional guidelines” that a legilator should follow, similar to your list above:
1. Only offer “factual” commentary (I am related to this person by… they have/have not worked for me… They are/are not a campain contributor …)
2. Describe your “real” impression – I know you need to be cautious, but there are ways of phrasing recommendations that convey a “cursory” or “heartfelt” recommendation.
3. Never suggest any special treatment. (I know, just by a legislators position, there may be an implication of this, but…you cannt do anything about it)
Sorry, the world is-what-it-is and relationships, recommendations and who-you-know are equally as important as what-you-know/what-you-can-do.
I thin kit would be wrong to do away with referrals, but there does need to be a check-and-balance to insure there’s no abuse or unprofessional behavior on the side of the recommender or the hiring manager.
Re your specific questions:
. . . the legislator knows that the agency will falsify records to place his candidate at the top of the list? Obviously, NO
. . . the legislator makes the recommendation in return for a campaign contribution? NO, unless the contrinution is in the form of “work” and the recommendatino is based on this work.
. . . the legislator recommends a close relative? Actually, I disagree here – if the candiate is good, this is still a valid referral
. . . the legislator knows or should know that the agency will place his candidate at the top of the list, more or less regardless of merit? Agreed, clearly unethical, unprofessional. In this case the legislator shoudl decline to refer.
. . . the legislator recommends an active campaign supporter (contributor or volunteer)? Agreed, hard to keep clean, but what-the-heck – this is probably the most valid referral outside of a real employer/employee relationship – good campaign workers have good, transferable skills. Why not make this known to potential hiring managers? Seems valid to me.
. . . the legislator recommends a constituent who is neither a relative nor a campaign supporter? See above “real recommendation” verses “cursory”.
No one argues that jobs should be filled based on merit, but given equal candidates, a personal referral shoudl still hold weight. (I know…I know… there’s loads of gray areas and as I always say — Will, I would not want your job in a million years….:)
As long as the person is qualified for the job I do not see a problem with politicians writing references. As far as the Probation Department as a whole, I think applicants should have at least a Masters Degree either in Criminal Justice, Social Work, or a J.D. and there should be a civil service test like they have for the police. I also support higher education requirements for new police test applicants also.
There are a lot of issues to consider here, and I can’t say I’ve thought them all through, but I’m leaning toward a requirement of public disclosure of legislator contacts with hiring agencies, at least with respect to employees who are in fact hired.
I can see that it makes sense to allow a legislator to meet with a constituent to advise him or her about employment in state agencies, and to write an open letter of recommendation to be carried by the constituent, detailed as you describe. The line could be drawn, in my view, before anything that could be considered pressure on the agency to employ the person, such as follow-up phone calls.
Another rule that might help could be a requirement that the letter include full disclosure of the legislator’s relationship with the bearer, including campaign contributions.
I have heard but have not verified that there is public posting of state government jobs in Mass. I know this goes beyond the narrow focus on the issue of the Probation Department, but I believe the current environment of distrust goes for reform of all state hiring. Having a transparent system, including public posting, would be a step in the right direction.
Sorry–I believe is “NO public posting” of state jobs is what I meant to state!
Actually, almost all state jobs are posted. See this explanatory post by my legislative aide.
Hi WIll,
Like James Sloman (posted elsewhere) I found Tom Keane’s OpEd in the Globe reflected my views about the role of legislators in filling state jobs: no role at all would be best. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/12/04/politicians_no_more_favors/?p1=Well_Opinion_links
Keane writes:
“DeLeo claims that his job recommendations put no pressure on anyone: ‘I can tell you I do not put any undue influence on anyone relative to the hiring or not hiring of the person.’ The argument is disingenuous in the extreme. DeLeo and every other pol who recommends folks for special consideration know that their requests are treated seriously. How can they not be? Government agencies depend upon legislators’ goodwill for, among other things, the funds to keep them going. One ignores a politician’s demands at one’s peril.
Moreover, one favor begets another. A job delivered for a legislator means that the legislator now owes something back. The eventual result is a complex web of relationships built on favors and obligations that end up driving decisions from hiring to budgets to legislation. The problem, of course, is that such horse-trading may have nothing to do with the merits of either an individual employee or public policy.”
However, it is clear that the legislature would never agree to a ban on recommendations, and anyway there is no way to write an airtight law blocking cell phone calls, backyard conversations, winks, nods, etc.
So, as a second best option, I agree with several previous posters that disclosure is the best option. Disclosure should take place at multiple levels. Job candidates should be required to disclose all relatives employed by the state and all contributions to elected state officials, legislators should disclose all recommendations made for state jobs, and the human resources chiefs at state hiring units should record all recommendations, printed, electronic or spoken. All that information should be made public. That level of disclosure would eventually reveal the extent to which the state is (or is not) a bastion of patronage.
Vince
So many layers…
Hi Will,
While I agree that there should be greater oversight to diminish the excessive patronage in various Departments within the public sector.
I also think that there are exceptions.
Do these scenarios constitute patronage?
What if…
1). A highly –qualified individual applies for an open position (by going through the proper channels, i.e. Personnel or Human Resources) in the public sector; this candidate is granted an interview, and extended an offer by the Hiring Manager.
2) The individual happens to be related to a lawmaker, but clearly obtained the position because of his/her skills, talent, and knowledge.
It’s a rare individual who chooses to gain employment by merit, and not by using political connections; these individual bring a desirable quality that Hiring Managers need–Value.
In my opinion: The Right-person-for-the-job (is not necessarily) the Best-person-for-the-job.
Sarmonica