Monday, December 07, 2009

Report: Bexar probation department poorly managed

A staffer for the Bexar County Judge forwarded me a power-point presentation (pdf) from a new report by Dr. Tony Fabelo at the Council on State Government's Justice Center analyzing the Bexar County probation department. I thought I'd run through a few highlights before Fabelo makes a formal presentation to the Bexar Commissioners Court on December 15:

The presentation paints an unflattering portrait of a sloppy, turf-driven hodge-podge of an agency that is "not keeping up with growth and modern accountability practices."

Bexar has an "obsolete assignments system," says the Justice Center, where probation officers are assigned according to which court the defendant appeared in as opposed to geographically. In Bexar, unlike other large Texas counties, POs each work for an individual court, de facto creating 19 different probation departments, all with different rules and policies. Even fees and fines vary widely from court to court. There is no administrative manual in place as required by law.

Even things like how often probationers get urinalysis tests varies widely from court to court. Comparing the number of UAs per 100 probationers over a six-month period, courts ranged from a low of 5.8 to a high of 29.3. Perhaps relatedly, there are wide variations in probation revocation rates among courts that appear to be unrelated to the risk level of offenders.

Bexar should start assigning POs to specific neighborhoods, says Fabelo. For example, "with an average caseload of 109 probationers per officer, the 595 probationers who live in [a] sample zip code could be supervised by as few as six officers, but they were assigned by 22 different courts to 113 different probation officers. The average officer supervises offenders in 35 different zip codes. (I'll bet that reduces the number of home visits, huh?)

Presentence investigations in Bexar are often shoddy and unreliable, providing little useful information to the courts - "a morass of paperwork consuming precious time and not providing a diagnosis." The department has no unified progressive sanctions policy.

Misdemeanor cases are "over-supervised," says the Justice Center. This contributes to jail overcrowding because Bexar revokes probation on more misdemeanants than any other large county. In 2008, Bexar revoked probation for 3,445 misdemeanants compared with 2,044 in much-larger Harris County." A whopping 85% of misdemeanor probation revocations are for technical violations, not new offenses. That's partially why, says Fabelo, "About 22% of the Bexar jail population is for misdemeanors, compared to 16% in Harris and 9% in Dallas."

Since 1999, the number of felony revocations in Bexar County grew by 26%, but the number of misdemeanor revocations increased by an amazing 134%. In Dallas, by contrast, those numbers declined by 19% and 38% respectively over the same period.

Other aspects of the department "cannot support evidence-based practices at this time":
  • Training is mostly for certification and safety, not focused on evidence-based approaches. The training budget is too small.
  • There's a "weak personnel evaluation system."
  • The department has "no research staff" or "accountability reports."
With probation department chief Bill Fitzgerald recently announcing his retirement, this report tells us his replacement will have a tough job ahead of him or her. OTOH, Fitzgerald's recalcitrance was seemingly a big reason the department hadn't embraced evidence-based practices in the past, so maybe this analysis will help frame the task ahead of the new probation chief and give some direction for how the department can improve. Right now, Bexar's is arguably the worst big-city probation department in Texas.

MORE: From the SA Express-News, "Overhaul Bexar's probation system."

See related Grits posts:


FairPlay said...

I have only worked as a parole officer in Texas.

Is it a common practice for probationers to have their probation revoked for not paying fees?

I know that the fees for probationers are about 5x the fees paid by parolees. I know that in the parole arena parolees are not revoked for not paying fees only.

Anonymous said...

FairPlay, I have a friend permanently maimed when hit by a drunk driver going the wrong damned way on the highway. The only reason that loser didn't go to jail was because he promised restitution in monthly payments to the victim. He's hardly ever paid. Should he be free of paying those fees, and NOT pay for his crime in any way? His probation is about over, and he got away with intoxication manslaughter with slap on the damned wrist.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

12:03, restitution and "fees" are not the same things.

FairPlay, I'd guess it's less common than it used to be before the last few years' efforts to reduce technical revocations. I hope so, anyway. But you seldom see different types of technical revocations broken out, so I've not seen data to confirm that impression.

Anonymous said...


Bexar's Revocation rates were way lower than Harris and Dallas before technical revocation reduction funding came Bexars way. All who took the funding were asked to lower technicals 10%. Im not saying we should not try and help but our rate should have been lower as should have been the funding.

Our placements and early terms were increased during the funding.

The revocation rates Fabelo reports are not correct. Fabelo himself talks about how we have no computer system to track accurate results. I saw how the counting was done on the revocation......not a good job done there. The first go around the number was made lower than normal because officers thought we would get raises if the technical revocations were lower. Get the picture!!! Most officer have quit or officer knee jerk revocation to quick.

The officers told you Fitzgerald was killing the place now we have proof. Fabelo just cost us money to get the word out!!!!!

Gritsforbreakfast said...

4:21, I'm not sure that's right - not if 85% of misdemeanor revocations were technical. Maybe you're correct that there's just no good data; somebody like Fabelo can only work with the numbers given them.

However, IMO your last paragraph is false and self serving. To be honest, I think if Bexar POs were more focused on the structural issues Fabelo talks about and less on personalities re: Fitzgerald, Cline, etc., the union might achieve more than it so far has. I've rarely heard union folks critique the structuring of officers around each court instead of by geography, for example, even though Fabelo shows the change would save enough officer slots through improved efficiency to prevent the proposed layoffs. Instead, the main tactic was to blame (and sue) Bill Fitzgerald and the whole dispute became way too personal on all sides to be constructive.

This report tells us many things, but what it definitely DOESN'T say is that it's all Bill Fitzgerald's fault.

Anonymous said...

Every attempt to consolidate like every other county in the state has been met with an "absolutely not" by most judges. Fitz tried a "regionalization project" that the judges damned near unanimously shot down, and refused to allow it.

Fabelo's report will change nothing, the judges won't have it, and the CSCD does everything the judges demand. Hell, there was a separate conditions of probation agreement per court. Creating 21 different documents for each court is a serious waist of manpower, let alone requiring a separate visit per offense by the probationer.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

Which judges have opposed the idea in the past? Do you know? I've heard there's already judicial opposition to the report brewing.

It's candidate-filing season, you know ...

Sam said...

Heck, when i was a District Court Judge back in Bexar County I suggested that we disperse the offices out into the community and locate the officers in those offices and their probationers would live nearby. i also suggested that payments be made by credit cards or other means at local HEB's and the like as well. Chief Garcia looked at me like I was crazy when I would suggest that way back when. Oh well. lol

Gritsforbreakfast said...

Like I said, Sam, it's filing time for the primaries right now ... maybe you ought to run again and take another crack at it!

Anonymous said...

Grits, Im defending 4:21.

We wanted to supervise by locations. We knew we needed to supervise by levels. We brought ideas forward! We brought them over and over again!

He killed the pay scale in 2006. Good officers left. The training for new officers was just not there to cross train for both felony and misdemeanor.

The union went after what it could to get press. However press did not work. Then lawsuits but thoose did not work. What worked is officers who did not see the light at first slowly started to see Fitzgerald was not working to do things right. Officers were threatened on a daily basis about their job security. When people make little money they want job. security because of the pension

There is a letter that was written to the state and told the state how the funding was being wasted.

We called other departments and knew what was needed to get salaries higher and it was Fabelo's plan. However we do not agree with all of his plan.

Everyone always has a little bit of the story and not the whole truth. Really you know little of the association officers. The computer system was a huge push for the union officers but not news worthy to the media.

So, Grits I understand your opinions but you only really get little slices of the real truth and it's hard figure out who is doing what.

The Department is Bexar County CSCD not a total state department.
If the state wants to make all the changes it wants then the state needs to foot the whole bill. The local judges want things done in certain way. The Bexar public votes them in to office and they own their own court and answer to the public not Fabelo

The officers knew he was bad and the state and the judges did nada. Union or non union has nothing to do with any of it!

Walk in the officers shoes and you will see it was all Fitzgerald and Cline! Do you really think some of the judges really understood the revocation rate funding??? Who was to tell them??? Fitz!

Really Fitz had to do things to brief the judges when the state should have told the district courts about what was needed. It should not have all been up to Fitz.

Also, all this was only prison reduction. Felony reductions. Misdemeanor is Bexar County issues!??? Correct if wrong?

Anonymous said...

Misdemeanor cases are "over-supervised," says the Justice Center

What an unbelievably stupid statement!

Unknown said...

Are there any probation departments in the US doing a GOOD job?? BTW how are your restorative justice efforts going? Texas seemed to be at the cutting edge there because of your DA Ronald Earle.

Anonymous said...

There are several proposals in the Fabelo report that could be initiated alone by the department, and they could have a positive impact on the revocation rates. The report notes that some of these, in fact, are already being implemented.

Even though having regional offices is a smart idea, that is something that neither the department nor the judges can control. The county commissioners would have to approve that proposal because by law they are responsible for providing offices and facilities. After recently erecting a brand new building, they probably would not be keen on that idea.

The biggest hurdle for implementing the evidence based practices of the report will be judicial cooperation. If one group of judges isn't willing to find common ground to have some uniform policies, then justice will be poorly served. It is fundamentally unjust for if one person violates their probation and gets treatment while another person with the same offense and criminal history gets revoked for the exact same violation because a different court has a different policy.

One thing missing from the report is the concept of management style. If the management of the department will treat the officers and staff like professionals, then morale can improve, there would be more buy-in for some of the necessary changes, and outcomes would improve.

Anonymous said...

You still have multiple officers supervising ONE defendant. Bexar CSCD doesn't have to regionalize to save money ... one officer per defendant. It's crazy to do otherwise. Sister court supervision was turned down by Cline, after the judges refused to allow regionalization when Paul was there. Too many man hours and resources are wasted, customizing for each court.

Anonymous said...

"The officers told you Fitzgerald was killing the place now we have proof. Fabelo just cost us money to get the word out!!!!!

12/07/2009 04:21:00 PM"

Blogger 4:21 states officers told Grits brought up the union. Let me the first to tell you union or non-union we all hate Fitzgerald.

You may be the only blog or media that cares about the structure of the department. Local media cares about sex offenders and scandal.
Judges respond to votes and Fabelo is a vote killer.

Fabelo was fired from his last State of Texas job and the Connecticut Governor kicked his plans to the curb after some murders they blamed on the Fabelo plan.

Our Revocation Rates were low enough. At what point do we put community at risk. Fitzgerald couldn't lead that was the problem.

I question anything in Fabelo's report because Fitz and Cline gave him all the info. They still have reasons for spinning it their way. Now, Fitz is trying to make the judges who wanted him gone look bad. It won't work!

The layoff talk came after admin got a raise.

I think you are way out of control on your union opinion Grits. The only voice the union had was to sue. We did have changes in mind just no one cared. Grits you get technical on this blog that does sell to the public at large and gets no votes for judges or media hype.

Grits, no one cares if we supervise by courts or zip codes.
The public cares about safety and what Fabelo is promoting is a campaign killer!!!

Grits you do good work but your way to liberal for the main public! Your great but it won't float mainstream!

Anonymous said...

Blogger 8:47

Fitzgerald did the above!!! The old chief had one PO per case! We had a Dual Supervision Court!

It's all leadership!

To Grits;

"This report tells us many things, but what it definitely DOESN'T say is that it's all Bill Fitzgerald's fault.

Ok, you may be right! It just means it was Cline's and Fitzgerald fault.

Anonymous said...

A Connecticut Governor blamed the Fabelo plan for some murders. Sounds like that Governor needed a scapegoat. Some people are just murderers, regardless of whatever philosophy or plan is being followed. What is the murder rate in San Antonio today and is it possible to blame Fabelo. Over supervised sounds stupid. Possibly, but it is a reality. Someone on for POM reports weekly, gives a urinalysis weekly, attends outpatient treatment, and a MTR is filed at the first or second positive. Damm, Heroin addicts don't get that kind of treatment. That's a problem.

Concerns about campaign killing seems to be more of more import than community safety and rehabilitation.

Unfortunately, that is what most of these Judges are concerned with elections right around the corner. It is easy to predict they will sell their souls. Who will get the post? Will it be more of the same? Favors paid out? Wouldn't it be nice if these Judges could come together and hire a real professional with tried experience behind them. Bexar County's department needs real leadership, someone who will be in touch with 2010. Someone who is invested in their community and wants to make it better.

Anonymous said...

To FairPlay, there is a difference between can't pay and won't pay. How many defendants report to their Probation Officer wearing the latest fashions including $200 tennis shoes and more jewelry than I'v ever owned and have the nerve to say they can't make a payment because they don't have any money? They have the latest smart phones but no money for their fees.

10:43, you forgot to mention that Governor Perry did not like Fabelo either. Fabelo himself jokes about being fired by Perry. How many more Governors have to dislike him and his plans before you realize that Fabelo is the problem?

Fabelo's report complains that misdemeanants make up 22% of the population of the Bexar County Jail. Isn't the County Jail for misdemeanants? The state prison system is for felons. Why should the County Jail be overcrowded by the State's prisoners?

Fabelo wants an outside, independent, proven, professional for Chief. Bexar CSCD sort of had one for six years and it didn't work. How does one become a "proven professional" except by being promoted? Why does it have to be an outsider? There are plenty of progressive, forward thinking professionals within Bexar CSCD.

No one has to sell their souls to make a sound decision.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

I appreciate that I don't know all that goes on in the department, and some of 6:08's points, in particular, are well taken.

But others are demonstrating the same attitudes and approaches that IMO have caused the union's efforts to largely fail. Mostly what I see is people naysaying and whining - "can't get there from here" - everything's impossible to fix, but you all damn sure know who to blame. It's no wonder Fabelo and others think promoting from the inside is a bad idea, if these attitudes are any indication. Fitzgerald is gone. You're going to have to find somebody else to pin your problems on now - maybe find a mirror.

For y'all saying "Governor Perry fired Fabelo so why should we want him?", that firing should be viewed as a badge of honor. Perry wanted him to fudge numbers to say prisons weren't overcrowded. He refused and Perry canned him. Would you have that much integrity? You won't even sign your name to insults issued in blog comments, much less stand up to the Governor!

Sam said...

Thanks Scott for your support but I like what I am doing now. Bexar County politics is a full-body contact sport I'd rather not engage in at this time.

Steve said...

The other reason Fabelo was "fired" was because he stood up against TDCJ's proposal to slash probation funding. When state agencies were told to cut funding (was that in 2003?), TDCJ initially proposed to take almost all of its cuts out of probation. Tony told the legislature in very clear language that this would create a disaster. For his efforts, the governor line item vetoed the Criminal Justice Policy Council out of existence. Tony has long been a strong supporter of a good probation system, and you're right, Grits, he is a man of integrity.

Anonymous said...

The presentation you refer to was shown to Bexar County employees and is overwhelmingly approved. Employees are excited about the plan and many have volunteered their time and efforts for a successful transition.

The needed involvement of Fabelo, CJAD, Wentworth, Van De Putte, and the threat to cut off funds does tell us something The judges are very resistant to any changes that reduces their authority to influence and micro manage the probation department.

You state the Pre Sentence Investigation Report are shoddy and unreliable. This may be true but the reports contain the information requested by the judges. Any deviation from the judge approved format is quickly corrected by the judges.

You also state the Bexar County Department is the worst big city department and blame Fitzgerald. We can blame Fitzgerald for not fixing the problems, but the honor for creating the FUBAR goes to former Chief Garcia. Chief Garcia was at the lead for over 20 years. MOst of the problems you speak of existed long before Fitzgerald arrived.

There is no manuel because it would be impracticle to have a separate manuel for 19 different court policies. It is very unlikely the judges will agree on any on court policy. It appears the judges simply do not like each other enough to work together.

Anonymous said...


I agree with your assessment of the union strategies and eventual failure. The union started as a good tool for positive change but has become useless.

All the information, news, and reports associated with the department union is very negative. The face of Sherri Simonelli could be put in the dictionary next to the word "WHINER".

I fear the poor reputation of the Probation Department Union has negatively effected other unions in Bexar County.

By disagreeing with the union you have placed yourself in danger of severe retaliation. I hope you are prepared for treatment similar to what Chief Fitzgerald received.

Anonymous said...

Here is story that may capture the source of many of the problems in the Bexar County Probation Dept.

Many years ago I was a senior executive in a department of corrections responsible for training all corrections personnel - including probation officers. We initiated a statewide effort to standardize procedures across courts so that we could better train officers and do it more consistently throughout the state. As part of this effort we examined the court requirements for presentence investigation reports (PSIR). What we found was that every court had their own unique requirements -- even the forms used by the courts varied.

We initiated a discussion with judges about then need to standardize PSIR processes. At the conceptual level they generally agreed. They recommended that we pull together a representative group of judges to develop a standardized process. A group of 20 judges were brought together at the state corrections academy for a week. At the end of the week they could not find common ground even the most basic things -- whether the PSIR reports should be letter or legal size.

In the end we were never able to develop the consistent high quality training needed because the variability was so great across the courts. The best we could do was to provide probation officer training generally relevant to courts. The unique and specific requirements for each judge could only be trained by that judge for officers working their court.

We knew what needed to be done but could not make it happen with the inability of judges to standardize processes. Perhaps root of the problems revealed by the Fabelo report in Bexar County lies with the judges more than the department.

Sharon said...

I'd like to see a report on the Tarrant County probation department. As bad as Bexar is, I would expect TC to be just as bad. Our experience involves being lied to, lied about and overall poor judgement in decisions. I'm convinced the officers are on a power trip and want to have the 'offenders' revoked. I'm sure there are some honest, dedicated professionals there - I just never met any.

Anonymous said...

I have know Tony Fabelo for about 15 years. His a consummate justice policy professional with an extraordinary sense of personal integrity. I have seen him use research findings and evidence based practices to stand up against bad policy that was politically popular and supported by powerful political forces on many occasions.

Those who suggest otherwise don't know him.

Anonymous said...

Did some of those fired TYC administrators go to work here? Same mess here at Bexar as was in TYC two years ago.

matthew said...

I'm curious if similar issues are reflected in Bexar's juvenile probation department. My experience collaborating with this department would lead me to believe otherwise; however, I wonder if the identified problem of assigning probation officers to courts rather than neighborhoods exists in the juvenile department and, if so, has this produced similar results especially with regard to specialized courts; e.g., mental health and drug courts?

Anonymous said...

Until you take the Judges out of picking the Chief Probation Officer as mandated by state law, you will continue to have the mess that this and other departments are in. The Judges are only interesed in furthering their wishes within their courts and could care less about what is best for the probationers rehabilitation and the safety of the puublic.

Anonymous said...

Scott, I have worked for the Bexar County Adult Probation department (CSCD) over 20+ years. Starting pay at the department was $17,000 in the early 80's. It is currently around $31,000. If you figure the cost of a four year degree in 1980 vs 2006 you can see why no one wants to stay at the department for financial reasons. (Fitzgerald?Cline did away with pay scale/steps.
Being threatened to be fired a couple days before Christmas is another reason not to work there.
Rgearding the Pre-Sentence investigations, the trouble with that unit is their lack of leadership. They have a manager that has parties at his home and he excludes those that he doesn't like. Sound like a "professional Manager" to you. By the way he was Ftzgeralds daily jogging buddy.
A previous manager in the Gang Unit had officers assigned by areas of town under Chief Garcia. However, neither Fitzgerald nor Cline will listen to anyone with experience because they "don't want your input."
A previous manager in the Sex Offender unit tried to assign probationers and officers by zip codes. Fitzgerald and Cline got so upset with his attempts to make that unit more efficient and protect the public safety that they reassigned him to another court.
SAPD was willing to let Sex Offender officers use their substations to better do their jobs. This was nixed by the administration.
Judge Roman told officers that if she had it HER way, they wouldn't do any home visits, period. Looks like she got her way. Gang and Sex Offender units aren't allowd to verify compliance by going into probationers homes.
Fitzgerald and Cline take 8 officers away from supervision, give them $300 per month raises, and tell other officers that they may have to lay off officers! These officers had absolutely NO field experience and have done nothing for several months.
The training unit is an absolute joke. They have very little experience and if you try to give the manager any useful tips you will most likely be cussed out. She really likes the "F" word.
I could go on and on, but no one including you would care to listen. You just want to bash those professional officers (union and non union) that care about following what was the Mission Statement at the probation department. Unfortunately the department is run by non professionals who know very little about the job.
BOTTOM LINE: The residents of Bexar County, the probation officers and probationers all lose with the current administration. Fabelo is right that NO current Administrator/Manager should be considered for the new Chief position.
GOD help us all

Anonymous said...

Mr. Henson,
Blaming the union or line officers for current problems at the Bexar County CSCD is a "Thinking Error" on your part. You are showing a lack of professionalism by not placing the blame where it belongs, Fitzgerald and his administration.
A lack of competent leadership can only be placed on those in charge.
Don't forget that Fitzgerald will be in Federal Court in January 2010.
Merry Christmas Bill, you're not worthy of retention! Could Kathy, Minerva, Robert, Mary, Aimee, Francis, Wade, Ann, Doc and others be next for retention interviews? Stay tuned, this Thursday is reportedly the day that the Judges will pick the new Chief.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

Matthew, the juvie probation bureaucracy is a completely different animal run by different folks.

10:08, thanks for your perspective. And for the record, I do appreciate that not everybody there is just a Negative Nellie and a lot of POs would like to improve. I just think that now is the point in history that tactics must change.

@10:30: I've blamed Fitzgerald plenty - more than most - when he's to blame. But he's gone now. So what if he's in court next month? What does it matter, now? The demonizing tactics of blaming him for every problem and pretending nothing else needs to change besides him exiting will simply not work anymore.

Change at Bexar CSCD is going to require Y'ALL changing, too, and just as importantly, the judges; it's not only an question of switching a figurehead the ED slot - at this point y'all have a messed up, dysfunctional departmental structure and culture, by all appearances.

Anonymous said...


I believe your efforts to influence the union to not blame Fitzgerald and administration will be useless.

Their rhetoric is always the same. Wait to see what else happens, only union members know what is REALLY happening, the rest of us just stupid, the law suits will work just be patient, the administration just needs to follow our advise, and a score of many other wise sayings. The union forgets action and results is what really counts.

There are always some people willing to go down with the ship. Many union members have so much pettiness invested, the facts are just not allowed to get in the way.

Example: Why is blogger 12-8-09 10:08 PM whining about not being invited to a party held by the manager of PSI. I doubt the whiner has ever invited Lewis to a party.

Anonymous said...

Failure goes hand in hand with success. This is true of the Department Union, but it has never lost the hope of a better department, which thanks to them is already happening.

To 8:42 you are obviously not involved with the LABOR movement. Those who are know national labor heads liken her to the tenacious Norma Rae. Some call her "Baby Chavez." That Union will stand by you when others will not.

They are marching onward and looking forward to working with a new director. The Department will be one the Community, Judges, and Officers can trust.

Anonymous said...

Baby Chavez. That explains the whining.

Anonymous said...

Hey, it's getting us a new Chief.

Anonymous said...

1023: Wipe his butt-stuff off your nose.

Anonymous said...

I was just told that the new chief is from Chicago.

Anonymous said...

Gritsyou said, "at this point y'all have a messed up, dysfunctional departmental structure and culture, by all appearances." You are right it is a dysfunctional departmental structure, you are wrong about having a dysfunctional culture. The Officers want an insider to be hired as the Chief becuase an insider knows who's who and the dysfunctional administration will be removed along with the corruption. Someone from the outside does not know who the bad apples are and will likely retain much of the messed up admin. The department does not need Chicago gangster corruption taking over. San Antonio has a great culture, the Officers and staff are of that same culture, and insider will greatly improve department morale. Get a vote from the Judges in public and vote out all who go against what the officers want after all they are the ones that really have to work with the new chief. The department does not need a yes man for the Judges. The department needs to be effective for the community which by the way is that same culture that was referred to.

Anonymous said...

Hiring former Chief Garcia would be a mistake. Many of the people he hired have been fired due to crimes committed in relation to their employment as probation officers.

The last employee fired was Tracey Bogert for a conviction of Tamperning With Government Record. This is bad enough but Garcia hired him knowing Bogert had a conviction for Theft and two convictions for Driving While Intoxicated.

We can certainly find someone with better decision making ability.

Anonymous said...

Former Chief Garcia is cosidered an outsider now. The new Chief should be hired from within the department. Jarvis Anderson was a finalist from within the department. The department would do very well with him and I am sure there would not be any uproar over his appointment.

Anonymous said...

Anderson is one of the few officers in the whole of the department that has a FULL working knowledge of the entire judicial/probation process, as well as CJAD requirements, and laws. He's well respected, strict, but fair. It's a shame he wasn't appointed, the department would have been highly successful under his leadership.

Command Post I said...

Please -- Jarvis has some knowledge but he is not Chief quality. He is good with computers but we have a whole dept. in that area. We need someone to see the big picture and not tied into the political mess. Jarvis is a good old buddy. He is playing on everyone he can to move up. He has only been a manager probably 3 years, and he is not even Administrative material. We already have an unexperienced Union President Simonelli.

The reason he may of been one of the finalist as I heard is he is good buddies with Sherri. Sherri Simonelli worked under his management. They stay well connected and Jarvis sells out quickly. Talking about fairness our former officer Sherri wants to place her buddies in positions not based on qualifications but based on relationship to her. Sherri would of been fired perhaps sooner than she was if her then manager Jarvis did not favor her, and help by turning the other way. Jarvis loved to hear all the union news and any information from the loose mouth Sherri. Jarvis is one who has favorites. If you let Jarvis get away with it - he will push you around especially the males since he likes to show off to the women. I think that is very weak and very unprofessional.

Jarvis is also impulsive - he's the big reason we had a wrongful hire lawsuit. Jarvis got personal and put his foot in it. The department lost this lawsuit, rehired this employee, and paid some big money. I'm happy for the employee who did deserve his job back. But, lets not forget Jarvis was a big screw up on this one. Sherri knows this quite clearly, but again her interest is a favor down the road.

Shame on you Sherri, I can smell what you are up to. You want someone that will help you get rehired. You are using the union for your own personal gain. Breaking any union laws?

Your also very friendly with the former Chief Garcia. Now whats your purpose with him? He couldn't get it straight for over 20 years, and everyone wanted him out including you. Well I can smell that to. You want Caesar to help you get your job back. You scratch his back and he scratches yours. It this unethical? Breaking any union laws?

We need a new Chief? Yes O.k.

We need a new Union President? Yes, For damn sure.

Fabelo showed a diagram of problems within the department, and many say - get rid of the Chief. Well if you can see a diagram of the Steelworkers problems you will say - get rid of the President.

Command Post II said...

I think Grits has touched on a subject worth considering. I think it may be to much nagging. I can understand a union may want to express or submit input as to a selection of a Chief. But, I think they want more. It's like they want to select the Chief. Like listen to me and pick from these two people. Either Caesar or Jarvis!!! Well, If you have an unprofessional approach I don't think anyone is going to listen to you anyway. Give yourself a break, take a breath and then try to be diplomatic. That may help. Of course the other thing is that you may never be happy, and the dept. continues to get rid of the next Chief. Here we go for another two years. Think about it... your only holding back progress.

Anonymous said...

Anderson is the new chief, NOW you'll see how a dept is supposed to run!!!

Anonymous said...

12-11-09 @ 9:54
You're sadly mistaken. The person you mention that was fired and rehired had numerous issues. The reason the department had to "re-hire" him was because of a lack of competence by the head of HR! You could blame Mr. Anderson. but you have no factual basis for that claim. So. my recommendation to you and Sid is stop your WHINING. By the way, is Sid still conducting his realty business on company phones, computers, printers and fax machines? Mary, knew of this but did nothing. SEIU beware of the corrupt and immoral one that is courting you!!!
Note: If you're not a member of C-TAPE, you have no say in whom our President is!