[quote=no_such_reality]CD, it’s not really about the stupid employees. It’s about the handing of the employee’s stupidity and the reality of them being just like the scums in the private sector contrary to the meme of the dedicated sacrificing government worker.
It’s about the handling of the situations, lack of accountability, inability to discipline, a level of evidence needed to take disciplinary action and the failure of the government to pursue that evidence even though they have a high level of proof.
It’s about the perception that it has become so rampant that I feel like I’m reading about it on a daily basis.
Most public employees are good people, doing a good job, there is a subset that isn’t. There is a bizarre nothing to see here attitude, circle the wagons, code of silence that they protect the bad apples with the full clot of their unions.
It’s coming to an election season, we’re going to be bombarded with ads from the Teachers unon saying basically ‘protect the children’, sadly, I feel like I read an article every week with a teacher preying on children.[/quote]NSR, there are absolutely NO “Rules of Evidence” in Kangaroo Court. The hearing officer (5 cmsrs, each appointed by a County Supervisor) decides the disciplinary and selection cases upon their “gut feeling,” the exhibits entered by the parties and their perceived “credibility” of the testimony of the witnesses who were brought in to testify. This “witness” in the public administrator case did not “see” anything and therefore was not a “percipient witness,” so was subject to likely impeachment and being made a fool of by the accused’s union rep or attorney while on the stand. These types of witnesses are likely to waffle and go south on their departments on the stand and only serve to embarrass them and show the cmsr just how low the dept will stoop to try to remove someone that one of their stupidvisors “has a bone to pick with” or feels “threatened by.”
If the department decided to spend big bucks on gathering “evidence” from the paper towels, it would have done them no good. The “subject” is not required to give samples of any bodily fluids and in any case, he wouldn’t. He was not being accused of a crime and even if his employer was a law enforcement agency, this is not a criminal action.
