Friends of the Sheriff

[no_such_reality]

[quote]Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca maintained a special hiring program that granted preferential treatment to the friends and relatives of department officials, including some candidates who were given jobs despite having troubled histories, according to interviews and internal employment records reviewed by The Times.
[/quote]
http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-friends-of-the-sheriff-20131219,0,901455.story#ixzz2nta1PPI5

Just more of the stringent hiring practices.

[spdrun]

Happens in Jerkwater, USA (look up Daniel Harmon-Wright), no reason why it can’t happen in a big city. Not really surprising — only surprise is that it took as long to come out as it did.

[paramount]

Sadly Baca will probably get re-elected.

[CA renter]

Yep, a relatively new program, and a bad one. They’re stopping it immediately because of a newspaper article/investigation. My guess is that someone from the inside blew the whistle on it. Good for them.

Note that many people who tried to go through this program did NOT get hired. Not sure why some were and some weren’t, but my guess is that most of the people who were hired through the program were qualified. Some bad apples got through the screening process, though some investigators/hiring officials apparently tried to stop some of them from getting through.

Let’s see what happens. IMO, it’s probable that people are going to lose their jobs over this. Not only that, but some people might end up being criminally charged. It will be interesting to watch.

Tell me, nsr: What would happen in the private sector (where you seem to think hiring standards are higher) if someone hired a friend or relative who wasn’t qualified for the job? Would their names be in the paper along with the names of the hirees and the disqualifying factors? Would there be official investigations? Would they lose their jobs? Would they be criminally charged and/or end up in jail?

[spdrun]

Shareholders and customers aren’t generally forced to give up their money, taxpayers are. Therefore, taxpayer money is generally held in higher regard, and government hiring should be held to higher standards.

[Gunslinger]

[quote=CA renter]Yep, a relatively new program, and a bad one. They’re stopping it immediately because of a newspaper article/investigation. My guess is that someone from the inside blew the whistle on it. Good for them.

Note that many people who tried to go through this program did NOT get hired. Not sure why some were and some weren’t, but my guess is that most of the people who were hired through the program were qualified. Some bad apples got through the screening process, though some investigators/hiring officials apparently tried to stop some of them from getting through.

Let’s see what happens. IMO, it’s probable that people are going to lose their jobs over this. Not only that, but some people might end up being criminally charged. It will be interesting to watch.

Tell me, nsr: What would happen in the private sector (where you seem to think hiring standards are higher) if someone hired a friend or relative who wasn’t qualified for the job? Would their names be in the paper along with the names of the hirees and the disqualifying factors? Would there be official investigations? Would they lose their jobs? Would they be criminally charged and/or end up in jail?[/quote]

My, My, My…arent you the gal who ripped me for suggesting such a thing exists. Just the tip of the iceberg here. Enjoy life in your bubble.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=CA renter]Yep, a relatively new program, and a bad one. They’re stopping it immediately because of a newspaper article/investigation. My guess is that someone from the inside blew the whistle on it. Good for them.

Note that many people who tried to go through this program did NOT get hired. Not sure why some were and some weren’t, but my guess is that most of the people who were hired through the program were qualified. Some bad apples got through the screening process, though some investigators/hiring officials apparently tried to stop some of them from getting through.

Let’s see what happens. IMO, it’s probable that people are going to lose their jobs over this. Not only that, but some people might end up being criminally charged. It will be interesting to watch.

Tell me, nsr: What would happen in the private sector (where you seem to think hiring standards are higher) if someone hired a friend or relative who wasn’t qualified for the job? Would their names be in the paper along with the names of the hirees and the disqualifying factors? Would there be official investigations? Would they lose their jobs? Would they be criminally charged and/or end up in jail?[/quote]

No CAR, you’re the one always asserting that the Government employs such stringent hiring criteria.

Relatively new in this case means 8 years old. Basically it’s as old as Piggington’s. Granted Piggs about a year on it.

As for private enterprise, what private people do with their money is their business.

What the Government does with OUR money is OUR business. But you chronically have a problem with that along with the concept that the Government employees work for “the people” and instead insist they work for their department.

As we saw in the other thread, you can’t even acknowledge that the pubic sector unions are just as manipulative and just as dirty for gaming the political system as any CEO and company. As such, anyone taking their living from the ill gotten gains of the union is just as dirty as any CEO bilking the system.

[CA renter]

[quote=Gunslinger][quote=CA renter]Yep, a relatively new program, and a bad one. They’re stopping it immediately because of a newspaper article/investigation. My guess is that someone from the inside blew the whistle on it. Good for them.

Note that many people who tried to go through this program did NOT get hired. Not sure why some were and some weren’t, but my guess is that most of the people who were hired through the program were qualified. Some bad apples got through the screening process, though some investigators/hiring officials apparently tried to stop some of them from getting through.

Let’s see what happens. IMO, it’s probable that people are going to lose their jobs over this. Not only that, but some people might end up being criminally charged. It will be interesting to watch.

Tell me, nsr: What would happen in the private sector (where you seem to think hiring standards are higher) if someone hired a friend or relative who wasn’t qualified for the job? Would their names be in the paper along with the names of the hirees and the disqualifying factors? Would there be official investigations? Would they lose their jobs? Would they be criminally charged and/or end up in jail?[/quote]

My, My, My…arent you the gal who ripped me for suggesting such a thing exists. Just the tip of the iceberg here. Enjoy life in your bubble.[/quote]

Read that thread again. I was refuting another poster’s assertion that people can only get jobs with public employers if they have connections. How many people do you personally know who were hired because of such a program? What percentage of the employees at the LAPD (who turned down some of these FOS candidates) were hired because of nepotism vs an objective, and very stringent hiring process?

Again, of all the people I know who work or have worked in the public sector, NONE of them was hired as a result of nepotism. Every single person I know who tried to get hired because they had a relative in a higher position in that department was turned down for the job.

[CA renter]

[quote=no_such_reality][quote=CA renter]Yep, a relatively new program, and a bad one. They’re stopping it immediately because of a newspaper article/investigation. My guess is that someone from the inside blew the whistle on it. Good for them.

Note that many people who tried to go through this program did NOT get hired. Not sure why some were and some weren’t, but my guess is that most of the people who were hired through the program were qualified. Some bad apples got through the screening process, though some investigators/hiring officials apparently tried to stop some of them from getting through.

Let’s see what happens. IMO, it’s probable that people are going to lose their jobs over this. Not only that, but some people might end up being criminally charged. It will be interesting to watch.

Tell me, nsr: What would happen in the private sector (where you seem to think hiring standards are higher) if someone hired a friend or relative who wasn’t qualified for the job? Would their names be in the paper along with the names of the hirees and the disqualifying factors? Would there be official investigations? Would they lose their jobs? Would they be criminally charged and/or end up in jail?[/quote]

No CAR, you’re the one always asserting that the Government employs such stringent hiring criteria.

Relatively new in this case means 8 years old. Basically it’s as old as Piggington’s. Granted Piggs about a year on it.

As for private enterprise, what private people do with their money is their business.

What the Government does with OUR money is OUR business. But you chronically have a problem with that along with the concept that the Government employees work for “the people” and instead insist they work for their department.

As we saw in the other thread, you can’t even acknowledge that the pubic sector unions are just as manipulative and just as dirty for gaming the political system as any CEO and company. As such, anyone taking their living from the ill gotten gains of the union is just as dirty as any CEO bilking the system.[/quote]

You are a consumer of public services, and you have choices just the same as any other consumer. If you don’t like to pay taxes, there are plenty of other cities, states, and countries that have lower or no taxes. Feel free to move there if you feel it’s that important.

Once you pay for something, whether it’s a good or a service, that money is no longer yours. Whether the provider of those goods and services is public or private does not matter. You are not the employer of public sector workers, you are a consumer of their employers’ services/infrastructure, etc.

And you still haven’t answered my question from the other thread: Which private employers (not government contractors) require their employees to go through a hiring process that is anywhere near as stringent as those found in public service?

[spdrun]

Except that the public is both the shareholder AND the consumer. Shareholders have the right to sanction management for ill-use of money.

By your philosophy, any amount of public waste would be acceptable and the public should just suck up and deal with it. Unacceptable.

[booter1]

As a former law enforcement officer at municipal and federal level this FOS program is unacceptable.
Evidence of that is LASD shutting it down when news became public. The public needs to trust that hiring is on qualifications and merit- not who has friends in high places.
There are plenty of qualified candidates.
“light of day” transparency should be the goal.

[CA renter]

[quote=booter1]As a former law enforcement officer at municipal and federal level this FOS program is unacceptable.
Evidence of that is LASD shutting it down when news became public. The public needs to trust that hiring is on qualifications and merit- not who has friends in high places.
There are plenty of qualified candidates.
“light of day” transparency should be the goal.[/quote]

Agree 100%.

[CA renter]

[quote=spdrun]Except that the public is both the shareholder AND the consumer. Shareholders have the right to sanction management for ill-use of money.

By your philosophy, any amount of public waste would be acceptable and the public should just suck up and deal with it. Unacceptable.[/quote]

Not at all; I’m a taxpayer advocate. But the notion that taxpayers get to dictate everything that happens in the public sphere in asinine. Too many diametrically opposed interests there (and ignorant masses who are easily led by those who seek to corrupt the system), which would lead to even more bureaucratic nightmares and corruption. That’s why we have representative government (imperfect as it may be).

I do like your argument about the public being shareholders, but the individual shareholder of the Joe Sixpack variety has very little say in how companies are run. This is why special interest groups are formed…and we’re back to the corruption problem.

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]You are a consumer of public services, and you have choices just the same as any other consumer. If you don’t like to pay taxes, there are plenty of other cities, states, and countries that have lower or no taxes. Feel free to move there if you feel it’s that important.[/quote]

So why are you always bitching about bankers, the rich, and the realtors, and … well … just about everybody?

Why not take your own advice?

If you don’t like the ones we got, just move somewhere else.

Your entire worldview, demonstrated by years of posts here, is based upon the double standard.

[Gunslinger]

[quote=CA renter][quote=booter1]As a former law enforcement officer at municipal and federal level this FOS program is unacceptable.
Evidence of that is LASD shutting it down when news became public. The public needs to trust that hiring is on qualifications and merit- not who has friends in high places.
There are plenty of qualified candidates.
“light of day” transparency should be the goal.[/quote]

Agree 100%.[/quote]

Agree 100% too. There are plenty of qualified candidates. Unfortunately we dont get always get them.

[Author]

Posts