Recognize this?
In my many rants about the boondoggles perpetrated by the Portland Development Commission, I have noted that there are several other "semi-autonomous" (i.e., not really accountable) public agencies around that are easy prey for private looting. Among these are Tri-Met, OHSU, the Lottery, Saif, and the Port of Portland.
An interesting parallel between the PDC and the Port showed up today, buried at the very end of an Oregonian story about a whistleblower lawsuit. In the suit, the disgruntled former Port employee complains about favoritism within the Port among its personnel. The allegation that caught my eye (after being directed there by an alert reader) was this one:
In March 2004, Baynton, who is white, expressed concerns to Woodworth about an African American employee's being passed over for management consideration. Baynton told Woodworth that, unlike white managerial employees, African Americans were not given personal management coaches.Here we go again with the "management coaches." Which managers are so crummy that they need "coaches"? And who are the "coaches"? How are they hired? How much are we paying them, on top of the people whom they're coaching?
I sure hope some enterprising journalist (or prosecutor) in town starts asking some serious questions over at the Port -- not just who had the beer, but something much more important. I'm suspect there are more sad parallels over there to the goofball antics of the PDC.
| Posted at 3:40 PM | Permalink |
|
Comments (11)
Jack -- it is hopeless. Don't you realize that all over our world, people employed by agencies (and also large institutions) are constantly attending conferences, getting seminars, receiving newsletters, etc. -- everyone sees the same ideas, all want parity in the world of bureaucratic largesse. I would actually not be at all surprised to know that "coaching" is commonplace, at least on the two coasts, and some larger urban areas. It's in the same vane as "stress management" seminars, "customer relations training" and so on.
BTW, I suspect your locals in the "semi-autonomous" agencies you mention would prefer the term "enterprise" agencies ... heh. We are just private firms in disguise, and so forth.
No doubt some of this training is good, and lord knows many people in every employment situation could use some "coaching" in terms of dealing with the public and producing generally. But public agencies tend to be right in the forefront of these trends, costly (and perhaps irrelevant) as they might be. And there they shall remain.
Posted by cajun100 | October 7, 2005 5:16 PM
But not secretly.
Posted by Jack Bog | October 7, 2005 5:17 PM
The employee was not disgruntled she had professional ethics and questioned unethical behavior. That's the quickest way to be shown the door in Neil's world.
Posted by Ethical | October 7, 2005 6:08 PM
"Disgruntled" means "unhappy, annoyed and disappointed about something."
Once you're suing your ex-employer, I'd say you meet that description, whether you're vindicating ethics or not.
Posted by Jack Bog | October 7, 2005 8:22 PM
Which managers are so crummy that they need "coaches"?
Most of them.
Posted by Jay | October 7, 2005 9:55 PM
But I think the adjective "disgruntled" is often used to diminish the person to whom it is applied: to imply that he or she is acting for personal revenge instead of to do what is right for the greater good. No question whistleblowers get screwed in Neil'ys World, a world I wish the O would give us its reasons for wanting to perpetuate by tirelessly upholding Teddy K as the best possible Democratic candidate for gov next year.
Posted by Cynthia | October 8, 2005 11:31 AM
But I think the adjective "disgruntled" is often used to diminish the person to whom it is applied
Not by me, and not in the dictionary.
Posted by Jack Bog | October 8, 2005 12:13 PM
OK, but what does being right have to do with what happens in Oregon? :). Seriously, what I was trying to communicate, however poorly, is that,even if the adjective is used correctly, the personal disgruntledness (disgruntlement?) gets blown up as a motive for taking action when there are broader public interest motives that, imo, deserve the focus.
Posted by Cynthia | October 8, 2005 3:21 PM
Pardon me, but did anyone notice the other part of this:
African Americans were not given personal management coaches.
Thanks
JK
Posted by jim karlock | October 8, 2005 3:28 PM
"even if the adjective is used correctly, the personal disgruntledness (disgruntlement?) gets blown up as a motive for taking action when there are broader public interest motives that, imo, deserve the focus."
Right. Where are the gruntled, when they're really needed?
Posted by Allan L. | October 8, 2005 5:21 PM
I know this is probably terribly naive of me- but whatever happened to the concept of hiring people who actually have the skills to do the job in question? Back in the day- if you couldn't do the job then you lost it. The thought of hiring outside help would have been laughable. Methinks it's all part of the dumbing down of America.
Posted by Lily | October 10, 2005 10:32 AM