I have a hard time getting worked up over rumor Dave.

EDITOR NOTE–Don’t need to get worked up. We checked with other sources–both official and private–and they had all heard threads of the posting with the exception of the recent bonuses. Sis, these people love to use the old “file a FOI” line and then string it out for the lawyers, deny half the request etc.

Look for documents to start surfacing on this one.

Sis:
I agree one should not get “worked up” over rumors. But one of the main jobs of any good journalist is to check out rumors.

Most rumors are based at least partly on fact; they then can escalate in the telling, to where, for example, one student molests two or three other students and the school covers it up grows to sound like dozens of students are molesting hundreds of others and the school administration is secretly killing those who tattle.

The fact that the rumors may be overdone doesn’t alter the fact that something happened. It’s up to journalists to check them out and try to pin down what’s true. Then, and only then, will cops and other officials be likely to get interested.

As for The Guardian editor: Good job once again in picking up the rumors and trying to get to the truth.

Now, of course, the question arises: If two departments have done this type of thing, have others also done similar tricks with our money? If so, I hope employees of those departments also will be brave enough to talk. Yes, their e-mails are monitored, but only the ones from their work computers. If they’re afraid their home systems may also somehow be tapped, they can go to Kinkos or other places that make computers available to the public (sometimes for a fee; at libraries they usually are free).

Keep swatting the underhanded officials upside the head with that two-by-four, Dave. They need it!

Boy, am I glad the fourth estate (the press’s explicit capacity of advocacy and in its implicit ability to frame political issues) is balanced by judicial jurisprudence.

In a court of law, all citizens of the United States are afforded the assumption of being innocent until proven guilty. Your accusations assume guilt and place the burden of proving innocence on those who are accused.

What great position to be in, Dave; casting aspersions and then sitting back and watching as state employees (paid by your tax dollars) scramble to respond to public record requests when their time should be spent on the tasks they have been hired to perform.

You’re right, government is PUBLIC and, as such, most governmental employees recognize the need for transparency and accountability in transacting the public’s business. There are those who just don’t get it but, all governmental employees should not be painted with your same broad brush.

What you and others don’t seem to acknowledge is the fact that government employees do not come from another planet. “They” are your spouses, relatives, friends, and neighbors. “They” have the same frustrations and concerns as you.

I appreciate that you have offered to give officials space to deny accusations. Your actions, however, have already “poisoned the well” and perpetuated the perception that governmental officials are “underhanded” as exemplified by Gordon’s comments.

Good journalism should be informative and balanced, i.e., both sides of an issue should be fully investigated and documented before a story is released. Bad journalism is slanted, inciteful, and just plain lazy.

Get out there and do your homework, Dave! Don’t abdicate your investigative responsibilities to others, especially those in state government who are desperately trying to do more and more with less and less every year!

EDITOR NOTE–Joe, I fully appreciate state employees and in sympathy of them offer up this forum. They–not I–are disgruntled. Management would certainly not offer them a voice to the public. We are not a court and we are not a newspaper. This is a blog and we deny access only when it is outrageous, profane, or obviously without foundation.

Gordon, I lean towards Joe on this one. Spreading unfounded rumor has the potential for great harm. Its not just that the post is based on unidentified people with an ax to grind but also that I don’t understand the relevance and connection to the nematode case, the bonuses or speculation about emails.

This is why I’m not too “worked up” over the hint of possible wrongdoing. And I confess that I disagree with the premise that providing bonuses to certain public employees is a misuse of tax money.

Dave I certainly value the job you do as watchdog but I think you do yourself a disservice and undermine your credibility and value when you fail to connect the dots or accumulate enough dots to connect to make a picture. I very much appreciate that you are filling a role that investigative journalists previously filled before they became leashed and muzzled and that you overturn rocks others have left lying.

But here you merely prompt that same compromised media to make the case and in so doing you’re giving the department the same heads up a FOIA request would do.

On the positive side I note you scooped the daily on the City hiring lobbyists. I hope you get some bragging rights on this one too but from what I see so far the Department has a million ways to spin this and I’m not sure I see enough juice to interest a young and hungry reporter or the person holding her leash.

I too am not in favor of bonuses in state pay but the Legislature seems to like them, telling agencies they could use any surplus personnel money in this way.

From what I can understand of the legislative action on state payroll last session, I don’t think anyone acted illegally but it sure does seem unwise.

Back in the 1970s the state was phasing into zero base budeting but within a decade the whole process seemed to have been abandoned and forgotten. Never learned what happened.

Folks, go take a look at the Change in Employee Compensation recommendations on the State web site. State worker pay continues to lag an average of 15%-plus behind the pay of similar jobs in the private sector.

You may remember Ann Heilman’s (former Administrator of the Division of Human Resources under Kempthorne’s administration) well researched and reasoned recommendations last year regarding a plan to bring state workers to parity with their private counterparts over the next five years or so.

Although accurate and warranted, DHR’s recommendations were not well received by her boss or the legislature. Not sure where Ann is currently . . .

You may also want to take some time to investigate what is happening with the Division of Human Resources, the Division of Financial Management, and the Department of Administration under the current Administration. I’m all for efficiency, transparency, and streamling of government but, these actions appear to be obfuscating the process instead.

The legislature is loathe to approve adequate increases in state employee pay on an annual basis. As I said before, state workers do not come from another planet; they have the same expenses as everyone else. Unfortunately, by law, any increases in employee compensation are appropriated with the caveat they are to be allocated based on merit. As a result, many state employees who are meeting their performance expectations may actually see a decrease in their buying power because they do not receive either a cost of living adjustment or the full CEC increase.

Merit-based pay may sound good in theory but, it doesn’t work so well in practice. Performance evaluations are very subjective and performance critera for the same function vary widely between supervisors and organizational units. The bottom line is the process is not objective or fair and a number of deserving individuals don’t get the full benefit of the additional funds recieved by state agencies.

Over the course of a fiscal year agencies accrue salary savings from vacant positions. These funds may be converted into one-time bonuses for deserving individuals or they may be used to increase pay on a permanent basis. Given the status of state employee compensation and prospects for the future, agencies must use all the tools they have at their disposal to retain their employees before they jump ship.

Unlike the bonuses from the Department of Education, for those agencies that are not headed by constitutionally-elected leaders, the process of requesting a bonus for a deserving employee is rigorous.

A final thought, a comparison of the percent increase in the state’s population and the percent increase in the number of state employees providing services to this ever increasing constituency should be considered in this dialog as well. An increasing demand for government services has not been addressed by a correlative increase in staff to provide those services. With low pay and perpetuation of the lazy public employee stereotype, the beneficaries of public services (the citizens of the state) will ultimately “get what they pay for”.

As the baby-boomers retire and the state continues to experience increased difficulty in recruiting and retaining employees the level of service is most assuredly going to deteriorate unless there are some major paradigm shifts.

Again, I encourage folks to do their homework so they may express an informed opinion.

Joe talks out of both sides of his mouth. He defends the process then complains about it. He tells you, you’re a bad boy for printing rumors, then after it is proven, tells us a boring soap box story that every one has already heard before.

It bounces away from the addressed problem. 32 secret bonuses with a huge one to an exiting favored employee is the subject. Since it’s no secret that people are upset there; it’s a problem whether the bonuses are justified or not.

Cyclops is right, “If you don’t like it, nobody is forcing you to stay there. Actually from your posts, I would say you would not be one I would trust anyway. Defend, stab, defend, stab….If it doesn’t meet your agenda, change the agenda till it does. You have your opinion but so do we.