Looks like the Times is finally on the Williams story:O.C. grand jury again criticizes public administrator/public guardian's office
The Orange County grand jury issued a scathing report Tuesday criticizing the public administrator/public guardian's office for "egregious" mismanagement, including questionable promotions that cost hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars.
…
"It was outrageous behavior," jury foreman Jim Perez said.
The public administrator settles the estates of the deceased; the public guardian takes care of people under legal conservatorship. The department handles estates valued at more than $38 million each year, according to the report.
In a move to reduce county costs, the office of the public guardian was split from the Health Care Agency in 2005 and combined with the public administrator. ¶ But instead of saving money, the first grand jury report said, costs went up because of additional management salaries. Staffing levels have risen from seven managers for 67 employees at a cost of $529,796 to 10 managers for the same number of employees at $1.04 million.
Jurors intended to issue only one report on the agency. But within two weeks of its release in May, they got a "significant" number of calls and letters informing them that not only had management not changed, but that the situation had worsened. Another person was promoted to a newly created management position. Meanwhile, staffing levels of caseworkers and their caseloads remained the same.
"The things we highlighted in the first report were still being done very flagrantly," juror Janet Buell said.
…
Department head John Williams will address the [Board of Supervisors] regarding the first report on July 14. He could not be reached for comment.
…
But Williams "needs to have the answers to the management practices and promotion practices," [Board Chairwoman Patricia] Bates said.
According to an employee quoted in the report, temporary promotions were used to "gain support and loyalty" within the agency.
A look at human resources records showed "many instances" of people promoted and then demoted, the report said.
"Someone else needs to make changes," Buell said, "because this management isn't."
11 comments:
Love the fiscal conservative, all worried about the taxpayer.
What a douchebag.
Williams is a dumbass! You think with his OC Education and his MS degree, you would think he could count to ten. In his comments to the OC Register, he states that the Grand Jury has some of its reporting in error, stating that he only has 9 managers, not 10. I am an employee of the department and I am looking at the telephone roster and I clearly see 10 managers, not including himself. There are also six supervisors, not four as indicated by the Grand Jury Report.
Does the Grand Jury know about Williams' "other" job with the SOCCCD? Do you suppose some of those costly trips he took to Florida were paid for--twice--once by the district and again by the County? Double dipping of the worst sort? Given his other acts of dishonesty, I wouldn't put it past him.
And didn't his problematic and dishonest practices (including the hiring and firing of another SOCCCD Board member) sound a lot like the kind of management he has encouraged the Chancellor to engage in?
He reports to them on July 14th?? Bastille Day??? How appropriate for a "Let them eat cake" sort of guy! So much for fiscal conservatism and railing against teachers who "feed from the public trough." To the guillotine with you, Monsieur Williams!
Well, to be fair, Williams has presented himself as a fiscal conservative, but he has also been the loudest (strongest?) advocate for high faculty salaries. I have always assumed that his "liberalism" in this regard reflects his involvement in unionism when he was a cop. Fuentes is the only trustee who has consistently (or ever?) talked that kind of talk you're talking about. Wagner is very Christian right-wing, but he is also essentially pragmatic and does not (these days) seem to buy into the stereotype of the lazy, atheistic academics, thanks to his exposure to IVC's accreditation task force and the faculty thereof. --RB
Not everything in life is good and not everything is bad.
Williams was never organized though he supported organized unions. He supported Raghu to a fault (from what I have seen and heard).
I suspect he won't survive the Grand Jury findings at his FT job; he may, in spite of his saying this is his last term as a BOT member, continue (or try to) on in this capacity.
I'm guessing, 4:08, that you mean to say that no one is all bad or all good. (What you actually say is odd in the extreme.)
For most on the bell curve of human goodness, it can truly be said that they are a mix of the good and the bad, which is not to deny, obviously, that many are more good than bad and some more bad than good.
And surely you recognize that some are extremely good and some are extremely bad. Such people are rare, but they do exist. Or is reality something we may not refer to?
I suspect that you are imposing a philosophy according to which it is unwise or unseemly to condemn people or to otherwise make harsh judgments about them. I certainly agree that there can be conditions of community in which harsh condemnations should be eschewed for the sake of continuing community.
On the other hand, that one grasps this insight opens one to a special fallacy: the failure to condemn when condemnation is more than called for.
John Williams was by far the worst offender during the days when the board "defiantly" operated in secret, a fact easily demonstrated by examining court documents and rulings.
Williams was Steve Frogue's chief supporter. Even after having the character of Frogue's infamous "guest experts" explained to him (by the ADL), Williams supported Frogue's hugely unfortunate "Warren Commission" seminar, a decision that led to national ridicule.
Williams was a prime player when the board responded to the state's concerns about our finances (12 or so years ago) by attempting to intimidate state auditors. (In the end, the ploy didn't work; the district was placed on a fiscal watch list, owing to insufficient reserves.)
Williams engaged in truly egregious campaign tactics at least during his 1996 trustee campaign, which relied on vile and false and homophobic fliers--and smear tactics against at least one board critic.
Williams has always stood out as an abuser of perks such as district-paid junkets to Orlando and elsewhere--a fact that his colleagues have at times sought to highlight.
I could go on like this all day. But I'll mention one more thing:as you note, Williams has consistently supported Raghu Mathur, the fellow who more than anyone is responsible for the difficulties in the district for last dozen or so years: instability, low morale, etc.
Given the facts, one must judge Mr. Williams to be an extremely bad public servant. I do not call him a "douchebag." Nor do I favor lopping off his head. But I do think that the fellow fits the definition of a "jerk": a: an annoyingly stupid or foolish person b: an unlikable person; especially: one who is cruel, rude, or small-minded" (Merriam-Webster)
4:08 here.
Thanks Roy but my reference to not all good, not all bad, is from Silko's novel Cememony where Joshua sees not all Indians as good, all whites as bad. Joshua serves as a mentor for Tayo, the novel's troubled hero, a half breed, existing in two worlds and disowned at times by both.
Silko's view is larger than the individual Williams whose jerkness I have witnessed first hand. I have been on the receiving end of BOT decisions(and the worst ones were when Williams held the gavel--few to my liking and few that serve our two colleges.
So, to be as fair to the man as I can given my knowledge, nothing I've read indicates Williams violated any laws but he was placed in a post for which he was unfit for duty. He may just be truly so dense that he cannot see what he has done or not done.
For example, he clearly does not know what "a fiscal conservative" since he fails to practice frugality by saving tax payers money by running his business for the county effectively and efficiently.
And he has voted on pouring money into ATEP, a noble idea(ATEP that is) handled badly and made worse by an economy that will not reward a CC with getting this project to an actual permanent building.
4:08/4:28, thanks for the clarification.
Sounds good to me. One thing though: Williams (and three other board members) did definitely violate the Brown Act--several times. In fact, for a time, the Board Majority (especially with Williams as president) was the poster child for Brown Act violations.
And, as you may know, the board/Chancellor did violate a state statute when they drafted and passed a faculty hiring policy without the involvement of faculty. Luckily, the court (in appeal) agreed. The implications of that decision will be felt for many years.
-R
4:08
Yes, quite so on the violations. I was there--up close and intimate.
No good ever comes from the crap some BOT members put into motion and Raghu will go down with them. He's already down--morally bankrupt.
Sounds like Williams has a long history of "dancing to his own tune". Why is it some people feel rules just weren't made for them.
Post a Comment