Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Joe Moore and Ethics He Can Live With

In the Federal sector, when you are terminated from a job it is a serious matter.  Depending on the agency, employee status (i.e. covered under a negotiated agreement), and all the variables surrounding your case, being terminated is usually the last resort of the agency, and would likely be considered termination for cause.

Employees can be, and are, terminated for misconduct or poor job performance, although the latter is less common.  In both cases there are a slew of opportunities to impose lesser sanctions, identify ways to improve performance, and execute appeal rights if management goes forward with termination (or suspensions for that matter).  The point being that employees have opportunities to avoid termination and be heard if they, and their representative, believe they are being treated unfairly. 

I bring this up because in reviewing the IVI-IPO questionnaires (thanks to Joe Moore's FUD campaign against Brian White) I noticed a couple of responses by Moore that concern me.

7.  Will you vote for an ordinance mandating that the City contest unemployment claims by former employees who were fired for cause? 

8.  Will you vote for an ordinance forbidding the City to hire or contract the services of anyone previously fired for cause from the City or any other unit of government?

Joe responded "No" to both questions without explanation.  I'd sure like to know why he is willing to allow employees terminated for cause to collect unemployment or be hired.  If they were terminated for cause then they either were non-performers or they were misbehaving.  Why should taxpayers pay for people who can't/won't do the job, or are violating the terms of their employment.

This question's response also got my attention;

12.   Will you or have you accepted campaign donations from people or businesses seeking zoning changes in your ward?

Joe's response;

I have an open, transparent and community-based process with respect to zoning issues in my ward and have an independent committee Zoning and Land Use Advisory Committee that makes recommendations on all zoning and land use issues that come before me, recommendations that I accept nearly 90% of the time.  Nonetheless, to avoid any concern that my zoning decisions could be influenced, I generally avoid accepting campaign contributions from individuals who have pending zoning matters.   (emphasis in bold underlined is mine)

I'd like to know why Joe is comfortable accepting any money from individuals with pending zoning matters in front of him.  You would think after the 2007 election he'd be inclined to err on the side of discretion.  He doesn't say that he has accepted such donations this time (we'd have to check the reports at the Board of Elections) but he equivocates instead.  The use of "generally" suggests the door will open if you know the super sekrit password.  Apparently there are contributors he just can't say 'no' to.


PR Hell said...

I'm very disappointed to say that neighborhood blogger and local odd fellow Tom Westgard has now been completely discredited. You might have seen the fake Twitter account "AldermanBrian," which blatently attacks Brian and, presumably, me. Having been in touch with Twitter and investigated in other ways, it has been confirmed that Tom Westergard is the childish, spiteful little person behind this Twitter account. This pretty much blows the roof off of any attempts he makes to appear like a legitimate reporting site. If you follow the footprints, it also seems like Joe Moore is likely behind all of Tom's activities.

Tom Westgard is clearly a shill for Joe Moore.



Thomas Westgard said...

Scott Phillips continues his rumor mill online. I've already said that, as much as I love the AldermanBrian twitter feed, it's not me. So obviously denying it or pointing to the lack of proof won't satisfy the need.

So to this I say, so what? Brian promised Joe for years he wasn't running, but at the last minute decided to betray that trust and run. It's not like Brian didn't enter politics with subterfuge, he just likes to act like he's above it when the consequences come down on him. Brian's lies bring consequences, as Brian and his friends are just beginning to discover.

I wish I were as funny as the people running AldermanBrian, but that's not my skill. Whatever you choose to believe, watching Scott and Brian whine that they lost the game through bad planning and ineptitude is kind of pathetic. You see? Sanctimony I'm good at. Humor, not as much. Enjoy the rest of your day.

Thomas Westgard said...

As to your actual point, Kheris, I think a truly open zoning process would include a list of exceptions and the reasoning behind them. Joe has a 10% exception ratio. That's pretty big - I don't think anyone believes corrupt aldermen take bribes on 100% of their decisions. If Joe wants to lean on his transparency, it would be reasonable to ask about who got the exceptions and why? By exceptions, I include both contravening ZALUAC and taking donations.

"Mandating" a challenge to unemployment seems more questionable to me. It forces managers to contemplate additional punishments. Maybe some bad workers won't be fired because the manager doesn't want that additional backlash. Maybe there are costs and risks to challenges. It puts workers in an even more subservient position to their immediate supervisor, which can be abused. I support a review process for challenging unemployment, but automatic total mandates push in a lot of directions that may not be beneficial.

Hugh said...

I checked on this whole twitter thing and learned that Twitter was contacted to confirm that Tom Westgard is behind the childish site.

Sounds like he really is working for Joe and/or has an axe to grind with Brian White.

Kheris said...

For PR Hell and Hugh; gentlemen - I am curious as all get out on how anyone could prevail upon Twitter to reveal anything about any user, including myself. I looked at both of the Twitter accounts PR Hell has listed and both look like spoofs to me. By the way, PR Hell I assume Westgard is correct that you are Scott Phillips, based on my learning you are following The Epic Journey of 2010.

Either pony up the info to back up your claims that Westgard is the spoofer, or the playground is closed on that issue.

For Thomas Westgard - I don't agree at all with your reasoning on unemployment challenges. Management's focus should be on the issue and the appropriate remedy, not what options are available to the employee if terminated for cause.

If the termination is for cause, and if the former employee is not entitled to unemployment for that reason, then mandating challenges makes sense to me. Why should someone be paid after being relieved of their job for misconduct or non-performance? The fact that the IVI-IPO put that into their questionnaire suggests there is an issue swirling around it, although I have not looked into it.

Thomas Westgard said...

Point of agreement here is that I would want more information on the unemployment question. Why are they asking? I don't know much about the law of requesting unemployment, and of the bases for challenging it. Are they the same as firing a person for any cause? I may have spoken too quickly, because the more I think about it, I may not know enough to say whether I think this is a good or bad idea.