This Issue's Articles:

On Point by Gil Moreno
Expansion of the Board of Supervisors from 5 to 9 is Critical to the Latino Community by Alan Clayton
A Passionate Advocate for Chicanos
On the Record
Photos from our gathering at Giffith Park
Parting Shot of Lalo Guerrero

From the President
Amy Gutierrez

As a Los Angeles Times editorial pointed out, Proposition 21, the Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention Act, won decisively. We agree that juveniles who commit violent crimes should be punished. But LACCEA opposed the measure because we believe there should be a balance between punitive measures and rehabilitation.

The editorial points out that even the measure's most active proponent, Assemblyman Rod Pacheco (R-Riverside), acknowledges that if prosecutors are to exercise their newfound discretion in a wise manner, "they need not only punitive measures allowed by Proposition 21 but also juvenile crime treatment and prevention programs."

The measure does not fund such programs. Hence it was encouraging to read that The Times suggested to the Legislature that the lack of funding can be remedied by passing bills such as AB 1913 introduced by Assemblyman Tony Cardenas that would provide funding for community-based gang prevention programs. AB 1913, which the LACCEA supports, provides a ray of hope for an approach to juvenile crime that addresses problems with youth. We either pay now with preventative approaches or pay later with incarceration. To our members who work in the Probation Department, Proposition 21 imposes new requirements. Read it carefully.

On a personal note, we suffered the loss of a true compañero, Armando Cortez, a LACCEA board member for three years. He worked for the Department of Children & Family Services for about 20 years. He died on February 5, 2000. According to popular belief among Mexicanos, the deceased have divine permission to visit friends and relatives on Earth on the first and second of November because in Mexico death is considered to be a part of life. ¡Hasta entonces compañero!

On Point
by
Gil Moreno
The promotional process in the county can be a wild ride. It usually begins with the bulletin for the position, which will indicate the minimum requirements. Civil Service rule 7, "Competitive Examinations," addresses the process from cradle to grave. Keep in mind that at nearly every stage of an examination for a promotion, if you think there's an error, you can protest it. Throughout the process, performance evaluations (PEs) are critical. Not only must you know your job duties and what's expected of you, but it helps to be familiar with the procedure for getting ahead. New county employees as well as old-timers are entitled to a yearly PE. Civil Service rule 20 is devoted to PEs. Section 20.04 discusses the rating standards for permanent employees: "Outstanding" they're rare but I've seen them; "Very Good"; "Competent"; and "Improvement Needed."

If this is news to you, then you may not be getting a PE on a yearly basis. In the absence of a PE, an employee is rated administratively competent. For anything above an overall "Competent" rating, the rater usually a direct supervisor must cite factual evidence to justify the higher rating. By all means, stay away from a PE with an overall rating of Improvement Needed." It means an employee is on really thin ice. It's bad news. PEs are important because they let employees know how they're doing on the job. In turn, they're important to management to gauge, somewhat subjectively, how employees will perform at a higher classification. Ideally, the rater who signs the PE should include comments, if applicable, praising an employee's work product. The comments might give one employee an edge over another.

Employees who are dissatisfied with a lousy PE can, of course, grieve it. The general rule is that a grievance must be filed within 10 business days after the employee receives the PE. When vacancies need to be filled, a bulletin is posted, applications are taken and employees are ranked on an eligibility list according to their score. Typically, the score is determined by a combination of factors, including a rating from records, which is a review of the employee's personnel records, an appraisal of promotability (AP), which, in theory, forecasts how an employee will do at higher level, a written examination, and an interview.

The AP assessment is, generally, based on the employee's last three PEs. Employees dissatisfied with a lousy AP score and/or rating from records score or some other component of the examination can file an appeal. Departmental grievances regarding PEs are generally filed with the department. On the other hand, examination appeals must be filed with the Department of Human Resources (DHR), sometimes referred to as the Director of Personnel (DOP). Under certain circumstances, an AP appeal may proceed to the civil service commission. How are you supposed to remember all of that? By calling us. Don't blow the time within which you must file a PE grievance or a promotional examination appeal. If a matter does not involve a promotion or a PE grievance but a disciplinary matter anything from a written reprimand to a discharge you should be diligent about that too. Call us. We're here to help you preserve your rights and keep your job. ¡Ponte chango!