This exchange on politics and employment got buried in comments on a recent video of Ruby & Daisy, two of our Kaaawa dogs.

Bill // Apr 17, 2010 at 8:23 am

I noticed they passed the bill (HB 1868, which was vetoed) that would prohibit a civil servant (ie. administrative staff) from serving in an exempt position without losing the right to return the previous position

this just strikes me as odd that a well-seasoned administrative assistant couldn’t serve an administration directly without being punished

this just seems counter-productive to running a government as every new administration needs the immediate help of seasoned veterans

who are they trying to punish?

Reply
Ian Lind // Apr 17, 2010 at 8:28 am

Actually, I think it’s intended to preserve the integrity of the civil service.

The whole civil service system was meant to shield public business from the ebb and flow of politics, the old “reward your friends and punish your enemies” approach to hiring, promotion, etc.

If it’s easy for high-ranking civil service employees to jump back and forth into political appointee positions, it undermines that central goal.

So the bill isn’t trying to punish. It is–as I understand the issue–trying to protect the professional staff from the winds of politics.

Reply
Bill // Apr 17, 2010 at 9:30 am

Just seems like the best chance for reform in government to come from within.

The voters often elect a new leader to “fix” things. To “fix” things, the new administration would be most effective if it identified the most respected and accomplished staff within the department or agency and brought them into the administration. It might be hard to recruit these folks if it means they lose their long term civil service seniority and protection.

Reply
Ian//

Another way of looking at this is that the public should not have to constantly worry that top civil service employees are editing or changing their recommendations/decisions in order to benefit themselves personally by increasing the chance of a political appointment. This risk increases exponentially if people can jump back and forth from civil service positions into highly paid appointed positions.

This prompted my sister, Bonnie, to dig up a 1937 news piece about local patronage and politics. It’s a whole discussion which apparently was much more open 70 years ago.

This story also demonstrates what a small place Hawaii is. The subject of the article, Samuel Toomey, is an “almost relative”. Yes, it’s complicated. My grandmother had a half-brother, Alexander Toomey, who in turn was half-brother of Samuel Toomey, who is the one in this story.

Bonnie put it slightly differently: “Sam Toomey was the half brother of Alexander Toomey the Lighthouse Keeper at Makapuu, who was also half brother to our grandmother. Sam and Alexander shared a father; Alexander and our grandmother shared a mother.”

David K. Trask was grandfather of our friend Haunani-Kay Trask, UH professor and Hawaiian activist, whose mother and aunts were friends of my mother going back most of her nearly 96 years.

Judge LeBaron was, years later, a strong and active supporter of Common Cause during the period in the 1980s when I served as executive director.

Meanwhile, Meda also has a direct family connection back to Arthur Restarick, the court clerk in the article, but that’s really too complicated to explain here.

Honolulu Advertiser, 23 Nov 1937

Name Court Interpreter: Samuel K Toomey Appointed to Post Created by Death of Hakuole

Samuel K Toomey, one-time candidate for the Territorial senate on the Democratic ticket, was appointed Hawaiian interpreter of the circuit court yesterday, filling a vacancy created by the death of James H Hakuole, veteran court employee who died Jul 23 of injuries received in an automobile accident.

Toomey’s appointment was approved by Judges HE Stafford, Francis M Brooks, Louis LeBaron and AM Christy. He will assume his new duties December 1 at a salary of $200 a month.

IN THE MIDST OF ROW The appointment came in the midst of a Democratic party wrangle over patronage, with Senator David K Trask charging Judges Brooks and LeBaron with lack of cooperation because they refused to agree to a request that Arthur L. Restarick, chief clerk of the court, and Harry Wilder, clerk of the Judge LeBaron’s court, be replaced by Democrats.

Toomey has been serving as a guard at the city-county jail. He was formerly a school principal and in 1934 sought a seat in the senate, being pegged the “Singing Candidate” because he sang for votes instead of making speeches.

The patronage issue will be aired at a special meeting of the Democratic territorial central committee at Moke hall Friday at 4:30 p.m. The meeting has been called by Charles H Rose, chairman of the committee, who signed a communication to the circuit judges asking for the removal of Restarick and Wilder.

TRASK INVITED Although not a member of the central committee, Senator Trask has been invited to the meeting to present his views.

Judges Brooks and LeBaron have taken a stand against the removal of efficient court employees purely for political reasons, although they are willing to appoint Democrats to vacancies such as that to which Toomey was named. Claus Roberts, clerk of Judge Stafford’s court and chairman of the Oahu county committee of the party, and WM Dean were recommended for Restarick’s and Wilder’s jobs.

Also to be taken up by the central committee Friday is the matter of a petition calling for the ouster of Governor Poindexter, which it is said is being circulated among precinct clubs. Governor Poindexter is charged with failing to dismiss Republican office holders in territorial departments.