My main problem with bureaucrats is that there are too many of them (because government is too big) and that they are paid too much (almost twice the level of compensation as workers in the private sector).
But even the government was the proper size (America’s Founders had the right idea on that issue) and even if pay levels were more reasonable, that wouldn’t solve all problems. There’s also the issue of making sure that bureaucrats work hard and don’t cause trouble, something that is a big problem in government agencies and departments because of policies that make it virtually impossible to fire anybody.
I recently explored the issue of how to deal with bad bureaucrats and noted that civil service rules have the effect of shielding ” slackers, trouble makers, and other undesirable employees.”
We have an example from Oklahoma that is a perfect (in a rather disturbing way) illustration of this phenomenon.
A community is wondering why a teacher who is accused of lewd acts with a child is still getting paid. State agents arrested 48-year-old Shelley Jo Duncan, accusing her of having inappropriate contact with a 14-year-old boy. …messages detail the pair’s plans for future sexual encounters, including Duncan allegedly texting the boy she would give him “oral sex with a cough drop in her mouth.” ….The Tishomingo Public Schools Superintendent Ken Duncan, who is Duncan’s husband, said that she is entitled to her pay while she is suspended. “The district has been instructed by legal counsel, per the Teacher Due Process Act governed by Oklahoma statute, that the teacher is entitled to compensation during her suspension,” Duncan reportedly said during the meeting.
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
Why isn’t sexual contact with a child an immediate cause for termination? I can’t imagine that private employers would have any tolerance for this kind of behavior.
To be sure, the rule of law is vitally important. If there are legal procedures for dealing with bad bureaucrats, they should be followed. So, in this specific case, perhaps Ms. Duncan’s husband is correct and that she should be paid.
But this is why I wrote earlier this month that “there needs to be a much tougher approach when contract negotiations take place.” Simply stated, politicians like to curry votes from powerful interest groups, so contract negotiations between governments and government unions generally are a sham. All too often, the politicians and unions conspire against taxpayers.
This is why pay levels for bureaucrats tend to be exorbitant. It’s why pensions are so extravagant (and a fiscal nightmare, as I wrote just yesterday). And it’s why civil service rules protect deadbeats and sketchy people.
Unfortunately, there’s a big difference between identifying a problem and solving a problem. It doesn’t really matter if we can identify the “public choice” incentives that lead to bad decisions in government if we can’t then figure out the policies that counteract those bad incentives.
Yes, this is why a no-tax-increase position should be a no-brainer. And this is another piece of evidence why the natural profligacy of all governments should be constrained by spending caps. But even I will admit that those are macro-type solutions that only indirectly make it harder for politicians and bureaucrats to misbehave.
On that depressing note, I guess all that’s left is for us to decide whether Ms. Duncan deserves to be in the Bureaucrat Hall of Fame. For what it’s worth, I think we have to wait before making that decision. If she (and perhaps her husband) can manipulate the rules and get paid for 12 months while doing nothing, even though she was caught red-handed (or perhaps we should say Altoid-mouthed) for misbehaving with a child, she’ll deserve membership. And if you think that’s asking too much, don’t forget that a bureaucrat in India managed to get paid for more than two decades even though he stopped showing up for work.
[…] since we’re on the topic of bureaucrats doing bad things and not getting fired, we may as well note that the guy who sent the false alert in Hawaii is still getting checks from […]
No, she should not be paid or even employed at this point. The moment the school administration and school board attained evidence of her behavior she should have been fired. That is what would have happened at a private school or a day care. She would have been fired before trial from any private sector business who saw her as a threat to their reputation. Employment does not require a criminal conviction. It is a contract between the employer and employee. And I can guarantee you that her teaching contract had a moral turpitude clause.
As I advance on my so-called retirement years, I think about the decisions I’ve made in my life, and where they have led me. In high school, We all joked about the guy who eventually became the school janitor. He was in my grade, and retired several years ago. In college, our room mate decided engineering school was too tough to handle. He dropped out and went to work for an auto company assembly line. He also retired several years ago. Meanwhile those of us who decided to take the tough route and work the hard, but interesting jobs are sticking it out and working our butts off to pay for the free college, and pension plans of those guys and their kids. And the next batch of presidents and congressmen want to give them even more.
I doubt I’ll ever get to retire. Too many dependents whose names I don’t even know. Yes- we’d like to go out and protest, and vote several times for our chosen representative, but we simply don’t have the time. And when we do get time off, it’s the easy chair or the fishing pole we long for, not the anti-Hillary rally. I guess that’s why they always win- they simply have the time on their hands thanks to our hard work.