Friday, June 23, 2006

How f**ked up is Public Works? Let's look at debarments!

Section 1777.1 of the California Labor Code discusses the details about public works contractors who break the law and (then) cannot work on such contracts for a couple of years. It's known as a "debarment." The Labor Commissioner's office shall also publish a list of those bad contractors semiannually. Since August of 2004, there has been only 1 debarment: Astro Painting Co.

If that's true, then what the heck are they doing in Public Works? This is what I heard: most of the workers speak Spanish, so if allegations are going to be made, it would help the Labor Commissioner's office if the investigator spoke Spanish and/or knew how to investigate. What happens if the Public Works managers intentionally pack Public Works with functioning illiterates and/or non Spanish speakers? They will not be able to uncover any wrongdoing, so the assigned case gets closed because there were no violations and/or the allegations could not be sustained. Now, if you were a lazy state employee, would your job be easier if a case got closed or harder if it remained opened?
Let's assume that the Labor Commissioner's office has only had 1 debarment in the last two years. Let's peel back a couple of layers of the onion. Who runs Public Works? Greg Rupp is the statewide manager, then he has Susan Nakagama, then she has Lauro Cons and Julie Tarazon. From there, it's non-supervisory staff. That says it all: no need to go farther: enough said.

In keeping with the assumption that there has been only 1 debarment in the last two years, and the state workers assigned to Public Works have conducted all investigations completely and competently, then the other assumption is that there have been very, very, very, very few that have violated the Public Works laws in the last two years! That's kinda like saying that the Labor Commissioner's office hasn't had a garment license revocation in the last two years because garment manufacturers and contractors aren't breaking enough laws to justify a revocation/renewal denial, right?


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home