Jackson Jambalaya

Fitch left behind a true mess at the State Personnel Board, in the form of a new required system for state agencies to grade their employees. Historically, the system was set up to grade people on how much/how well they did their work. The new system removes all vestiges of job performance evaluation, replacing it with purely subjective opinions of employees' "competency" to do the work, regardless of whether the work ever got done. It's insane.

I know one of the HR people who served on that "task force" put together to come up with a better way to evaluate state employees. He told me the performance measurements that the group recommended and the program ultimately approved by Fitch were completely different. The task force made theirs detailed and simple to understand, allowing supervisors to give accurate information on work ethic, attitude, etc. But what Fitch and the SPB put out is a useless "pass-fail" system that really CANNOT be used to get rid of dead weight.

My friend was bewildered -- I remember him saying he couldn't understand what possible political advantage Fitch would get out of making it harder to get rid of dead weight.

Fitch wanted to take her new furniture you saw in the political ads to the Tresurers office, she was told no.

First I've heard of this employee review system. If it is as described above, it will never fly Once Challenged), not to mention nobody can ever make it a useful tool. It's taken Personnel/HR fifty years to get away from subjective evaluations, and this woman approved and implemented one?

The new system will be one where an employee can score a "1" or a "2" on a set of behaviors tied to a pre-written list of ideal government behaviors, like "integrity" and such. "1" represents "poor" and 2 represents "good." After all scores are given, they are averaged. The final average will be rounded up or down.

If the employee scores 1.49 or below, then he or she has an unfavorable review. The agency can't FIRE that person, though -- the agency has to create a plan to help the employee improve performance over a given period of time. That employee will receive additional reviews to determine if sufficient improvement has taken place.

SO -- a supervisor who has a sucky employee can't fire the employee, and if that supervisor rates the employee as "poor," then the supervisor gets a whole boat load of additional paperwork that ALSO will not lead to the employee getting fired. So, it's easier for the supervisor to just pass everyone rather than try to navigate an evaluation process that is set up to keep crappy employees in their jobs.

Does anyone see her getting elected to a higher office?

The first five comments are correct.

I've personally seen her goofy ideas implemented .

Performance based employee reviews were thrown out by Lynn Fitch.

While it's always been very hard to fire a piss-poor State Employee, her new regs now make it almost
impossible. What sucks even more,
is that now the good employees can't be be promoted based on performance, experience or work ethic .... only on how they responded to Bull Shit psycho-babble " Behavioral Responses" to her
subjective interview questions.

Bryant has always campaigned on "performance based" accountability. Why hasn't he or his new MSPB Executive Director stopped this crap ?

Haley's appointees should have been long gone by now.

Fitch couldn't keep her new & fine (tax-payer bought) executive furniture ?

I love it !

Let her have a steel gray 1945 Navy surplus desk like many State Employees still use.

shoulda voted for Connie Moran

she will be the first female governor--predict she will take Tate on--

I think I understand now. In addition to the ratings of 1 and 2, we should also include 'sucky' and 'piss poor' as suggested by 5:01 and 9:23.

As to the question posed, no, I don't think Fitch will advance in government. Her middle name is Peter Principle.

Our agency is on the new system. I've scrutinized it in detail. It is entirely possible for an employee to score well above average, based on the system's use of ethics, attitude, personality, etc., etc., while not doing any actual work. It is also possible for a person to "fail" by having a poor attitude or work ethic, but while still completely successfully doing all of his or her work.

It's not a PERFORMANCE evaluation system at all. It's literally a "supervisor's opinion of you" system, with no objective work performance standards to even try to cover it up.

That is a tool corporations use in the hiring process now. Of course if you are smart, you can figure out what personality traits are meant in the answers and manipulate the results. You have to miss a few on purpose because if you do too good a job, there is a classification that literally says you have figured out thee test and are trying to manipulate it as the answers are too perfect.

Interviewed with a big bank one time. Manager focused on the psycho stuff you describe. We all knew who was interviewing for the job and well, she picked the worst one with the worst production record, someone who also had a rap for being very lazy. She got it over the producers because she answered the test well and the psychobabble questions from the manager, who actually believed in them. Needless to say, she didn't even last six months. Manager didn't last much longer either.

'Fish, there is no test. The supervisor completes a form on the employee yearly, and that's it. Purely subjective now.

Fitch for higher office? Not likely. Daddy bought her way into this position - good case of being at the right place at the right time (see - S. Pickering, 2007). Although she does have good historical Dem ties, and old boyfriend Williams got her nice appointments with Barbour, don't think her 2011 success will do anything toward moving up any higher (yes, Peter Principle is still a valid theory, especially in politics.)

Fundraiser last night was to let all those Repubs, lawyers and advisors have a chance to make up for betting wrong in the primaries last August. Very successful event, but so are most all similar events for newly "ELECTED" officials.

10:12; you do realize Billingsly was the first name listed on the list of dignitaries sponsoring the event.

Fish; what you're talking about is an instrument used to gauge the potential of the candidate as compared to the characteristics of those found to be successful in the occupation.

The instrument people are talking about here (as hard as it is to believe it exists today) will fall flat as a pancake in any court of competent jurisdiction. You cannot measure attitude, work ethic and team-player any more than you can measure the number of times per day the average employee passes gas.

If Lynn Fitch came up with or approved such an instrument, she has no business counting the states pennies.

The personal appraisals now being required in state agencies are little more than busy work for already overworked supervisors. The scores is satisfactory or unsatisfactory (1 or 2). The evaluation form does not appraise the employee on his/her actual duty statements.

They mean nothing and will be viewed as little more.

There is absolutely no way in this appraisal to distinquish between the mediocre employee that does little more than show up everyday and the employee who takes pride in his/her job and goes above and beyond the bare minimum.

Shadowfax said...
10:12; you do realize Billingsly was the first name listed on the list of dignitaries sponsoring the event.



- and??? Billingsly being the first name? Gosh, damn. Oh, yes, that's right - I remember my alphabet from kindergarten (they didn't have pre-k in my day) and B came early in that alphabet.

And what does it say about Billingsly? He supported Lee Yancy as best I remember (forgive me Bill, if I am incorrect - I can't remember for absolute every minor candidate that everybody supported last year).

So Shadow - you make a simple statement that Billingsly was "the first name" on the invite. And how is that meant to disavow my statement that the Repubs are there to make up for their supporting the opponents last year? And that Ms Fitch is nothing more than a 'Peter Principled wonder' that is not going further in elective office?

What was your point??

Bill Billingsley supported Lynn Fitch in the primary. Had a fundraiser at his house for her.

I'm too busy trying to figure out what you're attempting to say to consider what my point was. I'd be more interested in knowing from Billingsly what the point of the fundraiser was and why he felt compelled to sponsor it. Did someone (as an old Jewish friend used to say) squeeze his shoes?

Man, take a day out of town and they start talking about you. Shadowfax, I hate to sound like an Italian mobster, but what have I done to make you treat me so disrespectfully?

I have known Lynn socially for seven years or so - our kids are in the same class and we became friends like parents sometimes do. I didn't know she had any political aspirations until she told me she was running for Treasurer. I supported her because she's my friend and because I thought she was the best candidate. 8:52 is right - Lee is a friend who I supported in his Senate campaign, but I did not support him for Treasurer. I offered to help Lynn try and raise some money with her event the other night, and even though my wife and I were unable to attend I think it was a successful fundraiser. No one squeezed me in any way to support Lynn during her campaign or now, and I'm not going to get into a no-win argument with people who don't like her for what she did at the Personnel Board. Although I lobbied in Jackson and Washington for home health issues when I was in the business, I don't have anything beyond rescued horses that could benefit from political influence today. I haven't ever asked anyone for a political favor beyond encouraging good home health legislation for all, nor have I been pressured by any politician for support because of any quid pro quo arrangement with anything he did or didn't do. I get involved in political campaigns because 1) I can afford it, although maybe not so much since the 2011 elections, and 2) I enjoy it, and 3) I think it's important for people to get involved, financially and otherwise, in the election of our leaders. I care about what happens in our city, county, state and country, and there's nothing sinister or underhanded or self serving about that. Contrary to popular opinion, there are a lot of people like me who contribute to political campaigns and expect nothing in return other than good government. Okay, Shadowfax?

leave bill out of this. he's a good man.

Remind me of the cost of the office chair and office furniture purchased for Lynn Fitch that generated so much controversy. I remember hearing the number and not being as outraged as some other folks seemed to be about it.

again, ya shoulda voted Connie Moran!