Washington has a history of good government principles, public disclosure, transparency and hiring employees based on qualifications not connections. It ensures equality, not patronage, guide government practices. But is that still the view held by citizens, or have we become so cynical toward government that we think those long-held values are outdated?
In July 2014, a resident with political connections to newly elected Mayor Jim Ferrell and his new chief of staff, Brian Wilson, was appointed to a city job despite not meeting the qualifications. Six months later, the politically connected friend’s complaints led to the termination of his supervisor.
The hiring raised the age-old question, “is it who you know, rather than what you know” that makes the difference in city government? Mayors do make a small number of “political” appointments to policy-level jobs, and Ferrell has three in his office. But administrative professionals usually caution mayors against putting untrained allies in positions that require technical specialization. Frequently, these friends can have a self-important view of their role, expect special treatment, and will go directly to the mayor with grievances, undermining their supervisor. Other employees see the preferential treatment and can become confused – even fearful.
Did that happen in Federal Way?
The city’s building department ensures buildings and property in the city follow legal codes. It provides a safer community, protects property values and helps attract economic development. In April 2014, the City Council approved Ferrell’s request for an additional code enforcement officer due to increased citizen complaints. An incumbent officer also left, creating two openings. The city hired a qualified person for one of the positions, but – in an odd move for a position created due to workload – hired John Fairbanks as an “apprentice” for the other slot over the department supervisor’s concerns that he wasn’t qualified.
Fairbanks had recently lost a city council race to popular incumbent Jeanne Burbidge. During the election, Fairbanks said Ferrell was the one who got him into the race. He had contributed $200 to Ferrell’s mayoral campaign, and Ferrell had endorsed him for the council seat. There was also a connection to Wilson: As acting city manager in 2009, Wilson had appointed Fairbanks to the Civil Service Commission, which oversees some practices in the police department. Wilson’s permanent position at the time was chief of police, and Fairbanks held the position on the commission until he resigned to take the job in the building department.
The job announcement Fairbanks applied for stated, “Code Enforcement Officer incumbents will perform technical enforcement in the inspection of existing buildings, construction sites, housing codes and respond to complaints concerning city codes. The salary range is $51,948- $65,796. It requires two years of experience in Code Enforcement, law, law enforcement, construction management or building inspection. Experience or education in land use planning is desired as is field experience in a city or county government plus two years of college or vocational school in the same job areas.”
Neither Fairbanks’ council candidate interview nor his application for appointment to the council list any job experience in the required or desired fields, although he did have some community college. He was among 26 applicants and, despite a lack of qualifications, was moved forward for interview by Community Development Director Patrick Doherty.
When asked for documentation to demonstrate how Fairbanks’ application resulted in his being selected for an interview, city officials said that “no responsive documents were located.” When asked for a copy of Fairbanks’ resume, the city would not provide it.
After those interviews, Fairbanks still did not rank high enough to be hired. The top candidate was hired, but other candidates were “eliminated” or “disqualified.” In anticipation of re-advertising for a new candidate pool, the salary was increased, but the city did not re-advertise. Instead, Fairbanks was hired as an “apprentice,” even though no such job description existed, and the salary was not at the apprentice or beginner level; it was $28.26 per hour ($58,780), the middle range of a trained code officer’s salary.
Marty Gillis was hired the year before. She was an experienced building supervisor, and city administration had already awarded her a SPIRIT award for “SERVICE, PRIDE, INTEGRITY, RESPONSIBILITY, INNOVATION, and TEAMWORK.”
Due to the workload, Gillis wanted qualified staff hired but was “feeling pressured” to approve hiring Fairbanks. She rightly told city officials that state approval was needed for apprenticeship programs – Matthew Erlich of the Department of Labor and Industries told me that creating a registered apprenticeship program “needs state approval. It requires an actual program and protocols, not just a title.”
Doherty ignored Gillis’s concern, obtained Wilson’s approval and then Ferrell’s, and put Fairbanks on the payroll. Doherty left city government days later.
Within a month, rumors circulated that Ferrell and Wilson wanted Gillis out for opposing Fairbanks’ hiring.
Larry Frazier replaced Doherty, and he and Gillis told Fairbanks to keep his political relationship with Ferrell outside of the office. Despite that direction, Fairbanks was a frequent visitor to the mayor’s office and was at the mayor’s side at public events, leading some to wonder if the burly sidekick was the mayor’s bodyguard. He also went to Ferrell about Gillis’ efforts to gain compliance from businesses on city codes. He was afraid “enforcement would hurt him,” although it is unclear how since enforcement is the job for which he was hired, and further said he was afraid enforcement would hurt Ferrell. These complaints were on top of earlier complaints that his cubicle was not big enough, he had to drive an old city car and he had concerns about his salary.
In October 2014 there was some confusion among the code enforcement officers about Gillis’ direction regarding whether staff was to contact code-violating businesses in the 320th area or simply inventory the signs by taking pictures. Gillis says she wanted inventory, not contact. Fairbanks felt the direction was different and contacted a business that, in turn, complained to the mayor. Fairbanks also went to the mayor.
Frazier looked into the situation and found no reason to pursue it beyond admonishing Fairbanks for not talking to Gillis or him before going to the Ferrell.
Within days, supervision of the code officers was transferred from Frazier and Gillis to Amy Jo Pearsall, the city attorney. Although Fairbanks had only been in her department a few weeks, Pearsall passed him on his six-month probationary period. She knew of Gillis’ concerns and knew Frazier had questions about Fairbanks’ judgment. The two other code officers were not opposed to her decision, but Pearsall used the probation discussion with one of the code officers to inquire about the contact/inventory issue and about Fairbanks and Gillis. The code officer then changed her story, accusing Gillis of asking her to change the minutes of a staff meeting detailing what Gillis’ direction had been.
Wilson directed Pearsall to do an investigation, and Gillis was accused of “dishonesty.” A second allegation of failing to facilitate the training of Fairbanks was added later.
The “dishonesty” accusation relies on the testimony of one code enforcement officer who told two different stories, meaning she either lied to Frazier or Pearsall. The city acknowledges that her testimony is critical and that she lied. With no independent corroboration, her testimony is tainted and should have been considered unreliable, particularly in a termination case.
The second assertion was that, because Gillis opposed hiring Fairbanks, she had failed to facilitate his training, used other code officers to build a file against him, and created a negative working environment.
But it appears Gillis did facilitate Fairbanks’ training. She had assigned the two seasoned code officers to help train him and sought their input for her file on his performance. The city said Fairbanks only received 14 hours of training, but documents show that Gillis had Fairbanks attend a series of training programs shortly after his hiring that weren’t counted in the city’s 14 hours, including sessions on graffiti removal that had been mentioned in Fairbanks’ offer letter from Doherty. If the full list of Fairbanks’ training was considered, he actually received 70 to 80 hours of instruction. Gillis actually requested that Fairbanks attend even more training sessions, but Wilson denied her request.
Gillis knew Fairbanks couldn’t absorb two years of training in only six months, and she likely felt she couldn’t pass him on his probation. Since the position was justified due to high workload, Gillis may have naively thought upper management would allow her to replace him with someone qualified. While the working environment may have been negative, management shares that responsibility for inserting an untrained apprentice at peak season.
The city served Gillis with a notice of termination, which triggered a legally required hearing, conducted by Wilson, in which Gillis could state her case. Such hearings rarely affect whether the employee is ultimately terminated or not, but Gillis defended herself and again denied the city’s allegations. She responded to the charges of using other code officers to build a file against Fairbanks, pointing out that it was Frazier and Wilson who had advised her to do so: Fairbanks had passed a note to the other code enforcement officers saying their department director, Doherty, was being fired. When Fairbanks was asked how he knew, he said he “had inside connections (to the Mayor’s office)” – the least senior employee in city government knows his department director is being fired because he has connections?. The two code officers reported the incident to Gillis, and Frazier and Wilson advised Gillis to keep careful records of such behavior. Gillis gave Fairbanks a written admonishment for spreading gossip – Wilson, recently, agreed the behavior was unacceptable. Gillis also reminded Wilson that Fairbanks continued to contact the mayor directly in violation of previous direction by Frazier and her.
Wilson, as expected, upheld Gillis’ termination.
When asked recently about the apparent favoritism, both Ferrell and Wilson said other unqualified people could have applied for the code enforcement job. Nineteen other unqualified people did apply, but they didn’t get an interview. When asked how Fairbanks could get the job even though he didn’t meet the published qualifications, Wilson said someone was needed right away and, with a touch of irony, added that Fairbanks “knew people in the community.”
The city wouldn’t agree, but a reasonable person could conclude the investigation had a foregone conclusion. When asked about transferring the code officers to the legal department, Wilson said that “it was always the plan to bring the code enforcement officers back; there was a consultant report to implement.” However, when Frazier asked to give a copy of the consultant report to Gillis, Wilson denied it and said, “Marty will not be involved.” Ferrell said they were “not going back while she’s (Marty) there.”
In the four months Fairbanks worked for Gillis, he didn’t meet the qualifications for the job, was given two verbal admonishments, two more in writing, complained about his cubicle, his city car and his pay, and he used his access to the mayor to undermine both his supervisor and his director. But he passed probation. In two years with Federal Way, Gillis had a spotless record, a SPIRIT award and letters of commendation. She was forced out. Frazier finished his temporary contract, and both of the other code enforcement officers also left the city – one didn’t pass probation.
Gillis didn’t comprehend her own jeopardy, and her belief that upper management would listen to her about needing qualified staff was both naive and fatal.
Wilson and Pearsall did not tell Gillis of a possible second allegation involving the training issue, even though they were aware of it, and Gillis specifically asked if “changing the minutes” was the only charge. She was told that it was.
Fairbanks just wanted a job. But so did 19 other people who didn’t have connections. Maybe Ferrell or Wilson were just trying to help a friend without considering the implications. Or maybe Wilson and Doherty were just overzealous staffers trying to anticipate what they thought Ferrell wanted. Maybe Doherty was trying to save his own job.
So why should you care? Because government, at its core, is about fairness and equality, be it in code compliance or with job applicants. Technical jobs should be filled by candidates with credentials, not connections. Would you have been hired with no qualifications? With four warnings and questions about your judgment in four months, would you have passed probation? Gillis certainly could have handled her frustration with the situation far better, but she was trying to protect her employer because a code enforcement officer’s lack of qualifications in the wrong situation could leave the city open to a significant legal challenge.
Key city administrators knew there were concerns about the hire, but no one ever stopped to ask the question, “How will the tax-paying public view the placement of an unqualified political ally of the mayor in a $59,000 a year job?” Good staff should have asked that question, because qualifications should count more than connections.
Federal Way resident Bob Roegner is a former mayor of Auburn: bjroegner@comcast.net
