Chu Backs Off From Bilingual Hiring Plan : Government: In response to Chinese community, councilwoman endorses a more controversial proposal.
Councilwoman Judy Chu has backed away from her recent proposal for a preferential hiring system for bilingual employees, and instead is throwing her support behind another, more controversial plan.
The latter plan would allow the City Council to override decisions made by the city Personnel Board.
Councilman Sam Kiang announced his support for the override plan after the board two weeks ago rejected a proposal to give hiring preference to 911 dispatchers who speak Chinese and Spanish. The council had approved the measure in May, but under city codes is powerless to overturn the Personnel Board’s decisions.
Previously, Chu said she was reluctant to join Kiang in supporting the measure because she mistakenly believed it would have stripped away the board’s power to enact all hiring policies.
Instead, Chu last Thursday proposed an alternate plan that would not require changing city codes. Her plan would give preference to bilingual applicants for most city jobs, not just dispatchers, by adding an extra 10 points to their examination score. It would also give bilingual employees a $125-a-month salary bonus, instead of the $150 bonus Kiang proposed only for dispatchers.
But in a swift reversal Friday, Chu joined Kiang in calling for a change in the law so that Personnel Board decisions can be appealed to the City Council. The council will discuss the matter Aug. 12.
Chu unveiled both proposals last week in the midst of strong criticism from some members of the Chinese community. They accused Chu of ignoring their needs because she was against overriding the Personnel Board to pass the 911 plan.
They staged a three-day protest in front of City Hall, linking her stand on the issue to her decision last week to fire City Manager Mark Lewis, who had actively promoted the plan.
“I support enacting an emergency ordinance . . . that will give the City Council the power of veto over decisions from the Personnel Board,” Chu wrote, reversing her original position in an open letter to the Chinese community Friday. “I think this is a better way to handle the situation than for the City Council to take away the power of the Personnel Board to approve all job classifications. This is what I thought the original proposal was.”
The letter was read aloud in Chinese to a crowd of about 50 protesters outside City Hall Friday afternoon. There was applause and cheering afterward.
Despite Chu’s newfound support, Kiang’s 911 plan is likely to generate continued heated debate.
Its long-term goal is to have dispatchers fluent in Chinese and Spanish for each shift. In order to accomplish that goal, the city would divide applicants for dispatchers’ jobs into three categories: Chinese-speaking, Spanish-speaking and English-only. That way, the city could interview only applicants from a certain list depending on the language skill needed.
Two council members, the city’s General Employees’ Assn. and a majority of the Personnel Board oppose such a hiring system because it would give an edge to bilingual applicants who score lower on tests than applicants who speak only English. Critics also said it was unfair to other bilingual employees.
Still, council support for the proposed change of city codes appears strong. Besides Chu and Kiang, Councilman Fred Balderrama said he favors the idea.
Mayor Betty Couch, who along with Councilwoman Marie T. Purvis voted against the original 911 hiring plan, said she is “uncomfortable” with the proposal to allow Personnel Board overrides.
Purvis went further, saying she plans to oppose the code change.
“That’s a very dangerous precedent,” Purvis said. “If someone doesn’t agree with you, you change the rules in the middle of the game. What you’re doing is saying, ‘You don’t agree with me, so I’ll take your powers away.’ ”
More to Read
Sign up for Essential California
The most important California stories and recommendations in your inbox every morning.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.