• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Highly successful SF election manager fired for being white

Having been a long-term contractor, I'm pretty sure the diversity angle is a smokescreen. They are simply wanting to pay less for the job - save money in what is probably a tight financial situation. It really will not matter the ethnicity, religion, gender, sexuality, pronouns, what colour skin or family background the new contractor has. By hiding the vacancy behind "seeking diversity" they hope to get the new contract set up at a significantly cheaper rate. Of course the current contractor can reapply! I'm sure they hope he will! Seemed to be doing a good job. But the new rate will very likely be somewhat less than he was on before.
 
Last edited:
Hercules56 said:
There's no evidence they had any issue automatically renewing his contract before.

What changed? They realized he is white? Seems so.
Click to expand...

Your comment was , "Only forcing white people to reapply for their jobs"

They have an opening
but they are not doing that.
 
lobosrul5 said:
I cannot find a reason that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would not apply. Unless he's on a 1099 versus W-2

ETA if his boss whose making this decision is also white, why doesn't he or she resign and suggest a person of another race take their position?
Click to expand...

Ironically, if the neo-fascists get their druthers this sort of thing would be perfectly legal.
 
Hercules56 said:
There's no evidence they had any issue automatically renewing his contract before.

What changed? They realized he is white? Seems so.
Click to expand...


Way down in the Chronicle story, there's this:
Years ago, the city stated its official policy to move toward the new form of voting, where anyone could look at the code that tabulates elections, to save money and increase transparency. But California’s secretary of state hasn’t yet approved any such voting system, and the elections department doesn’t have the expertise or budget to develop or contract its own and try to get it approved, Arntz said.

Multiple open-source voting advocates who gave public comment during last week’s meeting criticized Arntz for not more aggressively pushing open-source voting, with one saying he had a “predisposition to the legacy system.”
Jerdonek said the move to open up the selection process was not related to open-source voting, for which he did not blame the department or Arntz. Dai also denied the move was motivated by recent disagreements between Arntz and the commission about how long to contract with the existing provider, Dominion Voting Systems.
Click to expand...
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Why-S-F-elections-boss-might-lose-his-job-17602545.php

It might actually be a policy dispute, and the diversity thing might be a smokescreen to open the contract to new applicants.
 
Bob001 said:
It might actually be a policy dispute, and the diversity thing might be a smokescreen to open the contract to new applicants.
Click to expand...


"It's not your performance, it's your race" would have to be the dumbest smokescreen ever.
 
Bob001 said:
Way down in the Chronicle story, there's this:

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Why-S-F-elections-boss-might-lose-his-job-17602545.php

It might actually be a policy dispute, and the diversity thing might be a smokescreen to open the contract to new applicants.
Click to expand...

People here can rationalize this after the fact all they want.

From that same article:

Commissioners made the decision not because Arntz is doing a bad job, they said, but because they wanted to give a chance for people of all backgrounds to apply.

“Our decision wasn’t about your performance, but after twenty years we wanted to take action on the City’s racial equity plan and give people an opportunity to compete for a leadership position,” Jerdonek wrote in an email Monday to Arntz. “We also wanted to allow enough time for a fair and equitable process and conduct as broad a search as possible.”
Click to expand...

There's more about how his job performance and the elections he handled were run perfectly every time "without a hitch". This was 100% racially motivated as far as I can tell. It's what they said. If it wasn't someone sure screwed up!

If these were Republicans we'd accept the racial story without missing a beat.
 
Last edited:
Norman Alexander said:
Money. They wanted to lower the rate and save money. As I said above, this is an excuse to surreptitiously lower the contract rate.
Click to expand...

Then why bring up race? Because minorities should be paid less? They got caught with their pants down and now they're trying to wiggle them back up before anyone notices. They can lower the rate if they want. It's just excuses, excuses they haven't even made themselves.
 
Last edited:
Norman Alexander said:
Money. They wanted to lower the rate and save money. As I said above, this is an excuse to surreptitiously lower the contract rate.
Click to expand...


Why are you theorizing this? Would you be doing the same if he were black and they made this announcement? Seriously.

It has been said that affirmative action programs amount to legislated racism. I'm not going to go that far, but this event is literally the embodiment of that notion.
 
Republicans in some city: "We have a Mexican guy as election commissioner and we want some diversity in these positions so we are not renewing his contract, though he's free to reapply.

No Democrat ever: "It's obviously not about race. If he is no longer Mexican at that time he may be able to get his job back. De nada!"
 
Warp12 said:
Why are you theorizing this? Would you be doing the same if he were black and they made this announcement? Seriously.

It has been said that affirmative action programs amount to legislated racism. I'm not going to go that far, but this event is literally the embodiment of that notion.
Click to expand...

yea, if it was 20 years doing the same contract position I would also question it the same.
 
I hope this guy files a federal lawsuit very quickly. SF will obviously settle as they clearly ****** up big time.

Nobody should have to reapply for a long-term job just because of the color of their skin.
 
Last edited:
mgidm86 said:
Then why bring up race? Because minorities should be paid less? They got caught with their pants down and now they're trying to wiggle them back up before anyone notices. They can lower the rate if they want. It's just excuses, excuses they haven't even made themselves.
Click to expand...
It's a front. They just want to vacate the position and refill it without having to negotiate with or consider renewing the current, expensive incumbent.

Also, it was a silly idea. They should have just been up front about the rate reduction and see if he wanted to live with it.

An alternative I have seen before is they have a new/different contractor whom they want in that position now. Possibly a kickback. So they need to get rid of the incumbent but in the nicest possible way. Simple idea: at the end of the contract, make it impossible for him to meet the "new" criteria.

Just remember: contractors are utterly and immediately expendable in the eyes of business. There is zero loyalty given for exemplary services rendered, even if it has been for many years. Here's your final check, byeeee!
 
Hercules56 said:
There's no evidence they had any issue automatically renewing his contract before.

What changed? They realized he is white? Seems so.
Click to expand...

That is my problem with this. His contract was renewed four times already because they were happy with his performance, and nothing seems to have changed regarding that.
 
Warp12 said:
"It's not your performance, it's your race" would have to be the dumbest smokescreen ever.
Click to expand...

Except that if they tried to claim it was his performance, they would have to document it with specifics, and they can't. Announcing "We want to give everybody a chance" is a policy decision.

And I'm not sure it's a bad policy decision. It's not a civil service job. Should anybody own a government contract forever? Maybe he is the best guy. Or maybe somebody else will have new ideas, or work for less, or bring something different to the table. Maybe his assistants or deputies will apply. Awarding a contract without competition can cause problems, too.
 
Bob001 said:
Except that if they tried to claim it was his performance, they would have to document it with specifics, and they can't. Announcing "We want to give everybody a chance" is a policy decision.

And I'm not sure it's a bad policy decision. It's not a civil service job. Should anybody own a government contract forever? Maybe he is the best guy. Or maybe somebody else will have new ideas, or work for less, or bring something different to the table. Maybe his assistants or deputies will apply. Awarding a contract without competition can cause problems, too.
Click to expand...


Laughable.

Why must we stretch so hard to justify this? I hope we can start kicking those damn blacks out, and publicly announcing it is solely because they aren't the right color...

(ridiculous...but apparently this is how far some are willing to go to justify kicking a white out of a job, just based on their skin color)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom