What is an "at will" appointment?

Larry,
Without mentioning specific names, what are the titles of those three "at-will" political appointments? I presume that one would be "Deputy Clerk", but what about the others?

I am sure that the other employees with feel far less "terrified" after spending just one day under your leadership. But you might want to leave the fake scar at home, just in case. And definitely rethink the Dick Cheney-esque hand motions you so carefully cultivated after watching the debates. Eyepatch? Optional.

Perhaps there is some misconception here. There are only three "at-will" political appointees in the office. I hope all other employees will be willing to continue and work with me.

Mr. Kestenbaum,
My roommate, who will remain nameless, works in the county office, and related the incident to which you are referring to me over lunch yesterday, and the both of us expressed our shock and disappointment at Ms. Haines' handling of the incident. Her behavior shows both rudeness and unprofessionalism.
However, you are correct that the staff are, if not terrified, certainly very very concerned with the security of their jobs. According to my roommate, just about everyone in the offices which are not unionized has been actively looking for work since the election.
Accordingly, I have to wonder whether part of Ms. Haines' motivation in setting you up for a rocky transition is to force you to work closely with the staff, in the hopes that you will be less likely to sack them en masse once the transition is over. While I understand that this hypothesis may be more charitable toward your predecessor than you are inclined to believe, it does sound like the sort of thing she might think to do. My roommate is adamant that Ms. Haines is concerned for the continued employment of her staff.
It's just a thought: take with a grain of salt. Anyway congratulations, and I wish you much luck and smooth sailing.

--gauche

I think Larry's interpretation is consistent with the mindset displayed in the Ann Arbor News - that this election result was the result exclusively of "straight ballot" voting (suggesting quite plainly that smarter voters, who knew enough to split their ticket, wouldn't have voted for Larry). There was an interesting follow-up letter in the A2 News a couple of days ago, where a voter took some umbrage at that characterization.

I expressly noted that the outgoing clerk may have some other motive for her choices. But given the context, and the fact that she hasn't stated other motives, how much "benefit of the doubt" does she deserve?

I think some of the respondents here are making a bit too much of this. Larry said he'd been asked not to come to the office till January 1st, and he mentioned Republicans in the legislature destroying records. To jump to the conclusion that Ms Haines would even consider destroying records is rather a wild leap from what he said. I don't know any of the people involved (except Larry), but given the good reputation of the clerk's office locally, I'm confident that you can trust in the professionalism of Ms Haines and her staff. Preserving records is what the heart of their trust.
<p>
Honestly, I'm not sure that Ms Haines isn't taking a perfectly sensible course. The minute Larry walks in that door, Ms Haines' term is over. Future boss trumps current boss. Why shouldn't Ms Haines retain complete authority over the County Clerk's office until December 31?
<p>
On January 1, Larry moves in. Then he's in charge. Nobody has suggested that Ms Haines won't be available for consultation and advice at that point, if Larry requires it. Her staff certainly will be. This way the staff will know exactly who is in charge on every day from now through Larry's terms. The lines of authority are kept clean. If Ms Haines comes in after January 1, her presence interfere with Larry's authority. Previous boss does not trump new boss. This isn't the only way to handle a transition. It might not be the way Larry will choose to do it when his term ends, but it seems to me a very viable and orderly way to do it. Alarm is premature.
<p>
Relax. You'll have plenty to do in January, and plenty of good people to help you.
<p>
As for not having a chance to talk to the staff, um, I'll bet all or most are reading this blog.

My suggestion: find out the name of the office manager, and call for a private meeting at a neutral location. After all, you will be that person's boss a lot longer than your vanquished opponent's. If the O.M. won't meet, work your way down a list of employees. Find out what the hell is going on in there.

     D.J. Jones has a good point. You should get a court order forbidding the current clerk from destroying any records or files of any kind. Republicans play dirty politics all the time, and then Democratic leaders stand around whining that they weren't playing fair. Ordinary Democrats in this country are tired of wussy leadership. Take for granted that the bastards are going to screw you, and fight back hard. Justify it to the press as that the people's business can't be done properly without an orderly transition, and your opponent is behaving unprofessionally and may even have something to hide. Put her on the defensive publicly NOW.

Perhaps it is human nature to get so wrapped up in self-pity, or to obsess over slights (real and/or imagined). That type of thing happens all the time outside of politics, so it really shouldn't be surprising when it happens within the political sphere.

In a regular work environment, assuming opportunity for transition, there is usually some sort of check on this type of behavior. Sure, some people will quit without notice, or on such short notice that their successors may not have even been selected, let alone trained. Sure, some will take a bad reference over training a successor or making sure that there is continuity in office procedure. But most people will, happily or grudgingly, work to ensure a reasonably smooth transition.

In social and political spheres, often there is less to answer for. And some people take a rather scorched earth approach to their "revenge". Does a County Clerk have a legacy with which to be concerned? Or is it more rewarding for her to hope that you stumble more than a few times as you try to pick up the ball she intentionally fumbled, and perhaps even to gloat over mistakes for which she is primarily responsible?

Perhaps I'm treating the outgoing clerk as too small a person - she may have some other motive for her conduct. But it is hard to see how she could be helping anything but her own bruised ego through this type of conduct. (And whatever visceral satisfaction may be derived by making life 'difficult for the new guy' will likely be short-lived. I think that most people who hope (or obsess) for somebody else's failure or unhappiness end up primarily making themselves unhappy.)

The staff is terrified? It must be your campaign picture. I told you that the fake scar and eyepatch were a bit over the top, but did you listen? ;-)

Edited by author 11-11-2004 10:33 PM
And this sort of thing sometimes happens when the incoming and outgoing incumbents are of the SAME party, especially if one defeated the other in a primary.

It's unfortunate, but not altogether unusual, that defeated incumbents treat the victors with contempt (and is an affliction of both parties) and try to keep them in the dark until "the day" arrives when they leave office. Even as a fairly partisan Republican, I would at least want to make sure my successor (especially in a record-keeping office), regardless of party, knew the day-to-day operations of the office and would try to make sure most of my staff members were retained and would similarly help the incoming officeholder with any problems to have as smooth a transition as possible. In any event, I'm sorry to hear you're being given a rough time on this. Let's hope you don't find a nastier surprise on New Years' with destroyed files and records. :-(