Black is white and white is black in SLO, city employees say

That has to be one of the nuttiest defenses of the indefensible I’ve ever read.

Asst. Manager Michael Cordon tries to build a strawman argument because the Cal Coast News article clearly demonstrates real problems in SLO City’s management: management rewarding their cronies with raises, awards and promotions–even when the cronies have exhibited disturbing behavior, have made major infractions, or have committed crimes.

A strawman argument is a type of false logic which is constructed around the strawman’s creator’s (Condon) misrepresentation of the opponent’s (CCN) position.

————-

CCN ARTICLE’s MAJOR PREMISE:

The way I understand the basic position of CCN’s article (to which Condon responded) is that these nominations for awards, raises, etc. were questionable because of the types of behavior, prior major policy infractions, or crimes the nominee had committed. These were not simple mistakes, like failing to refill the office copier paper tray when it ran out when you were using it. These employee issues included FRAUD, for heaven sakes.

—————–

CONDON’s STRAWMAN ARGUMENT:

The following is the paragraph in which Condon frames his fallacious argument. (Numbers in parentheses are mine, and used to outline Condon’s argument.

“(1) Fundamentally, we know that when mistakes are made, they become valuable learning opportunities for the employee and the organization.” Condon’s email criticized CalCoastNews for publishing a “disparaging article” and makes two basic points: (a) Mistakes are made, and, (b) People can learn from their mistakes.

CCN’s article did not refute or even mention either of these two principles in their article because the focus of the article was on egregiously undeserving employees being nominated for awards, given raises, or given promotions.

In this group of unworthy-for-raises, etc. are people who have a history of a major infraction, behavior problem, or criminal arrest. These are not simple mistakes, like not refilling the copier with paper if it runs out while you are using it. These are issues that, in the private sector, would get the employee fired (and prosecuted, in some instances). Therefore, Condon is attempting to paint CCN as disagreeing with the two principles when, in fact, CCN made no mention of them.

(2). “Mistakes are not an excuse to punish, demean or reinforce prejudice.” This Condon statement has nothing to do with CCN’s article’s contents. However, by “refuting” his own implied statement that mistakes are an excuse to punish, etc., Condon implies that it is relevant to his attempt at rebuttal to CCN’s article. Condon is arguing with his own Strawman argument he created. Note that he plays the prejudice/race card, attempting to pin it on CCN.

(3) “ I think this is why the article is so upsetting – it is based on the premise that no public employee should ever, ever make any kind of mistake. Condon reframes the discussion by using his own strawman argument. His goal is to shift the blame for the “upset” at SLOCity from himself and Lichtig and onto CCN. Since CCN’s article did not make any of the points Condon attempts to fallaciously attribute to CCN, the “upset” at SLOCity cannot be “upsetting” because of CCN’s article. The “upset” is due to the lack of management and leadership abilities at SLOCity which led to nominating/ rewarding their undeserving cronies, by using SLOCity funds, positions and awards.

(4) “That is not a characteristic of a high-functioning organization and why we must let our employees know that, true to our organizational values, we don’t operate that way.” That may be true, but whether SLOCity is, or is not, run in that way has to do with SLOCity management and administration, not the recently published CCN article.

———————–