A change in district leadership following the June 3 local elections has opened new doors for civil servants who had been passed over for promotion and forced to swallow their disappointment in silence.
Elected district mayors hold personnel authority — but that authority must be exercised fairly and reasonably, in a way the organization can accept. The concern is whether heavy-handed personnel decisions have left deserving officials with legitimate grievances.
A, a civil servant who had served as head of the planning and budget division at a Seoul district office, had to hold back tears in January when a Grade 4 promotion appeared to be within reach.
A joined the district office in 1990 as a Grade 9 civil servant and went on to hold a series of key posts, including head of public relations and information technology, audit officer, head of health and sanitation, head of culture, and head of planning and budget.
Despite a long career and a strong track record, A was passed over when a division chief who had transferred in from another district several years earlier was promoted ahead of him.
A then faced another setback: reassignment to the district council.
Six months later, the district mayor changed through the local elections, and so did A's fortunes. In a recent personnel reshuffle, A was finally promoted to Grade 4 and appointed to a senior director post.
The newly inaugurated district mayor reviewed A's career history and the circumstances surrounding the earlier personnel decisions before granting the promotion.
A told those around him, "The world changed, and my chance finally came." The words are brief, but they carry the weight of years of pain and mixed emotions.
Is this kind of case unique to one district?
Critics say it is a textbook example of a chronic failing in local government — elected district mayors drawing lines between "my people" and "your people" when making personnel decisions.
Civil servants are there to serve residents and carry out their duties faithfully. When promotions and assignments are instead determined by hometown ties, school connections or political leanings, the organization's credibility inevitably erodes.
If civil servants are sorted by regional origin and political allegiance every election cycle — and penalized in their careers accordingly — the neutrality of public administration and the stability of the organization itself are put at risk.
"It is disheartening to see people divided along regional lines and discriminated against in promotions every time an election comes around," said a senior official at one district office. "With more than 30 years of local autonomy behind us, it is time for fair personnel principles and a mature sense of self-governance to take firm root."
Personnel decisions are a district mayor's prerogative, but they are also a heavy responsibility to the organization and to residents. Hard-working civil servants should no longer be reduced to tears by political score-settling.
seouldream01@heraldcorp.com
