Union Leader Chosen to Head Probation Dept.

The county Board of Supervisors on Friday appointed a veteran union leader to run its huge and embattled Probation Department, immediately sparking charges that the appointment is a political payoff.

Richard Shumsky, who until last year was president of the powerful Deputy Probation Officers Assn., was chosen 4 to 0 to replace Barry Nidorf as chief probation officer.

That left the acting chief probation officer, Walter Kelly, out in the cold, and some county officials and Probation Department representatives privately grumbled that Shumsky got the job because of his political connections. Others, however, praised Shumsky for his innovative leadership skills as longtime union chief, even if he does not have traditional management experience.

The Probation Department, the nation’s largest, has been beset with problems in recent years, from rampant abuse of overtime to the deaths of several delinquent or abused youths placed by the department in community-based facilities.

Though career probation officer Kelly took the brunt of criticism for those problems from angry supervisors, he had just taken over the department and was in the process of overhauling probation operations. He and Shumsky were among five finalists for the job, along with the director of the state Department of Youth Authority, Francisco J. Alarcon; Orange County Chief Probation Officer Michael A. Schumacher; and David Tristan, deputy director of the state Department of Corrections.

At first, Shumsky, 55, was not even on the list of five finalists submitted by an outside panel of management experts; he was added when another candidate withdrew, sources said Friday.

Kelly could not be reached for comment Friday.

Shumsky, a 29-year department veteran, will be paid $120,000 a year. “I welcome the challenge, and I’m appreciative that the board had confidence in me,” he said.

The Probation Department has an annual budget of about $300 million and a staff of about 4,200 sworn deputies and civilians. It oversees 100,000 probationers--three-fourths of them adults, the rest juveniles--and it runs 19 probation camps for juvenile offenders and three lock-down juvenile detention facilities and places thousands of other minors in group homes.

Shumsky acknowledged that his appointment was a controversial one, especially given his rapid rise from a deputy probation officer to department chief in less than a year.

“I know that some people are not pleased, but all I ask is that they give me a year to see what programs I propose and see how we can increase the morale of the department,” Shumsky said. “It is a very politicized kind of thing. [But] I hope we energize the department and move forward.”

Some, however, have criticized Shumsky’s rise to power as overly politicized.

The Probation Managers Assn. said that Shumsky lacks “the skills and experience” to do the job, and that the three finalists from outside the department do possess such skills.

And some ranking department veterans have been openly scornful of Shumsky’s recent career moves.

Raul Solis, a 36-year veteran senior probation director, alleges in a Civil Service document that Shumsky’s appointment to the top job was a done deal last year, when Nidorf created the special “executive assistant” position for him.

Solis and his lawyer, Gilberto Moreno of the powerful Los Angeles County Chicano Employees Assn., alleged in a Civil Service complaint that Solis should have had a chance at the job, and that Shumsky obtained it as a quid pro quo for helping the supervisors win election.

“Mr. Shumsky took his union’s largess, paid his way through the patronage system, and when the time was right, switched sides to management,” according to Solis’ complaint.

“Mr. Shumsky’s appointment was a transparent payoff for a political debt. He shouldn’t have been appointed,” the complaint alleges. “He should be indicted for selling out.”

Solis’ case is continuing, and a Civil Service Commission panel is expected to rule within several weeks on whether he has the right to the job--an apparently moot point given Shumsky’s appointment Friday, Moreno said.

On Friday, after getting a phone call from Shumsky, Solis declined to comment. Shumsky said in an interview that he and Solis have “patched things up” and that Solis “has agreed to stay on and will have a prominent role.”

Moreno, however, said many probation officials are rankled by Shumsky’s appointment.

“We saw it coming. It turned out exactly the way we said; he went from a case-carrying position to an executive assistant, after never being promoted his entire career, and the next thing you know he is the director of the entire department,” Moreno said. “There were some much more highly qualified candidates, two of them Chicano.”

Indeed, records show that the probation deputies union contributed tens of thousands of dollars a year to the political campaigns of the supervisors who voted to appoint Shumsky--except Zev Yaroslavsky, who left the closed session before the vote.

The probation union, for instance, pumped $40,000 into the election campaign of Don Knabe, who was in a tough race to replace his boss, Deane Dana, on the board last year.

Shumsky said there was never an arrangement for him to take over the department, and that he never did anything improper as a union leader to obtain the support of the supervisors.

“The union, not me, has an established policy of supporting our supervisors because we believed the incumbent supervisors were very cognizant of what the Probation Department did,” Shumsky said. “As president of the union, I have never asked any elected official to vote for anything other than the best public policy.”

As for Knabe, Shumsky said: “We believed Don Knabe was very familiar with the issues of county government,” having served as Dana’s longtime chief deputy.

Knabe and the other supervisors praised Shumsky on Friday as being instrumental in the county’s efforts to avoid huge layoffs and the closure of the juvenile probation camps through the support of his union--whose members went without pay raises for years--and because of his contacts with lawmakers in Sacramento and other powerful politicians.

Shumsky, a member of the county pension board, also helped the county tap excess earnings from the pension fund so the county could use the money to meet its operating expenses.

Knabe said Shumsky “has my full support and confidence based on his demonstrated willingness to work with the board and his ability to recommend innovative solutions to difficult problems.”

He said the contributions played no role in his vote for Shumsky. “You vote for someone based on the merits and qualifications and how you think they can handle the job,” he said.

Added Supervisor Gloria Molina: “I can’t imagine a more dedicated county employee.”

Yaroslavsky, like the other supervisors, did not return calls seeking comment on Shumsky’s appointment. But he too issued a statement, saying only: “I will do all that I can to help him succeed in his new position.”