by Paul R. Spitzzeri
Last Sunday, Homestead volunteer and UCLA doctoral candidate José Castro gave a very interesting presentation on Mary Julia Workman (1871-1964), grand-niece of Homestead founders William Workman and Nicolasa Urioste, who led the Brownson Settlement House, a Catholic institution for recent immigrants to Los Angeles, for nearly two decades at the start of the 20th century.
As José detailed, Workman ran the settlement house with the purpose of helping new arrivals, including Mexicans, Japanese and others, who lived in working-class sections of downtown, to preserve the culture of their homeland while becoming Americanized. This was not necessarily an approach accepted by other Americanization advocates, who pushed for immigrants to leave their home country cultures behind and to fully embrace American ways of living.
Shortly after the elevation in 1917 of John J. Cantwell as bishop of the Diocese of Monterey-Los Angeles (which became that of Los Angeles-San Diego five years later with the Archdiocese of Los Angeles established in 1936), a sweeping institutional change in how Catholic charitable work was conducted in the diocese was implemented. The formation, in 1919, of Associated Catholic Charities, renamed the Bureau of Catholic Charites two years later, meant centralization of control and the assumption of management by priests.
When Workman left Brownson, José remarked, all of the volunteers followed, as a protest over the change in how the settlement house was run. While she was deeply disappointed by the situation, she remained involved in Catholic causes and issues, while finding other ways to utilize her abilities and talents. One of these was her appointment in 1925 to the Los Angeles Civil Service Commission.
Reformers, led by Dr. John Randolph Haynes, led a movement to amend the Angel City’s charter, and the December 1902 election, which saw Workman’s father, former mayor and incumbent City Treasurer, William H. Workman, win a second term as the only Democrat at City Hall, included voters approving a sweeping package of amendments. These included Los Angeles becoming the first city in the nation to institute the initiative, recall and referendum for more direct voter involvement in municipal governance, as well as the creation of the Commission.
This board of five persons was charged with broad oversight of civil service rules and personnel policies for the City, including establishing job classifications, as well as the review of dismissals, firings and resignations of city employees, with an ultimate goal of having as complete a system of meritocracy as possible. The Commission was in existence for nearly a quarter century when Workman was appointed in March 1925 to a vacancy, though it should be noted that the fact that her brother Boyle was president, for a second time, of the City Council (he served from 1919 to 1921, lost a primary campaign for mayor against eventual winner George Cryer, and returned to the council two years later.)
It seems highly unlikely that Workman would have secured that position without her sibling’s influence, though the decision was solely that of Mayor Cryer, who filled another opening in the Commission at the same time. Shortly after she joined the body, Workman and her fellow commissioners were subject to a new amendment, one of many, to the charter and which required that they draw lots for staggered terms of one to four years; she drew the longest of the stints.
An interesting and helpful article by Fred W. Arnold in the Los Angeles Illustrated Daily News of 25 November 1925, the fourteenth part of a series on the City’s bureaus, commissions and departments, summarized the work of the Commission for readers, stating that,
The Los Angeles Civil Service Commission is charged with the duty of preparing eligible [eligibility] lists from which the majority of city employes [sic] are selected. Although the charter exempts a long roll of officials and subordinates from civil service, there are 16,326 persons on the salary list who passed its examinations.
Civil service employes are classified first as to education, experience, knowledge and ability; second as to tests of fitness, and third on [an] equitable schedule of compensation.
The commission is required to maintain eligible lists from which the city positions are to be filled. When a department notifies the commission of a vacancy the letter must certify to it the names of the three candidates standing highest on its register eligible to the position to be filled. Should two or more vacancies exist, however, the board cannot certify more than two names over and above the number of positions. As the eligible lists become depleted additional examinations are conducted. These are limited to citizens of the United States. A special credit of 10 per cent of the total credits possible under such examinations is allowed to honorably discharge service men, the wives of disabled service men and the widows of service men killed in such service.
While the vast majority of the Commission’s work was mundane with respect to overseeing these responsibilities, there was some notable issues that arose during Workman’s four-year tenure. The most media-worthy examples involved fellow commissioner, John W. Buzzell, who drew the two-year term lot in July 1925 and who was an official of the Central Labor Council. Given the deeply rooted antipathy of the virulently pro-business Los Angeles Times, it is no surprise that the paper devoted plenty of ink to the issue.
In its 2 March 1927 edition, the Times referred to allegations that regulations for civil service “are being revised and juggled as part of the part [sic] of the plan to unionize the 15,000 city employees,” with it added that the assertion was “that by constantly increasing the number of civil service employees on so-called ‘temporary’ lists, the unions can give many men part-time employment at the expense of men on the permanent civil service lists, who, under the regulations are entitled to first call for city work.”
Some 400 men were said to be on the temporary list and it was asserted that listings were for such positions, rather than permanent ones, and, through this purported ruse, “the unions are able to give work to men who are ‘in right’ at the Labor Temple, and to discipline others. The scheme was said to be managed by Buzzell, a Public Works Commissioner John S. Horn, another Central Labor Council figure, “and by the Parrot-Cryer city ‘administration.
This last phrase was a knock on Mayor George Cryer, who was widely regarded as a puppet of his key adviser Kent Parrot, with “administration” meant to inform readers that there was no such activity in Angel City government. The Parrot machine shared similarities with others of the era, including Tammany Hall in New York City, the Pendergast operation in Kansas City and that in the mayoralty of Anton Cermak in Chicago, but, after Cryer won a third term later in 1927, the relationship with Parrot soured and the mayor decided against running for a fourth term in 1929 (Boyle Workman mounted a second campaign for the office but only secured 1% of the vote.)
The Times noted that union carpenters were at the center of the matter, with those in the employ of the municipality receiving a pay increase thanks to the intercession of Buzzell, the good graces of the Public Works Committee and the “administration” faction of the City Council. The paper continued, with barely concealed disdain, that,
With the city government being used as a recruiting office for the unions and increased pay given at the taxpayers’ expense as bait for the city employees to join the unions, the Central Labor Council has met with success so far in its unionizing campaign.
Encouraged by its recent success in obtaining pay increases, the Central Labor Council began work through foremen, whose pay was increased for his purpose at the demand of union labor, to force the workers of garbage wagons, street sweepers, street repair men and other engineering department employees to join the union if they expected to keep their jobs and to have their pay increased.
The foremen tell the men that if they do not join the unions, the “Civil Service Commission will get them” . . .
It was stated that carpenters who passed civil service examinations and were placed on permanent job lists said they were bypassed by union men on temporary ones, while others already on the municipal payroll were relieved of duty “so as to give other union men employment.” Purportedly, even union workers on the preferred list were sacked “and their jobs given to others and the power bureau and water and power department (both now part of the Department of Water and Power) were specifically cited as involved in these alleged instances.
Buzzell, a Central Labor Council secretary, “who frankly admits that his mission in life and his salaried job . . . call for his efforts to unionize every worker that he can draft into the ranks of union labor,” was quoted as remarking that “men on preferred lists have the preference for permanent jobs and employment. Men on temporary jobs should not be displaced by men on the permanent list when the particular task the men on the permanent list are doing is finished.” The Times concluded with the observation that,
Miss Workman and Commissioner [William A.] Schreider have shown themselves strongly for a fair, impartial carrying out of the spirit and letter of the civil service regulations. President [George J.] Stoneman [the son of a Civil War general, San Gabriel-area orchardist and California governor] has often voted with Commissioner Buzzell. The attitude of Commissioner [H.C.] Fryman on the attempt of the unions to use the civil service department and regulations as a method of giving employment to the men they desire to reward and to punish others is not known.
The controversy continued into the spring, with the paper remarking that “the city government’s machinery for serving the public is being demoralized by union organization” and it was claimed that Buzzell’s efforts “amounted to coercion,” including his transmitting a letter to 8,000 city workers, this, he said, among 25,000 sent, to encourage the election defeat of anti-union city candidates for office, but that he did this as a Central Labor Council representative, which was his day job.
Workman and Schreider told Buzzell “they are in sympathy with the aims of organized labor, but that such action as his damaged the just cause of his own organization. She then introduced a resolution that “apprehension in the minds of the civil service employees is demoralizing the public service of the city of Los Angeles.”
Moreover, the concern of these workers was that “membership in a certain organization is necessary to enable civil service employees to retain their positions.” The resolution concluded that those working for the municipality were assured that, “so long as they perform their respective duties efficiently and loyally they will be protected in their every right under the civil service rules and regulations.”
When a report was submitted to the City Council about Buzzell’s activities, the Times cited three members who were critical of the commissioner and were in the minority of five, including Boyle Workman, who wanted the document made public. The other eight were listed, but the paper felt it necessary to add that two of them “face difficult run-offs in the coming election,” insinuating that they were pandering for union votes.
Shortly afterward, Buzzell’s two-year term expired and he did not return to the Commission, while on 26 July, reported the Daily News “as a move toward restoring harmony in the civil service commission, Miss Mary Workman was elected president,” succeeding Stoneman, who remained on the commission for a short time longer (he relocated to Arizona and died about a year-and-a-half later).
A little more than two weeks prior, the paper, recently taken over by E. Manchester Boddy, who made city politics his primary concern, issued an editorial “Warning to Civil Service Bureau” that “after many discouraging years of rotten politics, the public, thoroughly aroused, decreed that no longer should politicians be permitted to reward their henchmen and hangers-on with city jobs.” This led to the formation of the Commission a quarter-century or so before, but there were recent problems with a lack of qualified persons to administer civil service examinations.
Yet, efforts to remedy the matter stalled with the Commission, so that the Daily News offered that “to the average citizen it looks very much as though someone is trying to jockey matters about to the end that the examination department becomes a mere puppet.” It added that the body “is the only bulwark between public welfare and corruption” and it announced its determination to investigate the issue minutely and determine why the reform stalled.”
As it concluded, the paper assured readers, “it intends further to find out whether or not the sinister shadow of political interference is threatening our civil service administration” and that it would “support any and all in authority who will dedicate themselves to the task of keeping the civil service free and clear of political influence.” It also observed that,
Vice President Mary Workman, consecrated to her task of keeping the civil service clean and effective, is co-operating with Commissioner Schrider [sic] in an earnest effort to get action.
By mid-September, the union issue arose again, despite Buzzell’s leaving the commission, when efforts were undertaken to remove Commission General Manager Clifford N. Amsden, who assumed that role in July, because of allegations he worked with the former commissioner on the “furtherance of unionism and against the open-shop principle of industrial relations,” which, naturally, the Times greatly praised and promoted.
When it came to Workman and Schreider, the paper informed readers that “the two members are regarded as champions of the open-shop principle, so indorsed by the Chamber of Commerce and long established as one of the city’s fundamentals,” though, as we saw, both expressed solidarity and sympathy with organized labor and Workman demonstrated this through other parts of her life. It was added that “the two boldly opposed Buzzell’s activities,” though this was more based on operational considerations and strict adherence to Commission regulations and rules.
In its edition of the 28th, the paper reported that Schreider and Workman were in favor of firing Amsden and tried to prevent the resignation of the chief examiner, with both threatening to give up their seats on the Commission, as their were conflicts in the body about Amsden’s role in overseeing the civil service operations in the City, including in dealing with department heads about the positions of subordinates.
In early November, Mattie Scherer, who was in charge of service records and a candidate for the general manager position before Amsden was hired, testified before the Commission about how former Police Chief R. Lee Heath called her to his office at City Hall, where he was part of the Cryer administration, and then to lunch at the Biltmore Hotel to discuss her candidacy, that the mayor’s secretary, H.H. Kinney, told her that her appointment as manager was contingent on that “one must be a friend of the city administration,” and that Parrot, after Heath sent her for a review, “looked me up and down and said, “I guess you’ll do.”
A veteran of the Commission since its formation, Scherer withdrew her candidacy for general manager because of the machinations and added that Heath warned her to steer clear of the Amsden controversy, saying he was long a friend of her and her family and it would be a shame if she lost her job if she got a dismissal letter from Amsden.
Another candidate for the GM job, Herbert S. Payne of the Board of Public Utilities and Transportation, related how Buzzell called him to the Labor Temple to talk about Payne’s pursuit of the job and allegedly stated that the unionists were going to throw their weight around when it came to appointing union members to jobs within city departments. Payne said he dropped his campaign “because I thought I’d be called on to do something that was not square,” meaning unethical and illegal, while he added that Buzzell advocated for Amsden to get the job.
On 17 November, Amsden was cleared of all charges, though with a narrow 3-2 vote by the Commission, with Workman and Schreider voting in the minority and then telling the press they would no longer pursue his removal, while also being non-committal about whether they would resign their positions. Amsden went on to a lengthy career with the Commission, serving until 1953 after more than twenty years as secretary and chief examiner. Not surprisingly, Parrot was investigated regarding his role in the controversy, while another matter of note involved charges that Los Angeles Police Department examination questions were purportedly accessed by potential candidates for the force.
In the remaining portion of her tenure, Workman was involved in dealing with the resignation of the deputy city clerk and calls for him to defer the action as some commissioners asked him to reconsider, this following his linkage, never proved, to a graft scandal in the city administration. She also worked with Stoneman and Schreider on an effort to get autonomy for the Commission to manage its finances, this requiring an amendment of the city charter. She, along with Amsden and Schreider, also lobbied against a county charter amendment that would give extra points in examinations for veterans, their wives and widows seeking civil service jobs.
When Workman’s four-year term ended on 30 June 1929, this was followed by a Commission action, in which,
The resolution congratulates her for serving “loyally, honestly, courageously and industriously” and states that she has at all times been an ardent supporter of the merit system for city employees which has progressed greatly during her four terms [years].
As a rare woman in a position of significant authority in Angel City municipal government during the last half of the Roaring Twenties and one of the few Workman and Temple family females to have a notable public presence, Mary Julia’s tenure on the Civil Service Commission deserves recognition and remembrance.
According to this post, whether immigrants should embrace Americanization and leave their own culture behind was a subject of debate in Los Angeles in the early 20th century. In fact, this question has never been absent from immigrant families and continues to be relevant today.
Whenever people immigrate to another country, cultural differences are an unavoidable issue they must face. In fact, besides being passively influenced by the new environment, immigrants often actively adopt new and better attitudes and behaviors. From my own experience, I believe that the way Americans approach business is one area in which immigrants, particularly those from Asian cultures, can learn something valuable.
In many Asian societies, when conducting business, people often place considerable emphasis on personal relationships first, rational considerations second, and formal rules or regulations last. In American business culture, the priorities are often reversed: regulations and established requirements come first, rationality comes next, and personal relationships come afterward.