Civil Service and Martin Luther King Hospital

Did civil service rules have anything to do with the problems at King-Harbor Hospital in Los Angeles? Columnists Joe R. Hicks and Earl Ofari Hutchinson disagree about this.

Hicks writes: "civil service protections have made the process of eliminating nonproductive staff at King-Harbor (or in any public employee circumstance) a lengthy, time-consuming and difficult process. As we know, civil service protections are designed to discourage "frivolous" disciplinary procedures and terminations. So be it. But at an institution like King-Harbor, with the publicly-affixed moniker 'Killer King,' civil service protections have acted to shield hospital staffers who have acted in ways that all too often endangered the well-being of patients."

Hutchinson writes: "the notion that civil service rules have anything to do with the problems at the hospital has absolutely no basis in fact. You cite no evidence, even anecdotal, to bolster your contention that King-Harbor has been ruined by a legion of lazy, incompetent employees. The truth is that a targeted number of incompetent nurses and medical personnel at the hospital were put on administrative leave, reprimanded, disciplined, or nudged toward resignation and even terminated for failure to perform."

These are only brief excerpts. The complete texts of these op-ed pieces can be found at
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-dustup28jun28,0,2009883.story?coll=la-promo-opinion

Who is right about this?