I have to agree. I do believe that a politician should be supported by staff that correspond to his agenda. At least at the Senior level, However there is a limit to how far down the patronage line should go. Not ever position should be open for supporters just because they did a little work on the campaign. Qualifications still need to be meet, then patronage.
Buck Naked
· 2 years ago
He's right -- the real world does understand this. If they didnt, Chicago voters would not have reelected Mayor Daley for his sixth term as Mayor. They see a beautiful, clean city with a robust economy -- this is what they care about.
VanillaMan
· 2 years ago
It is a shell game. If you want to make the mayor, the governor, or any other elected official responsible for what happens on the front line, then you agree with Big Jim. So, when citizens get the shaft from an aide, or any other appointed official, the whole team gets the boot.
But they don't want to be responsible for that, do they? Instead of taking it on the chin for the team, when crap comes down, the elected officials play games. The blame the problems on someone else. They start shuffling the shells again.
A better solution is to have an elected official clearly able to replace a specific set of administration positions - and the rest go to citizens who have made serving the public a career that doesn't require elections.
As a result, I can only agree with Big Jim on theory. But reality requires we do not allow the level of sway political bosses like Stephens, Daley, even Blagojevich, have on our lives.
Little Egypt
· 2 years ago
Big Jim Thompson defined and refined political patronage. As a result, he literally gutted the Civil Service System as we had all known it in Illinois. He definitely knows what he's talking about and did it all with a smile.
the Other Anonymous
· 2 years ago
The Supreme Court got it right in Rutan: political loyalty is an appropriate factor for sensitive positions, but not for front line positions serving the public.
I don't think the public understands -- or wants -- a system where every job, from collecting tolls to Ph.D. level scientists, depends on political loyalty. In fact, there's a lot to be said for protecting civil servants from patronage, particularly those with specialized expertise.
Thompson is betting that we'll confuse patronage protection with civil service protection. I think the public in general believes that it should be easier to fire public employees for incompetence; they (we) don't think it should be easy to fire (or hire) public employees based on their politics.
Dieter
· 2 years ago
I agree, but to a certain extent.
It should be limited to the executive's immediate staff, senior cabinet personnel and the like. The executive in office shouldn't be deciding who gets hired in building maintenance or what campaign donor gets a contract.
Anonymous
· 2 years ago
Total BS. Under Rutan, there are numerous "exempt" positions, and the Governor has all the freedom he needs to hire people "who believe in them and support them" in order to "carry out the wishes of the people who elect them". What Thompson and Daley and the others who attack Rutan/Shakman are really talking about is the power to hire underlings who are political hack rewards to the people who help get them elected precisely for the spoils. That may well serve the interests of those elected, but it has nothing to do with serving the interests of the public.
Cassandra
· 2 years ago
The difficulty is how to have a permanent civil service which is apolitical while at the same time avoiding the granting of lifetime employment without regard to performance as is currently the case for most employees below cabinet and guv's office level in the state of Illinois. Citizens are not well served by a civil service where nobody has to worry about being fired unless they are convicted of a serious crime.
Perhaps we should see how Ron Huberman does over at the CTA, the ultimate hacky, overstaffed Democratic bureaucracy where he is reportedly considering something like GE's Six Sigma. If he can do something about the CTA, maybe there is hope for the multitude of other creaky government bureaucracies feeding off the public purse in Illinois.
Way Northsider
· 2 years ago
The real issue is not whether supporters are brought into government but how, why and how much money these supporters make as a result and whether they do their jobs.
Just Observing
· 2 years ago
As a former government employee, I can attest to the multitude of problems caused by widespread patronage.
When people are put in positions based on clout without regard to skills or qualifcation, not only does it hurt the public but it hurts the morale and productivity of the other employees. When someone who is less qualified and puts less effort in his or her job than you.. it harbors resentment and offers not motivation to work hard. I'm not obtuse to political reality, but anyone that contends that universal patronage is beneficial either has never worked in government or doesn't understand simple organizational behavior.
GOP'er
· 2 years ago
Frankly, our personal opinions don't matter. The fact is "patronage" as Big Jim did it, and the type he's reminiscing about here, isn't legal, and the Feds are taking it seriously today.
It's a little sad to see an officer of the court like Thompson taking this line. I don't know if it's just arrogance or just a function of being an old dinosaur.
Red
· 2 years ago
Has anyone heard of communism?
Team Sleep
· 2 years ago
I think that some high/senior-level staff types can be of the opposite party or ideology. As long as there is an unwritten code in place that forces workers to adhere publicly and professionally to the beliefs of the elected official, anyone who is not of the same political walk can be an effective administrator or policy wonk. If you violate this code, you won't last.
However, since that is risky, it makes sense to have people who agree with you on pretty much every level or are at least of the same party. After all, when you send them out to do your work and to push your programs, there has to be a sense of loyalty and job security.
You also have to look at the federal level to see that even though there is a civil service system in place, the level of service still isn't that great. Years of bad hiring, coupled with mandatory quotas, has put the feds in a bind. You can't really fire any of them and the performance levels continue to plummet. Plus, political hacks still find themselves getting comfy jobs in agencies like FEMA, the Department of Labor, DOD, etc. It's not much better. Sometimes hiring a hungry young Dem or Republican straight outta college can be just as effective (and cheaper) than hiring a "qualified" applicant who may test well but can't do his or her job effectively.
Levois
· 2 years ago
I can agree to a point, but do we not still expect a person from the higher levels on down to know what they are doing. I would expect them to have some idea of the field they oversee.
Bill Baar
· 2 years ago
So all those clerks as the Sec of State's office have to be political appointments to get the administration's agenda done... geez
i d
· 2 years ago
All of this discussion would be moot if people were honorable and truthful.
Mr. Ethics
· 2 years ago
The article states that George Ryan also attended. How nice that he could be there too, thanks to Mr. Thompson. Sorry, this wasn't an answer to the QOTD but an observance of what the real world doesn't understand.
LogicalGOP
· 2 years ago
I agree with Big Jim, but also to an extent. Front line employees in your public works, police, fire, etc...should be qualified applicants who are committed to doing their jobs. If any patronage is to exist at those levels it should be limited to the minimal "management/executive discretionary points" often allowed in police and fire testing. These points rarely make or break an applicant but often can move a highly qualified applicant a little up the list.
Administration posts or positions that have a political liability to the elected official should be allowed extensive patronage. Elected officials need to have trustworthy allies that will stand by you and who you can trust in performing their duties. Anyone that doesn't agree has never been in a position where you have to place your livelihood in someone else's trust. Most on this blog have seemed to agree.
On a side note, Mr. Ethics - i find it ironic that you chose that blog name considering your cheap shot at Gov. Ryan, if you want to be ethical then stay on topic. Ryan was not a discussion piece here, he was a long time friend of Mayor Stephens and has every right to attend the funeral. Grow up and stop beating a dead horse, Mr. Ryan will have his day in Appeals court and his family will be forced to live with whatever decision is made, cheap shots like the one you made are pothetic and disrespectful.
steve schnorf
· 2 years ago
A wise administration attempts to make sure that no one is appointed to a position they aren't qualified for, that everyone actually does the job they're appointed to, and that holdovers (except at the very highest levels) are left in their positions (or a position) as long as they do the job well and aren't openly attacking the administration. That takes away a lot of the sting, and helps assure the public gets service of reasonable quality.
Carl Nyberg
· 2 years ago
Do you want the janitors and security personnel at your local high school to be hired b/c they are loyal foot soldiers to the local political machine?
How's it look when starting janitors w/o college degrees earn substantially more than starting teachers with BAs?
GOP'er
· 2 years ago
It's obvious from reading some of the comments on here that some people still don't get it. Every administration gets to make some political appointments, in the case of higher level policy positions. That's true at the state and federal level. That's fine.
But I assume Big Jim is talking about the kind of patronage where you donate or volunteer for a campaign, and you or your ner'-do-well son in law gets a job somewhere in government as a reward. Folks, that is ILLEGAL. It's not a matter of opinion. And for good reason. A campaign reward means that taxpayers can't be guaranteed of getting the best value, and usually they won't be.
Good grief, how many people in this state have to be sent to the grey bar hotel before some people will wake up?
publius
· 2 years ago
the post office used to be the big patronage cesspool of the federal government---in chicago they delivered the mail on time twice a day---compare that to the lackluster performance of today's professionals
Team Sleep
· 2 years ago
Mr. Schnorf, I completely agree. As big of a state as Illinois is, it shouldn't be that difficult to find partisan administrators and policy people who can effectively and intelligently run Illinois.
Carl, you reminded me of my cousin who is a maintenance man with the state. He's actually more of a janitor but he crows too much about it. He got his job through a state senator and he makes upwards of $25 an hour. He has never hesitated to rub it in people's face(s) that he makes more than them as a janitor who can't be fired and knows so-and-so. Infuriating.
PalosParkBob
· 2 years ago
Carl, when you have janitors making more than starting teachers because of political connections, it looks like just about every public school in Illinois.
It doesn't just stop at "janitors". There's a plethora of teacher's aide, playground assistant, office support,library aide, and substitute teacher jobs that are doled out almost exclusively on a political basis.
One of the other politcal abuses is using certain connected substitutes more frequently so that they get a higher daily rate.
This often leads to situations like a politically connected Spanish teacher standing in for an ill Calculus teacher for extended periods, rather than an apolitical math instructor.
Another gimmick is fattening retired adminstrator's income by being classified as "temporary" or a "substitute" at a position.
In my school district, the Board hired a retired K-5 principal as a "construction project manager" at about $700 per day,despite his having virtually no construction management experience or qualifications. They also paid his "expenses", such as regularly flying him to vacation home near Florida, at taxpayer expense.
Of course, he was a "good soldier" for the politicians. When the contractors wanted change orders, or cost overruns transferred "off budget" to make the cost seem lower than it was, he was right there to approve it.No questions asked.
Suburban hiring of teachers and adminstrators is almost totally subjective, and largely politically motivated, in the 2000s.
I know many parents and taxpayers who won't say a single critical word about the schools because they're afraid that their kids in Ed school will be blackballed. Smart ones work and campaign for the politically connected school board members, and you can bet they have their yard signs up.
Try throwing a monkey wrench into this patronage network, and they'll be all over you. Hard.
Since Shakman, patronage hiring of Chicago campaign workers hasn't ended. It's just moved to the suburbs.
Objective Dem
· 2 years ago
The patronage approach advocated by Thompson came to its logical conclusion in the Rutan Supreme Court rulings and the Ryan Secretary of State scandal, where "loyal" workers needed to take bribes in order to meet the fundraising requirements to keep their jobs.
I don't know the full ruling of the US Supreme Court, but I agree with their basic priniciple that only policy level and confidential jobs need to be exempt.
Doodles
· 2 years ago
Who decides "the wishes of the people who elect them?" Easy to say, hard to measure.
anon
· 2 years ago
I totally agree with 'Just Observing'. That is exactly how the state is being run today. There are so many unqualified political hacks hired at high salaries at most agencies, the morale has hit rock bottom. All the higher ups are kissing a** just to save their jobs. I hear over at IDOT they have so many consultants (35 or more) in Information Processing right now, that they almost outnumber the regular IP employees.
Truthful James
· 2 years ago
The political masters need people in jobs -- and in second jobs -- precisely because they need the contributions that come from them to feed their campaigns. Money and shoe leather get people elected and that is what these folks are for.
Georgy-porgy and the driver's license scandal was the normal outgrowth of the Illinois system. Those people were reduced to buying muliple fund raising tickets, and the money had to come from somewhere.
old timer
· 2 years ago
Patronage by this administration is beyond belief. It would be interesting to request the number of superviory positions that have been filled with people with only a high school education or GED with little experience. A job discription at IDOT was created for a Technical Manager VI with no educational requirement and only 3 years experience for the Bureau of Business Services. Anyone that applied for this position, only wasted their time.
Skirmisher
· 2 years ago
Having served under Thompson and several other governers up to the present, I am of the opinion that Thompson was the only one of the lot that ever did patronage responsibly. The directors he gave us under his reign were superbly qualified, dedicated people, and he did not load them up with purely political "deputy directors", etc. Hiring was fixed, certainly, but in the Thompson years the "governor's referrals" that we got were well qualified and eager, and they usually came to work at the bottem, at an entry level salarly. That is a far cry from the present disgrace, were we get painfully unqualified political hacks starting at salaries far beyond what most state employees (even those in professional titles) could hope for if they served 40 years. The difference between Thompson and now was that Thompson truly wanted to govern responsibly.
Shelbyville
· 2 years ago
When my father was a patronage employee, many decades ago - he routinally cleaned out his desk and went home, if a democrat was elected. Other Republicans then hired him. 2% of his check went to the county organization. That was life and he didn't have a problem with it.
So, I agree with Thompson. You need to hire your supporters.
A Citizen
· 2 years ago
The real difference is what we have now and under Walker is patronage Chicago city style. Patronage at the state level has generally been much much less offensive and incompetent. This administration is making major mistakes in the process (endemic hiring fraud etc.) and it has been noted and will be prosecuted. It really didn't have to be that way, they simply know no other way. Mary Lee Leahy tried to tell them but was quickly sidelined - the beginning of the end.
Yellow Dog Democrat
· 2 years ago
Governor Thomspson's argument is fallacious. It pre-supposes that patronage is about hiring people who you can trust to carry out your vision for advancing the public interest through your office. All too often, it seems to be about rewarding people for getting you elected. Unless someone can explain to me how hiring 21 year-old kids to be building inspectors advances anyone's public interest?
"A wise administration attempts to make sure that no one is appointed to a position they aren’t qualified for, that everyone actually does the job they’re appointed to, and that holdovers (except at the very highest levels) are left in their positions (or a position) as long as they do the job well and aren’t openly attacking the administration. "
I wonder where these noble sentiments were when I was working under you in your tenure at CMS. Because in my daily worker bee life in those halcyon days, I had the pleasure of working under several levels of political hacks and connected, appointed toadies that knew less about their jobs than I did. I and my co-workers labored long and hard in the vinyard only to watch a LOT of patronage shennanigans go by, apparently under your nose, if you claim to be unaware. Raises based on political party affiliation and amount of activism in campaigns. Free days off to work the campaigns. People stealing state equipment and resources, caught red-handed, yet given raises and promotions due to party affiliation and protection, and flagrant waste of "perks" while the rest of us got to practice yet more "belt tightening". The day I got hired, the manager's first questions weren't what I knew about my specialty, but what Republican names I could put down as sponsors or references. This for a job that paid maybe twenty grand a year, at the bottom of the state food chain. Not the top two or three levels most people expect to be awarded to party loyalists.
I work there still, so no, I'm not going to use my real name. I know how you like to dismiss people here as cowards, who won't out their true names, but you don't have to live in fear of a system you helped perpetuate under your own administration, so I don't much care about your opinion on that issue.
I will say that we prayed long and hard for deliverance from the Republican partisan patronage rule, and thought we got our salvation in Blago, only to be greatly disappointed when he took your same playbook and xeroxed it, then took it to new heights. We never gave a darn about party politics of either side down at our measly little level, we just worked hard to deliver services to the people that needed them, and to make our living.
You must have had your head in the clouds not to see your managers and the managers below them were running the place like a gold rush western town. As in wide open. So take your lofty opinion quoted above and frame it, because I lived and worked in that time and that was NEVER the way it really was.
Yesterday's Tattered Newspaper
· 2 years ago
For some reason, Big Jim's opinion on anything that is political in nature just doesn't mean squat to me nor to the vast majority of other Illinois GOP voters anymore. Big Jim's opinion has become "meaningless" to the GOP Party faithful. Today, all that he can still do is to help raise money but that is where it ends. He has become as meaningful in today's political arena as windshield wipers on a submarine.
Gregor
· 2 years ago
I remember Thompson as governor defending patronage, saying in a properly run system, it was only applied to break the tie between two otherwise equally qualified candidates. There is a world of difference between theory and practice. I think it is fair to expect agency directors and their immediate underlings to be party faithful and fully vested members of the winning Governor's inner circle. Below that level, only merit and actual qualifications for the job should matter. It should be a point of pride to be able to say how many of the other party work in a happy partnership with the administration.
I too think that agency Directors should have at least some experience in the field related to their job. I do not buy this idea that all executive positions in management are basically interchangeable, like legos. That's only true on a superficial level. If you want to be a public health director, you better by gosh have an M.D. at the end of your name. I do believe an IDOT director needs to have an actual engineering background on top of all the management skill sets.
The reason is, there's book smart and there's experience-smart. You are less apt to buy into rip-offs and dubious schemes for financing a project if you have some practical experience. You make better decisions about things like how long you can get away with deferring maintenance, if you've seen corroded bridge piers in the field, instead of taking the word of some wing-tipped bozo with a dubiously derived spreadsheet that "they'll keep". You'll make better decisions about health campaigns if you know how hospitals and clinics work from the inside, as a practitioner who has to implement a program. And so it goes, for every agency.
I always shrug with rueful surprise when the administrations change and they drop in someone with little or no background to run an agency or division, without examining as candidates the people who have been there for years gaining valuable experience and institutional memory. That's not a public service mindset. That's a "Spoils of War" mindset, and it is not in the best interests of the citizens of Illinois.
steve schnorf
· 2 years ago
Every administration makes mistakes, but I don't pay much heed to cheap shots from anonymous sources.
steve schnorf
· 2 years ago
Oh, and brave one above, why would the current administration punish you for criticizing me?
Disgusted
· 2 years ago
"Elected officials need to have trustworthy allies that will stand by you and who you can trust in performing their duties. Anyone that doesn’t agree has never been in a position where you have to place your livelihood in someone else’s trust."
LogicalGOP - most state employees are in this position today, both goldbrickers and those who actually are qualified for and do their job. It's called working for the State of Illinois. Our futures are in the hands of a egomaniac. And yes, I am qualified for (through education and experience)and do my job. But on the other hand, I can name at least 5 people in our office who do precious little. It's a hopeless situation.
Conservative Republican
· 2 years ago
If Thompson did practice what he now preaches, it is one whopping admission from this "Republican leader" who happened to hire droves of Democrats and liberals while he was Governor.
All Comments
But they don't want to be responsible for that, do they? Instead of taking it on the chin for the team, when crap comes down, the elected officials play games. The blame the problems on someone else. They start shuffling the shells again.
A better solution is to have an elected official clearly able to replace a specific set of administration positions - and the rest go to citizens who have made serving the public a career that doesn't require elections.
As a result, I can only agree with Big Jim on theory. But reality requires we do not allow the level of sway political bosses like Stephens, Daley, even Blagojevich, have on our lives.
I don't think the public understands -- or wants -- a system where every job, from collecting tolls to Ph.D. level scientists, depends on political loyalty. In fact, there's a lot to be said for protecting civil servants from patronage, particularly those with specialized expertise.
Thompson is betting that we'll confuse patronage protection with civil service protection. I think the public in general believes that it should be easier to fire public employees for incompetence; they (we) don't think it should be easy to fire (or hire) public employees based on their politics.
It should be limited to the executive's immediate staff, senior cabinet personnel and the like. The executive in office shouldn't be deciding who gets hired in building maintenance or what campaign donor gets a contract.
Perhaps we should see how Ron Huberman does over at the CTA, the ultimate hacky, overstaffed Democratic bureaucracy where he is reportedly considering something like GE's Six Sigma. If he can do something about the CTA, maybe there is hope for the multitude of other creaky government bureaucracies feeding off the public purse in Illinois.
When people are put in positions based on clout without regard to skills or qualifcation, not only does it hurt the public but it hurts the morale and productivity of the other employees. When someone who is less qualified and puts less effort in his or her job than you.. it harbors resentment and offers not motivation to work hard. I'm not obtuse to political reality, but anyone that contends that universal patronage is beneficial either has never worked in government or doesn't understand simple organizational behavior.
It's a little sad to see an officer of the court like Thompson taking this line. I don't know if it's just arrogance or just a function of being an old dinosaur.
However, since that is risky, it makes sense to have people who agree with you on pretty much every level or are at least of the same party. After all, when you send them out to do your work and to push your programs, there has to be a sense of loyalty and job security.
You also have to look at the federal level to see that even though there is a civil service system in place, the level of service still isn't that great. Years of bad hiring, coupled with mandatory quotas, has put the feds in a bind. You can't really fire any of them and the performance levels continue to plummet. Plus, political hacks still find themselves getting comfy jobs in agencies like FEMA, the Department of Labor, DOD, etc. It's not much better. Sometimes hiring a hungry young Dem or Republican straight outta college can be just as effective (and cheaper) than hiring a "qualified" applicant who may test well but can't do his or her job effectively.
Administration posts or positions that have a political liability to the elected official should be allowed extensive patronage. Elected officials need to have trustworthy allies that will stand by you and who you can trust in performing their duties. Anyone that doesn't agree has never been in a position where you have to place your livelihood in someone else's trust. Most on this blog have seemed to agree.
On a side note, Mr. Ethics - i find it ironic that you chose that blog name considering your cheap shot at Gov. Ryan, if you want to be ethical then stay on topic. Ryan was not a discussion piece here, he was a long time friend of Mayor Stephens and has every right to attend the funeral. Grow up and stop beating a dead horse, Mr. Ryan will have his day in Appeals court and his family will be forced to live with whatever decision is made, cheap shots like the one you made are pothetic and disrespectful.
How's it look when starting janitors w/o college degrees earn substantially more than starting teachers with BAs?
But I assume Big Jim is talking about the kind of patronage where you donate or volunteer for a campaign, and you or your ner'-do-well son in law gets a job somewhere in government as a reward. Folks, that is ILLEGAL. It's not a matter of opinion. And for good reason. A campaign reward means that taxpayers can't be guaranteed of getting the best value, and usually they won't be.
Good grief, how many people in this state have to be sent to the grey bar hotel before some people will wake up?
Carl, you reminded me of my cousin who is a maintenance man with the state. He's actually more of a janitor but he crows too much about it. He got his job through a state senator and he makes upwards of $25 an hour. He has never hesitated to rub it in people's face(s) that he makes more than them as a janitor who can't be fired and knows so-and-so. Infuriating.
It doesn't just stop at "janitors". There's a plethora of teacher's aide, playground assistant, office support,library aide, and substitute teacher jobs that are doled out almost exclusively on a political basis.
One of the other politcal abuses is using certain connected substitutes more frequently so that they get a higher daily rate.
This often leads to situations like a politically connected Spanish teacher standing in for an ill Calculus teacher for extended periods, rather than an apolitical math instructor.
Another gimmick is fattening retired adminstrator's income by being classified as "temporary" or a "substitute" at a position.
In my school district, the Board hired a retired K-5 principal as a "construction project manager" at about $700 per day,despite his having virtually no construction management experience or qualifications. They also paid his "expenses", such as regularly flying him to vacation home near Florida, at taxpayer expense.
Of course, he was a "good soldier" for the politicians. When the contractors wanted change orders, or cost overruns transferred "off budget" to make the cost seem lower than it was, he was right there to approve it.No questions asked.
Suburban hiring of teachers and adminstrators is almost totally subjective, and largely politically motivated, in the 2000s.
I know many parents and taxpayers who won't say a single critical word about the schools because they're afraid that their kids in Ed school will be blackballed. Smart ones work and campaign for the politically connected school board members, and you can bet they have their yard signs up.
Try throwing a monkey wrench into this patronage network, and they'll be all over you. Hard.
Since Shakman, patronage hiring of Chicago campaign workers hasn't ended. It's just moved to the suburbs.
I don't know the full ruling of the US Supreme Court, but I agree with their basic priniciple that only policy level and confidential jobs need to be exempt.
Georgy-porgy and the driver's license scandal was the normal outgrowth of the Illinois system. Those people were reduced to buying muliple fund raising tickets, and the money had to come from somewhere.
So, I agree with Thompson. You need to hire your supporters.
- steve schnorf - Tuesday, Apr 24, 07 @ 12:52 pm:
"A wise administration attempts to make sure that no one is appointed to a position they aren’t qualified for, that everyone actually does the job they’re appointed to, and that holdovers (except at the very highest levels) are left in their positions (or a position) as long as they do the job well and aren’t openly attacking the administration. "
I wonder where these noble sentiments were when I was working under you in your tenure at CMS. Because in my daily worker bee life in those halcyon days, I had the pleasure of working under several levels of political hacks and connected, appointed toadies that knew less about their jobs than I did. I and my co-workers labored long and hard in the vinyard only to watch a LOT of patronage shennanigans go by, apparently under your nose, if you claim to be unaware. Raises based on political party affiliation and amount of activism in campaigns. Free days off to work the campaigns. People stealing state equipment and resources, caught red-handed, yet given raises and promotions due to party affiliation and protection, and flagrant waste of "perks" while the rest of us got to practice yet more "belt tightening". The day I got hired, the manager's first questions weren't what I knew about my specialty, but what Republican names I could put down as sponsors or references. This for a job that paid maybe twenty grand a year, at the bottom of the state food chain. Not the top two or three levels most people expect to be awarded to party loyalists.
I work there still, so no, I'm not going to use my real name. I know how you like to dismiss people here as cowards, who won't out their true names, but you don't have to live in fear of a system you helped perpetuate under your own administration, so I don't much care about your opinion on that issue.
I will say that we prayed long and hard for deliverance from the Republican partisan patronage rule, and thought we got our salvation in Blago, only to be greatly disappointed when he took your same playbook and xeroxed it, then took it to new heights. We never gave a darn about party politics of either side down at our measly little level, we just worked hard to deliver services to the people that needed them, and to make our living.
You must have had your head in the clouds not to see your managers and the managers below them were running the place like a gold rush western town. As in wide open. So take your lofty opinion quoted above and frame it, because I lived and worked in that time and that was NEVER the way it really was.
I too think that agency Directors should have at least some experience in the field related to their job. I do not buy this idea that all executive positions in management are basically interchangeable, like legos. That's only true on a superficial level. If you want to be a public health director, you better by gosh have an M.D. at the end of your name. I do believe an IDOT director needs to have an actual engineering background on top of all the management skill sets.
The reason is, there's book smart and there's experience-smart. You are less apt to buy into rip-offs and dubious schemes for financing a project if you have some practical experience. You make better decisions about things like how long you can get away with deferring maintenance, if you've seen corroded bridge piers in the field, instead of taking the word of some wing-tipped bozo with a dubiously derived spreadsheet that "they'll keep". You'll make better decisions about health campaigns if you know how hospitals and clinics work from the inside, as a practitioner who has to implement a program. And so it goes, for every agency.
I always shrug with rueful surprise when the administrations change and they drop in someone with little or no background to run an agency or division, without examining as candidates the people who have been there for years gaining valuable experience and institutional memory. That's not a public service mindset. That's a "Spoils of War" mindset, and it is not in the best interests of the citizens of Illinois.
LogicalGOP - most state employees are in this position today, both goldbrickers and those who actually are qualified for and do their job. It's called working for the State of Illinois. Our futures are in the hands of a egomaniac. And yes, I am qualified for (through education and experience)and do my job. But on the other hand, I can name at least 5 people in our office who do precious little. It's a hopeless situation.