CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in Question of the day

Re: Question of the day

Conservative Republican — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 00:16:13 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Disgusted — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 00:10:01 -0000

"Elected officials need to have trustworthy allies that will stand by you and who you can trust in performing their duties. Anyone that doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t agree has never been in a position where you have to place your livelihood in someone elseÃ¢â‚¬â„¢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.

Re: Question of the day

steve schnorf — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 22:58:35 -0000

Oh, and brave one above, why would the current administration punish you for criticizing me?

Re: Question of the day

steve schnorf — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 22:55:06 -0000

Every administration makes mistakes, but I don't pay much heed to cheap shots from anonymous sources.

Re: Question of the day

Gregor — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:40:39 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Yesterday's Tattered Newspaper — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:22:38 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Reached my limit with this one — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 20:44:59 -0000

Quote:
- 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 arenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t qualified for, that everyone actually does the job theyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢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 arenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢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.

Re: Question of the day

Yellow Dog Democrat — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 20:27:05 -0000

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?

Re: Question of the day

A Citizen — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 19:34:18 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Shelbyville — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 19:31:16 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Skirmisher — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 19:19:05 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

old timer — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 18:28:54 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Truthful James — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 17:28:16 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

anon — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 17:12:55 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Doodles — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:53:00 -0000

Who decides "the wishes of the people who elect them?" Easy to say, hard to measure.

Re: Question of the day

Objective Dem — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:36:48 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

PalosParkBob — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:20:49 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Team Sleep — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:56:15 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

publius — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:46:27 -0000

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

Re: Question of the day

GOP'er — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:21:20 -0000

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?

Re: Question of the day

Carl Nyberg — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:10:12 -0000

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?

Re: Question of the day

steve schnorf — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:52:20 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

LogicalGOP — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:07:02 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Mr. Ethics — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:47:27 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

i d — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:42:29 -0000

All of this discussion would be moot if people were honorable and truthful.