cmon Fred
this is a Democratic thing?
what about Brownie saving New Orleans?
you even have fellow bloggers who were honored when they took DC jobs they got from political connections!
you can't have it both ways....can you?
Umm, Cathy? This is exactly how Michael Gableman got his gig in Burnett County.
It happens. You should know that better than most. You've been close enough to see it firsthand.
I agree that this is a horrendous failure of government, and somebody should be fired over it. But it is surely bipartisan. That others haven't been caught is a not a sufficient answer. This case should set some standards for future hiring practices.
But that said, if an outsider is clearly more qualified than an insider there must be a mechanism that allows the right decision without drawing a lawsuit. Perhaps letting subordinates vote privately on a colleague's qualifications is one way.
Jmac, I did not write that,
I just noticed. What's with the gratuitous slap at President Clinton in the last line of a post that's ostensibly about state hiring practices?
The gratuitous slap was just to gin you guys up! All in fun, of course.
Michael Gableman was a a person who was qualified for the job. We're all aware that even in the private sector, sometimes the jobs that are the best come down to your connections AND qualifications.
I have no beef with that. It's when the qualifications are thrown out the window that it becomes both a problem ethically as well as a problem financially.
Tommy friends got in trouble for the first Kenosha Casino. There was a direct link to Tommy.
"what about Brownie saving New Orleans?"
Is that the new talking point with the libs on this subject? Saw the same thing on B&S.
Politics will always be more about WHO you know than WHAT you know. The fact that the job in question was a civil service position makes ALL the difference. Politics shouldn't have entered into it (unlike a cabinet post or staff appt. So, most of you fellow commentators are missing the point entirely.
So former Sen. Stepp agrees that Mike Gableman benefited from the same idiotic thinking as the referenced case?
This is obviously not a black or white case. It could very well be that the so-called qualified insider was not qualified to be a leader. It happens every day when businesses hire people from the outside and put them over people on the inside.
But the "process" must be changed to accommodate that. I think letting subordinates vote privately on a colleague's qualifications could be one factror. Internal employees know whether a colleague can handle the job or not, and if not, an outsider can be brought in.
No, Maurice, I don't agree with that. The case in the post with Earl has to do with promoting and inserting people into positions without experience in that position. They are not qualified.
A poster tried to imply that Justice Gableman had the same "favorable treatment" which I believe was an erroneous statement.
Commenting by HaloScan
