96 Comments - Weltschmerz - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 9:29 am: She made a choice. If, as noted, she worked for the state fro decades, she knew what would happen. Rauner/Quinn/Blago/etc. same result. - Not it - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 9:31 am: This is why I don’t understand the dust up over whether a state employee works for the Governor’s Office or works for an agency; ultimately everyone works for the Governor. If you don’t speak the party line you don’t stay. - Give Me A Break - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 9:32 am: I’m no fan of the Gov, but you don’t bad mouth the Gov’s policies in committee when you work for his administration. Any Gov. would have reacted this way. - Demoralized - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 9:32 am: Well duh. You work for the government you support the policies (at least publicly in your official capacity) of that government whether you agree with them or not. If you can’t support them then you find another job. Nobody should be surprised that this person was relieved of duty. - Thoughts Matter - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 9:33 am: She did the right thing. Speak the truth - especially in a hearing. Isn’t there a trial getting ready to start for Tammy Duckworth for this kind of punishment? - Wag of the Finger - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 9:35 am: For those families and providers who are currently dealing with this crisis caused by the emergency rules put in place by Rauner & Co., this may be a sign that the worse has yet to come. I do get the fact that she made a critical statement and that, of course, has consequences.. but still, this is bad news. - AC - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 9:35 am: No matter how miguided Rauner’s goals are, he has a right, maybe even an obligation, to appoint people to positions that advocate for and defend his policies. - Ahoy! - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 9:36 am: –The viability of the entire child care system is now in question.– Someone might not like the decision, but to claim the entire system is in jeopardy because someone got reassigned is a little bit over the top unless you are a true believer in the most extreme Chaos Theory. - Nickname#2 - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 9:36 am: So, she had her employment with Child Care terminated, and she was transferred, because she gave truthful responses in testimony given before a legislative body? Interesting precedent. - Bluefish - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 9:39 am: Didn’t Gov. Rauner hold a public cabinet meeting in March where he asked his appointees to be honest and vocal with their concerns and disagreements? - CrazyHorse - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 9:39 am: ==I’m no fan of the Gov, but you don’t bad mouth the Gov’s policies in committee when you work for his administration. Any Gov. would have reacted this way.== Agreed. I can’t speak for her personally, but if she has more than 35 years with the state she can likely walk off into the sunset anytime she pleases. People in her position are not usually afraid to speak their mind, especially in light of these circumstances. Most people have too long of a road ahead of them to risk being forced off of their career course. I applaud her for her candor. - W.S. Wolcott - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 9:40 am: Wonder if he’ll “reassign” his wife, too? - Anonymiss - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 9:43 am: “Fredo, you’re my older brother, and I love you. But don’t ever take sides with anyone against the family again. Ever.” - AC - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 9:43 am: ==Wonder if he’ll “reassign” his wife, too?== Governor Rauner’s Wife and the charity she controls? - GA Watcher - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 9:43 am: Wonder how many emails Beth Purvis received. - Jocko - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 9:43 am: I have a feeling Rauner had a &$*#@ problem with her testimony. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 9:44 am: Rauner wants to hear the truth, just don’t say it to the public. - Secret Square - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 9:44 am: She merely stated what the effect of the cuts would be. She did NOT say who was to blame, or state that the policy should be overturned. She merely acknowledged that people were suffering because of them, which is simply a statement of the truth and NOT, IMO, an expression of disloyalty or “badmouthing”. Even the most die-hard Rauner supporter could have said something to the effect of, “Yes, these cuts ARE devastating to families and child care providers — and they wouldn’t be necessary if Madigan and the GA had done their job and we had a properly balanced budget.” - Norseman - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 9:47 am: As a critic of Rauner it’s nice to see them get tweaked, but Demoralized is right. If she didn’t feel comfortable toeing the line, she should have asked her supervisors to send someone else. She has now set herself up as a martyr to the cause. I hope she’s eligible for retirement, because her Illinois government career is over. - Secret Square - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 9:48 am: “Wonder how many emails Beth Purvis received.” If all the same people who e-mailed JCAR members prior to the hearing on the child care rules do the same for Beth Purvis…. let’s just say her inbox could be really, really full by this time tomorrow. - illinoised - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 9:48 am: This is why I turned down an offer from the governor’s office (not this administration) to take a high level job with a large state agency. I politely replied that I did not want a job that depended on my allegiance to a political party over my allegiance for the good of the people. One of the best decisions I ever made in my life. Kudos to Linda Saterfield. - UNION MAN - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 9:49 am: “Merit” in the political environment of state employment is measured by degrees of enthusiasm for the political ideology of those in power. This is why IL needs AFSCME. Better seniority than political influence be used to determine promotions. - RNUG - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 9:51 am: Most of the time you can honestly answer questions to the General Assembly without serious repercussions, but there is always a risk (unless you know where some bodies are buried!). She apparently felt strongly enough about the issue to answer honestly (in her opinion) regardless of the risk. Yes, the Rauner administration has the right to reassign a “non-team” player. No argument there but, in this case, it looks really bad since she did not assign blame, just stated facts as she saw them. Her memo was a class act compared to the Rauner administration’s action. - Bogey Golfer - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 9:51 am: Ms. Saterfield served at the pleasure of the Governor, whomever the Governor was at the time. - Secret Square - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 9:51 am: “If she didn’t feel comfortable toeing the line, she should have asked her supervisors to send someone else.” Or perhaps SHE was the “someone else” sent in place of the Director/Secretary or another official higher up? - Cassandra - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 9:53 am: I suspect the Democrats, if in charge of the executive branch, would do the same thing if one of their high-level bureaucrats publicly rebelled. It’s Bureaucracy 101. And if she has been in the agency that long, she knew the risks. Plus, she gets to keep the same level of job and salary, it appears. In the private sector, she’d be gone already. Unfortunately, this will distract citizen observers from the real question, which is, what should be cutoff for day care assistance be, how much would that cost, and, perhaps most important, what level of tax increase would you be willing to pay in order to get to that level. It’s also worth looking at the industries who pay such low wages that taxpayers have to subsidize their workers’ day care. Because that’s what we taxpayers are doing-subsidizing various enterprises with these day care dollars. We need to hear a lot more talk about that. - Pot calling kettle - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 9:54 am: ==Someone might not like the decision, but to claim the entire system is in jeopardy because someone got reassigned is a little bit over the top unless you are a true believer in the most extreme Chaos Theory. == Not really. While one person being moved out of her position does not necessarily put the areas that were her responsibility in jeopardy, it is reasonable to be concerned about the impact of that action on other employees in that unit. Will they be afraid to do their job to the best of their abilities if they become overly concerned with losing that job? - Miss Marie - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 9:54 am: Yes, I understand that if you disagree with your boss in public, there are repercussions. But this is another incident in a long series of actions from the Administration of enforcing tight lip talking points. They have such strong gag order on their staff and operations, and heaven forbid you FOIA the Governor’s schedule. I didn’t know her personally, but she is a wealth of information and someone who actually cares about the people that she served. So many fled the agencies when Rauner was elected because they knew they would disagree with his policies and she was one of the few that stayed. She has institutional knowledge on complicated programs, that a new administration would need her help on. She stayed to try help guide the Administration through these programs so that they could continue to serve the people of Illinois. She is an honorable person and the Administration will be at a loss without her. - Anon221 - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 9:55 am: Not It- If you don’t speak the party line you don’t stay. And if the Emporer has no clothes, do you remain blind? I applaud her honesty and forthrightness. I’m sure she knew the consequences. Her voice is also speaking for those parents and children, especially the children, whose consequences are much more dire than her reassignment in Rauner’s administration. Her’s, and the childcare groups being devastated, are generational. Rauner just wants to take out Madigan. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 9:56 am: She knew what she was doing. She could no longer work for this boss. Her memo was classy and did not ask for sympathy and she did not trash the administration. She even said that a new fresh face in her position would be a good thing. - All the answers - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 9:57 am: It doesn’t matter if Rauner has a right to do it. It makes him look petty and small to get rid of someone who has worked the agency for 35 years. But then petty and mean is what Rauner is all about. That’s why its not hard for him to cut social services. - illlinifan - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 9:57 am: Ms. Saterfield was a career Civil Service employee who does not serve at the will the governor (I do not believe she is in a position subject to term appointment). She has always been able to provide truthful testimony under all the governors she served (she began her career when Edgar was in office). She is indeed a class act and has always been focused on the needs of the people she served (the children) and has consistently advocated on their behalf. Her telling the “emperor” that he has no clothes does have consequences but it is time more people speak the truth. - Makandadawg - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 9:59 am: - UNION MAN - @ 9:49 am: You are exactly right - Demoralized - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 10:00 am: ==of enforcing tight lip talking points.== I’ve been around 18 years and I’ve never not seen an Administration enforce the “talking points” issue. You don’t provide testimony in public that is contrary to that of the Administration. You just don’t. While what she said may be true, you don’t provide answers like “devastating” when talking about the policy of an Administration you work for. It’s a dance sometimes when you testify. If you aren’t prepared then you can get caught up. She should have anticipated such questions and been prepared to provide answers. Either she wasn’t prepared by the Administration to testify or she ignored their orders. - Arsenal - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 10:01 am: Really enjoying how “Rauner is just acting like every other Illinois Governor” is offered up as a defense, that’s fun. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 10:05 am: ==Ms. Saterfield was a career Civil Service employee who does not serve at the will the governor (I do not believe she is in a position subject to term appointment).== False. If she served in an exempt position…she served at the will of the Governor. My impression of many in agencies over the years is that they forget or don’t want to acknowledge who their boss is. - Qui Tam - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 10:07 am: =I suspect the Democrats, if in charge of the executive branch, would do the same thing if one of their high-level bureaucrats publicly rebelled.= The said part of this is that giving truthful testimony as a public servant is considered “rebellion” against the government. - Juice - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 10:07 am: Demoralized, in general, I agree with you. However, in this instance, I didn’t think that the Rauner administration wanted to make these cuts, right? I’m pretty sure there was a press release that said it was Madigan and the legislators he controls who were responsible for the Governor having to be “tough” and take this action. If that’s the case, then shouldn’t being honest about the impact be fair game? - Anon221 - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 10:09 am: Demoralized- “You just don’t .” So, when is the right time that you DO? How bad do things have to get to trigger a DO? Dancing is just that , dancing. At some point the Party (line) is over. - south side - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 10:10 am: You have to admire people who tell the truth when telling the truth can have negative consequences, and is a hard thing to do. Ultimately, she has to live with herself. Seems she behaved well right down the line. Answered truthfully, and wrote a classy farewell letter. Why can’t we get leadership in Springfield who demonstrate similar integrity and class. - Demoralized - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 10:11 am: Anon221: You can do what you want. Just don’t expect to still have a job after. - RNUG - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 10:13 am: == Why can’t we get leadership in Springfield who demonstrate similar integrity and class. == Because, in most cases, they have to lie and hide their agenda to get elected? - Demoralized - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 10:13 am: Juice: That’s why I said she should have been prepared to answer those questions. There were better ways to answer them. Shame on the Administration if they didn’t prepare her. If they did and she ignored them, then she shouldn’t have been surprised at the consequences. - Wordslinger - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 10:15 am: Good for her. Getting fired for telling the truth is a badge of honor. At least she can look herself in the mirror. Those who rewrote the rules on the sneak, then dropped the hammer on her for being honest, I don’t know. - Anon221 - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 10:15 am: Demoralized - Been there done that and never regretted it. I’m sure she knew the potential of losing her job, as I’m also sure the Admin moved her to avoid more bad publicity that would come of firing a 35 year public servant and facing a lawsuit over unjustified termination. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 10:15 am: “If they did and she ignored them, then she shouldn’t have been surprised at the consequences.” She was not surprised at the consequences. “With reauthorization underway it seems to be an appropriate time to bring in new leadership to take this program to the next level.” - Joe M - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 10:21 am: At least the Governor didn’t threaten to bury her - and ask if she had a family, like happened to one lady who wasn’t a team player for him. - Demoralized - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 10:22 am: Anonymous: You are probably right. I don’t fault her for what she did. But I also don’t fault the Administration for what they did. Mark this down as one more casualty of the budget stalemate. - Former State Employee - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 10:22 am: I’ve known Linda for years. She is a dedicated civil servant who is NOT in a term position, NOT serving at the will of the Governor. So all of you speculating about that, put it to rest. Yes, why didn’t they send Jim Dimas? He didn’t want to answer the hard questions. He would have given different (but inaccurate answers to JCAR) Her ouster will hurt the program tremendously….but that be dammed, it’s Madigan fault, right. Shoot the messenger, Governor. The truth hurts, and those changes are truly “devastating”. Look for the TANF rolls to spike very shortly. - Cheswick - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 10:23 am: So, now we know what the governor does when he takes an arrow. - JS Mill - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 10:29 am: What happened to Saterfield is a shame, but she is no rookie and knows how the system works. She knew action would be taken. Doesn’t make it right. She handled the change gracefully, professionally. Too bad the wunderkind gang isn’t able to handle state government as well. - Cassandra - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 10:31 am: I’m puzzled that such a high level employee is not in a term appointment or at will. What’s up with that? Is she a just supervisor or something? Is she covered by the union? This agency’s org chart needs to be vetted-one of the many things one would think the Rauner admin would be doing, but I suppose it’s too boring. In any case, if she is not term, and not at will, they should have sent a true high level employee over there, and she could have sat by to provide information. Seems a little cowardly to put her in front. - Linus - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 10:31 am: == Look for the TANF rolls to spike very shortly. == Exactly right. And then look for the Governor to fire the DHS staffer who, in committee questioning, acknowledges that TANF rolls spiking is not necessarily a positive sign. - Cassandra - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 10:32 am: Correction-is she just a supervisor.. - Fedralist - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 10:39 am: After having 35 years of service I am surprised she did not state her honest opinion and then resign. - From the 'Dale to HP - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 10:40 am: This sums up the problem with the state/government in a nutshell. Someone speaks the truth pointing out a major policy issue, said person gets fired for doing so, yet it’s a totally reasonable and expected outcome. Linda Saterfield made her bed, now she lies in it. But of course, Saterfield isn’t the problem… If we want change, then we need to protect those who work in/for government from the politicians (party affiliation does not matter here, Dems would do the same thing). Until that’s done, politicians will “win” and we lose. - S-Town - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 10:42 am: Anyone who actually believes this is a warranted move or even a good move for Rauner should reflect back upon all the “yes men” who Quinn surrounded himself with and ask if that is how a bang-up operation should be run. The woman was clearly passionate about the program and well respected. So its hard to see the benefit here. - Qui Tam - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 10:45 am: =If we want change, then we need to protect those who work in/for government from the politicians (party affiliation does not matter here, Dems would do the same thing). Until that’s done, politicians will “win” and we lose. = Thank You FtDtHP. - Mama - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 10:49 am: “Wonder how many emails Beth Purvis received.” I thought Beth Purvis is the Secretary of Education. No? How or maybe I should ask why is she involved in the Child Care supplemental program? - Bigtwich - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 10:56 am: There should be a David Kenney award for public service and Linda Saterfield should receive it but his parting comment to Springfield was better. - LINK - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 10:57 am: I have to say I am surprised by how few commenter’s appreciate someone doing the right thing, granted, in her opinion. But it reminds me of how we take others to task for standing idly by when a crime is being committed. Thank you wordslinger and the others for your recognition. Okay, now throw the slings and pull back on the arrows, as I can take it…I hope! - Former State Employee - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 10:59 am: In response to why not at will…..there was a time in state government when those higher level positions (Executive V’s at the time) at the former Department of Public Aid were not terms, or at will. Many were converted under Blago, but Linda’s position was one of the ones they overlooked. There are still a few dangling out there at DHS, but now I’m sure the turn about team will track them down and convert them. - Anon221 - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 11:02 am: Don’t worry LINK, you’ve got the “armor”. - Bull Moose - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 11:04 am: There are a lot of folks commenting on the administration Linda “worked for,” but isn’t Linda suppose to be working for the public, instead a politician? Doesn’t Rauner go around railing against a Springfield that works for the corrupt politicians and not the people? I doubt her job description included political hackery. - Ipso Facto - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 11:05 am: ==She made a choice. If, as noted, she worked for the state fro decades, she knew what would happen== That is a curious statement if ever there was one. Have we agreed that “truth” is now a casualty in the larger budget war? Rauner gets a “pass” on this “reassignment” attempt to make Illinois an attractive environment for business. Got it. - Interested - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 11:07 am: I was at the JCAR Hearing, and what Linda did was answer a question truthfully. Las time I checked, witnesses testifying before a legislative body are supposed to do just that. The fact that Jim Demos and the rest of the Rauner appointed IDHS leadership team did not show up to take the heat is stunning. Linda Saterfield is a lifelong Public Servant of the highest order. She is loyal and knows how things work. She is not a liar, and so she got canned. - Juice - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 11:11 am: Ipso Facto, I think the position of the administration is that “truth” has a Madigan bias. - RNUG - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 11:12 am: == If we want change, then we need to protect those who work in/for government from the politicians (party affiliation does not matter here, Dems would do the same thing). Until that’s done, politicians will “win” and we lose. == I don’t think this has changed since my days of dealing with Personnel… There are various protections for the employees, but they are not absolute. Nor does it prevent reassignment to a different position that is filled by the same job title; it just protects from being fired without proper cause. 1) All employees are covered by the Civil Service Code, something people tend to forget about … but it still exists. To fire people, you have to have cause. 2) If you are in a union position, there is obvious protection … so I’ll skip elaborating on it. 3) If you are non-union, typically a Senior Public Service Administrator, you are subject to the Vinson Bill, i.e., four year term appointments (unless you fall into one or both of the exempt categories, which is a whole different kettle of fish). You have to be appointed by the sitting Governor but, once appointed, you are secure for 4 years. You are covered by the Civil Service rules. While you can be fired for cause, it usually takes a criminal conviction to get your fired. This was put in place to prevent wholesale firings with each administration change. Typically, the only way you lose your job is if you are not re-appointed to a new 4 year term at the end of your current 4 year term. I will note it IS within a Governor’s power, after appointing a person to a 4 year term, if the person is truly not in a supervisory position (regardless of the payroll title), to then issue an executive order that said person is exempt in the future from the 4 year appointment process and said employee reverts back to Civil Service rules / protections. This was rarely done in the years I worked at the State but it was done, usually for critical people. I personally know of 20 some instances. 4) Directors, Deputy Directors, Bureau Chiefs, et al, are “at will” employees who can be fired without cause. This is to be expected; they ARE the Governor’s actual management team. Bottom line: most State employees do have job protection but they can be re-assigned and even harassed to some extent into resigning. But if you’re a career employee, you understand these rules and know how far you can push things. - Ipso Facto - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 11:12 am: Agreed. Bruce is full of irony isn’t he? - Anonymous - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 11:24 am: ==There are a lot of folks commenting on the administration Linda “worked for,” but isn’t Linda suppose to be working for the public, instead a politician== Yes, and the public elected Rauner and his policies, not hers - Demoralized - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 11:34 am: ==when a crime is being committed== This wasn’t a whistle blower. As bad and distasteful as the Governor’s policy choice here, it’s still his choice to make. It was fine for this person to disagree with it. But it’s ludicrous to say that there shouldn’t be a consequence. I think she was right in what she said. But that doesn’t shield her from the consequences of not supporting the policies of the Administration she works for. And it’s goofy to suggest that all government employees can go around and do whatever they want because they work for the “people.” They work for an employer and that employer has policies that they better support publicly in official testimony and if they can’t they better find another job. Doing what is right doesn’t always mean there are no consequences. And it’s goofy to suggest that all government employees can go around and do whatever they want because they work for the “people.” Those “people” elected somebody and that somebody is going to try and implement their policies. If you are put out there to speak about those policies you had better support them. And if you can’t, well then, that’s your choice and I would support your choice to say what you want. Just don’t expect me to sympathize with you when you suffer the consequences. - Linus - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 11:37 am: Anon 11:24am: The same public that elected Gov. Rauner also elected the legislature that’s not clamoring to embrace his policies. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 11:41 am: == Anon 11:24am: The same public that elected Gov. Rauner also elected the legislature that’s not clamoring to embrace his policies.== They didn’t elect the legislature to run her agency, they elected Rauner to do so. - DuPage - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 11:46 am: Somehow this reminds me of the ad with Rauner saying “I will bankrupt her” about one of his private sector managers. Rauner is what he is. This incident lowers my opinion of Rauner’s job performance which was already near zero. - Linus - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 11:48 am: Yep. I’m sure that’s just what the voters were thinking: We need an administration that’ll finally force DHS to take child care help from poor parents, and free-up their jobs. We need a Governor who’s not afraid to lead Illinois back to higher unemployment and longer welfare rolls! - sad - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 11:50 am: The virtue of courage is a prerequisite for the practice of all other virtues because otherwise one is virtuous only when virtue has no cost. There are times when something needs done, and yet we know that if we step up and do this needful thing, we will pay a heavy personal price. - C.S. Lewis I guess the rest of us can put a little extra in the offering plate on Sunday and be O.K. - Cassandra - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 11:57 am: Now that I have more info, I think it’s clear that the Rauner admin should have sent over a higher level employee to testify on such a critical issue, unless, of course, JCAR asked specifically for her. Maybe the Raunerites will learn something from this debacle. Lesson to Rauner admin: understand your Personnel Code and your org charts-every single one of them. Understand you employees’ job duties. Understand who you are sending out there to speak for you and know what they are planning to say. Yet to be fair to Rauner, let’s pretend that in a Democratic administration, an employee came to the table and said she thought they should cut day care funding by 50%, 90%. You think they wouldn’t at least move her somewhere else. This is all pretty routine. But the peek into Rauner bureaucratic chaos is priceless. And predictable for a crew from the private sector. - Wordslinger - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 12:01 pm: I’m not understanding some of the comments. She’s a policy professional who was asked a question and gave an honest answer. Was she supposed to lie, give a ridiculous political answer, to please the new boss? What would be the point of that? Given that the new rules effectively end any new enrollment in the program “devastating” strikes me as an objective observation. “Devastating” the program clearly was the goal of the new rules. It didn’t happen by accident. - Qui Tam - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 12:20 pm: =I’m not understanding some of the comments.= Illinois is a rough state to work for. If you do your job and follow the law, you can be harassed or fired. If you don’t do your job, you can be fired. I suspect the long-time state employees who dismiss this adverse action have survived by: 1) piling-on against the good employees, 2)hiding under their desk while malfeasance occurs,or 3)been extremely lucky in working for decent bosses throughout their careers. - Joe Biden Was Here - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 12:21 pm: The transparency portal indicates that she is in a double exempt position. - Bull Moose - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 12:42 pm: == Yes, and the public elected Rauner and his policies, not hers == I don’t recall Rauner running on a platform of dismantling the childcare program. I think most everyone would agree that his childcare cuts run afoul of his stated goal of making Illinois more competitive given that IL now has the most restrictive childcare income guidelines in the nation. - Demoralized - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 1:36 pm: ==Was she supposed to lie, give a ridiculous political answer, to please the new boss?== No. She didn’t have to. But if I were the boss and somebody didn’t support my policies you can bet your butt would be fired. I get the outrage. I just don’t get why people think that there shouldn’t have been consequences. - Demoralized - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 1:37 pm: ==If you do your job and follow the law, you can be harassed or fired.== Those kinds of ridiculous statements don’t help. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 1:38 pm: Who was that guy talking about a more compassionate Illinois? - Secret Square - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 2:08 pm: “it’s clear that the Rauner admin should have sent over a higher level employee to testify on such a critical issue, unless, of course, JCAR asked specifically for her.” Agencies with highly controversial rulemakings on a JCAR meeting agenda usually send their directors, deputy directors and/or general counsels to the meeting. - RNUG - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 3:17 pm: == Agencies with highly controversial rulemakings on a JCAR meeting agenda usually send their directors, deputy directors and/or general counsels to the meeting. == If you didn’t send the A Team, you shouldn’t complain about the outcome. Kind of wonder, in this case, if the Rauner team didn’t outsmart themselves by sending a lower level staff person. - anon - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 3:36 pm: The People of Illinois, the legislators, and the Governor should want the best person for the job in the position. Linda Saterfield sounds like the best person for the job; that may be the reason her supervisors sent her to JCAR. She knew the answers to the questions that would be asked and would answer them honestly. Shame on the administration for removing the best person for the job . . . for telling the truth! - Enviro - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 4:12 pm: When did we lose freedom of speech, speaking truth to power, and standing up for what is right? Shame! Shame! Shame! - Qui Tam - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 4:24 pm: =Those kinds of ridiculous statements don’t help.= Demoralized @1:37 It not ridiculous, its true. Come out from under the desk and recognize it. Then maybe you won’t continue to be part of the problem. Your denial and dishonesty certainly doesn’t help. Maybe that’s why your so “Demoralized”. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 5:09 pm: This entire episode sounds just like that scene from ‘The Incredibles’…. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3JhT9tBzLw - Left Leaner - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 6:05 pm: For those of you not so shocked by this action, please provide an example of what she should have said in response to those questions. - SamHall - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 6:29 pm: Perhaps the Administration should have a rule that those eligible to retire should not testify in public. - GiveMeABreak - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 6:47 pm: So, many of you say, she should have been a team player… or what do you expect. So I guess in your world, it should have went down like this: The woman, who for several decades oversaw Illinois day care, was asked by legislators last week to assess the impact [of Gov. Bruce Rauner’s new rules on child care program cuts]. “Sunshine and Puppies… Everything is coming up roses as far as I can tell” said Linda Saterfield. “Will some of the people rejected for day care have to quit their jobs to take care of their own children?” asked State Rep. Lou Lang. “No… that’s what people have closets and basements for… When you’re working poor and you can’t have access to daycare… you put them there until you get back from your 3rd job,” she responded. On Tuesday, it was made known that Saterfield was PROMOTED to the Governor’s “Tales From The Crypt Team” from her job after delivering that testimony. She has an obligation to the children who have no voice when comes to these horrendous attacks… no toe the company line. It’s children people… CHILDREN! - MurMan - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 11:48 pm: Rauner admin declares sky is red. EPA staffer testifies sky is blue. Rauner admin reassigns said staffer to monitoring weather balloons in Cairo. Some blog commentors claim EPA staffer should have at least known to say sky was purple trending toward red if she didn’t want to be transferred to bu-fu. How can anyone defend that logic in a civilized society. Her job is not to spout talking points and spin. She was not a pundit on hardball. She was an expert testifying about an important state program. Whole episode is just more evidence that Rauner is more concerned with campaigning then governing. - Demoralized - Thursday, Aug 20, 15 @ 7:46 am: == Then maybe you won’t continue to be part of the problem.== Go fly a kite. - Demoralized - Thursday, Aug 20, 15 @ 7:49 am: ==Her job is not to spout talking points and spin.== You testify in public on behalf of an Administration that is exactly your job. You don’t have to like it, but it’s the way it goes. Don’t work in a place that requires you to do that if you can’t do that. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.