qualified for plum posts?
I noticed over the years how many politicians, after leaving office, for one reason or another end up appointed to a government job. I’ve been told that many office seekers are not primarily interested in serving the public, but rather they are more interested in securing a method of ensuring their retirement.
Why are former office holders appointed to positions for which they have little or no formal training? For example, why was former Assemblyman Jeffrey Warsh appointed to be the NJ Transit executive director? I’m not aware that he had worked in that department for any length of time in order to obtain experience.
Former state Sen. Jack Sinagra was appointed to direct the New York Port Authority. What background did he have to warrant that position? If I understood the reports in the newspapers, he gave only one day’s notice to his party that he wasn’t going to run for office. This placed his party in a very difficult position to get a replacement. In private industry, if this were done, his actions would have prevented him from getting a recommendation from his employer.
Isn’t it disturbing that both of these gentlemen were appointed to the highest position of their respective departments? It appears that political elected positions and appointees require no training at all — it’s who you know and who has the most appeal to the public, for whatever reason. Is that in the best interest of the people? I think not.
I believe that appointees to positions should take some test to prove their capabilities, just like individuals in civil service jobs. I’m sure readers can relate to some public official who was provided with a plum job in government. It wouldn’t be so bad if the appointed person was qualified to serve the public effectively due to past experience or training. As the practice stands, it is no wonder that problems are not solved and, at the same time, taxes go up.
Henning Kristensen
East Brunswick