This is sexual harassment training 101. People cannot date – much less live with – people in their direct chain of command. It is poisonous to the workplace and puts the organization at tremendous risk of legal hazard. In this case, it doesn’t even appear that Gau and her partner fell in love while working in the same team. That happens and when it does, it is the responsibility for one of them to quit or transfer. But no. In this case, it looks like Gau brought her lover to her team and gave him/her massive raises. This is clearly unethical and probably illegal.
Evers doesn’t care. He’s the shingles of state government.
Gov. Tony Evers acknowledged that his office doesn’t restrict supervisors from engaging in consensual romantic relationships with the staffers they oversee. Evers, a second-term Democrat, said he keeps a close eye on what is going on in his office, which has some 37 employees.
“It’s a small group of people, and I monitor their performance on a regular basis,” Evers said. “One of my jobs as governor is to monitor the performance of my staff, and I believe they are doing a good job.”
But a handful of Democrats have spoken to the Journal Sentinel in recent weeks to express their concerns that Maggie Gau, Evers’ powerful chief of staff, is — from all appearances — in a longtime romantic relationship with another senior employee whom she directly supervises.
Evers refused to discuss that particular situation on Tuesday during a stop at Greenwood Junior-Senior High School in Clark County.
“I don’t think it’s anybody’s goddamn business,” Evers said. “That’s the bottom line.”
Sources said the relationship was creating a difficult environment in Evers’ office, especially because they believe no one can raise concerns to Gau about her partner. Asked about this, the governor said, “That’s not accurate. It’s as simple as that. No way.”
[…]
The statement went on to say that the subordinate was appointed to a deputy’s position at a pay of $62,000 a year in January 2019, a position that did not report directly to Gau but was still under her chain of command. The staffer was promoted by Evers to a top-level position that does report to Gau on Nov. 8, 2020, with an annual salary of $100,006. That pay was boosted to $112,008 per year in January — an 80% pay increase in four years.
-“I don’t think it’s anybody’s goddamn business,” Evers said. “That’s the bottom line.”
That money quote ran straight from Maggie’s brain through Tony’s lips. That boy doesn’t have to think at all.
You are assuming facts not in evidence.
Evers doesn’t have the candlepower to “think.” Never did. But if you disagree, please review his record at DPI–or more to the point, the record of Wisconsin student achievement during his time there.
He’s a box of rocks.
Two thoughts.
One, as conservatives, shouldn’t we disapprove of paternalistic rules that infantilize adults? A consenting relationship between colleagues isn’t inherently a problem by itself, it’s only if the relationship is abused, which not all will be. We know that sexual harassment rules are excessive and shouldn’t abandon those principles just to attack the left.
Two, MJS’s choice not to name the OTHER “senior [government] employee” in the relationship is bad reporting. Without expressly saying it, they are suggesting that the person is a victim and needs to be protected.
Fantasia, your name says it all.
“Harassment” rules are written and enforced to prevent Big Money Settlements for grievances, whether real or imagined. The Libertarian approach you advocate makes the fantasy-assumption that “nothing will go wrong.”
In that case, if you have homeowner’s and auto insurance, you are a blazing hypocrite.
A consenting relationship between colleagues isn’t inherently a problem by itself, it’s only if the relationship is abused,
It is always abusive in some form.
Be it actual sexual abuse one of the the participants, abuse of other colleagues, or, in this case, abuse of us, the taxpayer, who are paying that 80% pay increase given to Gau’s girlfriend over the last few years.
One more thing: ADULTS understand the need for self-restraint. The real infants are the ones who don’t understand it and/or don’t practice it.
“hypocrite” I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
“the fantasy-assumption that “nothing will go wrong.”” I literally wrote in my post that things will sometimes go wrong. Did you read it?
And it sure looks like it went wrong here. But MJM is wrong to claim it will “always” go wrong.
Also, OP’s claim that not having a policy preventing that is equivalent to “encouraging” sexual harassment is ludicrous.
It ALWAYS goes wrong, pal. Either there’s a nasty breakup with repercussions or–as in this case–some third party thinks they were screwed: no promotion, or not getting hired, etc. How do you think Bice got the story, anyway?
Hypocrite means exactly what it means.
By the way, are you stepping up to pay the damages personally here, Mr. No-Consequences? Because there are a few million Wisconsin taxpayers who do not want to pay for Evers’ stupidity on this matter.
But MJM is wrong to claim it will “always” go wrong.
What is wrong is your misquoting me.
Reread what I wrote, and then if you can, cite an example were a supervisor/subordinate relationship was NOT abusive in any way.
>And it sure looks like it went wrong here. But MJM is wrong to claim it will “always” go wrong.
So why do we have stoplights out in the country? Stoplights in rural areas don’t avoid many accidents by percentage of people traveling through the intersection, they just make people on the less traveled roads wait a long time. Why use insurance as Dad29 points out. By percentage of drivers driving every day, accidents happen so seldom that it seems folly to force everyone to pay for it.
We make those laws because in a large population even 5 fatal accidents out of hundreds of thousands of trips through an intersection makes many people outraged and causes the light to be put up. The percentage of ‘good relationships’ in a chain of command is bad. Not that there won’t be a minority of people who did not abuse power, but because with no rules unscrupulous people will abuse relationships for there own personal gain, whether it be forced romance or personal power building. And Government is the hub of unscrupulous people. So when you start comparing the number of bad relationships vs good in a power chain, you can see that it is a good, no necessary set of rules to have in place and they are in most business handbooks for that reason. To not have them in a political public office setting where unscrupulous behavior is the norm is the ridiculous concept. To not have them really will attract abusers to that ‘business’, not Match.com users looking for a little more innocent romance.
>The Libertarian approach you advocate makes the fantasy-assumption that “nothing will go wrong.”
How is that Libertarian? I don’t think Libertarian is everything you believe it is…unless you use the ‘There is surely one Libertarian somewhere who thinks ‘nothing will go wrong’ angle as your comparison model.
Libertarian: shouldn’t we disapprove of paternalistic rules that infantilize adults?
That is clearly a call to redact all the “rules” because rules “infantilize” adults.
We know that sexual harassment rules are excessive
Libertarian. A dislike for rules demanding orderly sexual behavior.
The “it doesn’t harm anyone” line is Libertarian which–by the way–is a thinly-disguised atheism. Ron and Rand may not like that, or protest that ‘that’s not who we are,’ but let’s cut the crap. That IS Libertarianism; it’s what they advocate. The fact that they are virtuous husbands is irrelevant; it’s the philosophy (and theology) that counts.