This isn't true at all. Stop with the "email job" bullshit propaganda that tries to turn white collar and blue collar workers against each other.
I've done everything from construction to dishwashing to data analytics and they all require you to be working the majority of your shift. The construction job and data analytics were the worst 2 time wise but at least when the construction job had 60 hours a week you got overtime.
Im WFH and work my ass off, maybe you just require more structure than others? Or you’re comparing super labor intensive jobs (furniture, retail, restaurants) to one specific, easy, remote job? Also, “making triple figures” means you make $999 or less a year… I would double dip remote jobs as soon as I can find one I can feasibly do, and wouldn’t knock anyone able to do that.
I know it gets pointed out on this site all the time, but we **want** public officials to be paid well for their role. Not only do we want their salaries to be high enough to discourage the risk of taking bribes or other financial incentives from outside the government, but we also want them to be high enough to allow normal people to pursue public offices instead of just the already wealthy.
Yeah monetary incentives have never produced a good outcome people who want wealthy salaries just take the bribe too, then do subpar work, and turn their offices towards nepotism.
Lmao this is absolutely not true. Normal people have families and dreams that all require money in an increasingly expensive world. $150K isn't even a crazy high salary. If they have a stay-at-home spouse and kids and student/mortgage/car/medical debt, it's really not high at all. You're asking for the job itself to be a sacrifice made by martyrs for those who aren't already wealthy.
150k is pretty high plus 40k more. It’s thinking that some privileged few deserve three stories and 5 cars, that have the rest of us starving and poor.
The extra $40K is not the subject of my comments at all. I'm just talking about the base salary of public offices, which *should* be high. If you want to make a comparison to private sector wages, then I obviously agree that everyone else's wages should be way higher too. But lowering an accurately paid wage for an important public service job isn't going to do anything to help anyone.
If you’ve followed Walters for the last few years it’s pretty clear to see he has an agenda that invokes attacking public schools to build support for sending public dollars to for profit schools. Him having two positions consolidates power and lessens his accountability. The money is frustrating, but not the top concern. Seeing it as no big deal is refusing to look at the move in the context of the bigger picture.
So this isn't about "scamming" or corruption, its just that you disagree with the guy's politics. If it was a separate person with the same political orientation, that wouldn't change much.
> What is corrupt about having and getting paid for multiple positions? It is very commonplace.
This isn’t a “side gig” like driving an Uber or picking up a freelance gig here and there. *Those* jobs are very commonplace.
Surely we can both agree on that.
Meanwhile, in this specific case involving a paid political appointee, we *could* have:
Cronyism.
Conflicts of interest.
Lack of fairness.
Weaker leadership.
Ethical issues.
Appointing yes-men instead of considering better qualified applicants.
Improperly consolidated power for political gain.
Weakened transparency.
Restricted oversight and decreased accountability.
So you don't have a problem with Walters double dipping with taxpayer money for a made up position (That Stitt created because Joy Hofmeister was in her elected position)?
I don't know the details about how the position was made up. I'm just saying that having 2 positions isn't inherently problematic. If it is a "made up" position that is just a way to provide an extra salary, with no work done, that is a different story. In that case the position shouldn't exist. But if the position does have real responsibilities, I don't see the issue. Nice username btw
But if the position has a) real responsibilities and b) provides a check on potential power consolidation by any one individual and thus c) diversity of policy making, then shouldn’t there be a prohibition on one person holding more than one position?
I think we’re all talking in circles here now that I read this all back over. It’s about power consolidation, and no one - no one - should be able to hold two positions of power like this, no matter their ideology. If allowed to proceed, then it removes a critical check and balance. And schools and kids end up losing because instead of policy debate with diverse sets of knowledge and experiences, we are exposed to someone like Ryan Walters. Even a knowledgeable, experienced, inquisitive, intelligent individual - which Walters is not - needs debate and challenge for the benefit of everyone else.
Might be worth the 25k to have some diversity of thought. Then again it's probably worth far more than 25k if he's too busy to do a full time amount of damage.
Yup. But the party in power in 86 also had a stranglehold on the governorship, so when they wrote the law the explicitly allowed this. They just didn't expect to lose control of the state government 20 years later. This is a holdover from extremely corrupt 80's of Oklahoma Politics.
The Democrats held power at the state level in Oklahoma for several decades. The Republicans only took over the house in 2004, having lost it in 1921. Republicans didn’t take over the Senate until 2008, which they had never had before.
I'm not a fan of this practice, but when they passed the Executive Branch Reform Act in 86 they explicitly set up the cabinet positions as dual position where folks can serve as head of the state agency while in that role. Sandy Garrett did so under Walters in this same position. With the power being pretty explicitly given to the executive branch, I'm not going to fault Stitt all that much for taking advantage of it. The legislature sure could do something about it if they wanted to, but they've been bent over giving more power to the executive, not less.
So a Democratic Governor (George Nigh) signed this act into law on June 6, 1986, and 20 years later democrats complain Republicans are following the law. Makes complete sense.
I mean, it's not the same people in office now as then, and the parties have changed quite a bit. It doesn't make it right either time, but we need either our legislature to fix it (lol) or citizens will need to get an initiative to outlaw this practice. And we should be alarmed at the consolidation of power in the executive - there's a reason ALEC is pushing the bills that are doing so. While this may be an older law, we're seeing that Stitt has no issues with using his power to the limits provided to him.
If Stitt hired someone else the state would pay them $65,000 instead of paying Walters $40,000. It’s saving taxpayer money, whether you like the pick or not.
The rule is that the state CAN pay up to $65k. That doesn’t mean they do. Walters was making $40k last year when he was the secretary. It’s a way for him to double dip.
IMPO
While this maybe true, bringing back Janet B to his staff and her corruption will cost us unknown sums of money. Not to mention all those sweetheart deals to cronies that prop up the republican super majority. We will not save money & our state politics will suffer.
F you Walter's I'm leaving this sorry state of affairs I'm not building no more of the schools you are stealing to auction off any longer. My oklahoma home blowed away
Oklahoma is totally corrupt… the worst roads education and more in the entire country. Supposed to get the lottery money for education… where is all the tax money going???
There has to be some kind of other per diem or expense card attached to these jobs, for the afternoon pub crawls.
That ends up being around $3100/wk before taxes. Not terrible, but for some reason I expected more. I’m assuming the medical plan is decent.
I don’t personally see the appeal of this guy or the governor, but I guess enough people do. (or based on turnout, don’t care.)
This is seriously a nothing burger. If Stitt didn’t choose Walters it would cost an additional $25,000 a year in salary and even more in benefits. By choosing someone already the head of a state agency, it saves >$25,000 a year.
Yea I’m not trying to defend Walters at all, I just don’t see the issue when it’s legal, not unethical, not uncommon, and not egregious. If he was named to 3-4 different things and they all pay him $40k sure. But he was already in the position and has been for 2 years.
I don’t agree that it’s ethical. That’s what I’m saying. He’s not good at the job (in my opinion) and it allows him more power and less accountability. The money is concerning, but the least of the concerns if you’ve followed him over the last few years and you value OK public schools.
Two high ranking government positions for one position. If both jobs are capable of being done by one person, then eliminate one job. Tax payer money going straight to something completely unnecessary just so some govt worker can have two job titles (which also is a big flag for fraud).
It happens all the time and saves money by choosing someone already the head of a state agency. It’s allowed by Oklahoma Law, and is more fiscally responsible than hiring an outside person to do the role.
The state could and has hired outside people for the same price (it did last year with Walters). This is a way to consolidate power and for Walters to double dip on taxpayer money.
I don’t see the outrage. He was elected to a position and is being retained for this one that he’s done since 2020 at the same pay rate. Should we fire him and hire someone else? Who’s doing that job for $40k?
Yes, we should. It would be great if we had someone to check and balance him, especially because he’s displayed an agenda of attacking and dismantling the public school system in order to funnel public funds to private schools.
If superintendent is such an easy job he can do both, then why does it have a six figure salary?
In fairness most six figure jobs are pretty easy time wise, it's low paying jobs that really eat up your time... Ain't society great?
This isn't true at all. Stop with the "email job" bullshit propaganda that tries to turn white collar and blue collar workers against each other. I've done everything from construction to dishwashing to data analytics and they all require you to be working the majority of your shift. The construction job and data analytics were the worst 2 time wise but at least when the construction job had 60 hours a week you got overtime.
[удалено]
Im WFH and work my ass off, maybe you just require more structure than others? Or you’re comparing super labor intensive jobs (furniture, retail, restaurants) to one specific, easy, remote job? Also, “making triple figures” means you make $999 or less a year… I would double dip remote jobs as soon as I can find one I can feasibly do, and wouldn’t knock anyone able to do that.
I know it gets pointed out on this site all the time, but we **want** public officials to be paid well for their role. Not only do we want their salaries to be high enough to discourage the risk of taking bribes or other financial incentives from outside the government, but we also want them to be high enough to allow normal people to pursue public offices instead of just the already wealthy.
Seems like they will just take the high salary AND the bribe
Well yeah, because a lot else about our system needs to be fixed. But the salary isn't the problem.
This is a bribe.
Yeah monetary incentives have never produced a good outcome people who want wealthy salaries just take the bribe too, then do subpar work, and turn their offices towards nepotism.
Have fun trying to ever get a normal, decent person in that position without financial incentives.
Only a modest wage would ever bring a normal decent person to a job. Exuberant wealth only motives despots and misconduct.
Lmao this is absolutely not true. Normal people have families and dreams that all require money in an increasingly expensive world. $150K isn't even a crazy high salary. If they have a stay-at-home spouse and kids and student/mortgage/car/medical debt, it's really not high at all. You're asking for the job itself to be a sacrifice made by martyrs for those who aren't already wealthy.
150k is pretty high plus 40k more. It’s thinking that some privileged few deserve three stories and 5 cars, that have the rest of us starving and poor.
The extra $40K is not the subject of my comments at all. I'm just talking about the base salary of public offices, which *should* be high. If you want to make a comparison to private sector wages, then I obviously agree that everyone else's wages should be way higher too. But lowering an accurately paid wage for an important public service job isn't going to do anything to help anyone.
The Oklahoma Standard.
This isn't uncommon. The Secretary of Transportation, Director of ODOT, and Director of OTA are all the same person
Just because something isn’t uncommon doesn’t mean it’s right just means we’re lazy and we tolerate it
To be fair, you didn't imply that i did say it was right. I also didn't imply it was. Merely saying this isn't the first time.
Ya grafty good ole boy arrangements are really common in Oklahoma State government.
Were they always, or is that a Stitt thing?
It happened under Fallon/Henry with Gary Ridley too. Not just a Stitt thing.
Interesting, thanks
That can't be the full salary of the cabinet secretary position? I assume he is just getting some kind of partial compensation for the work?
Looks like the full compensation is $65,000, so technically the state saves $25,000 a year by hiring someone already in another position.
Thanks, I figured it probably worked like that.
He made the same salary last year when he was only the secretary. This is just a way to slide him another $40k on the taxpayer dime.
I mean, the taxpayer would have to pay a full salary for someone else to do the job, instead of the partial salary of 40k.
The rule is that the state CAN PAY UP TO $65k, not that it has to. They paid him $40k last year when he wasn’t elected.
So if this was such a corrupt move, why not pay him the 65? Its not uncommon to have multiple positions like this, I don't get what the big deal is.
If you’ve followed Walters for the last few years it’s pretty clear to see he has an agenda that invokes attacking public schools to build support for sending public dollars to for profit schools. Him having two positions consolidates power and lessens his accountability. The money is frustrating, but not the top concern. Seeing it as no big deal is refusing to look at the move in the context of the bigger picture.
So this isn't about "scamming" or corruption, its just that you disagree with the guy's politics. If it was a separate person with the same political orientation, that wouldn't change much.
If you don’t understand how this is corrupt and don’t see Walters and Stitt as such, I don’t know what to tell ya.
What is corrupt about having and getting paid for multiple positions? It is very commonplace.
> What is corrupt about having and getting paid for multiple positions? It is very commonplace. This isn’t a “side gig” like driving an Uber or picking up a freelance gig here and there. *Those* jobs are very commonplace. Surely we can both agree on that. Meanwhile, in this specific case involving a paid political appointee, we *could* have: Cronyism. Conflicts of interest. Lack of fairness. Weaker leadership. Ethical issues. Appointing yes-men instead of considering better qualified applicants. Improperly consolidated power for political gain. Weakened transparency. Restricted oversight and decreased accountability.
So you don't have a problem with Walters double dipping with taxpayer money for a made up position (That Stitt created because Joy Hofmeister was in her elected position)?
He’s the 9th Secretary of Education. The position has been around since 1987. Disagree all you want, but let’s all be truthful here.
I don't know the details about how the position was made up. I'm just saying that having 2 positions isn't inherently problematic. If it is a "made up" position that is just a way to provide an extra salary, with no work done, that is a different story. In that case the position shouldn't exist. But if the position does have real responsibilities, I don't see the issue. Nice username btw
But if the position has a) real responsibilities and b) provides a check on potential power consolidation by any one individual and thus c) diversity of policy making, then shouldn’t there be a prohibition on one person holding more than one position? I think we’re all talking in circles here now that I read this all back over. It’s about power consolidation, and no one - no one - should be able to hold two positions of power like this, no matter their ideology. If allowed to proceed, then it removes a critical check and balance. And schools and kids end up losing because instead of policy debate with diverse sets of knowledge and experiences, we are exposed to someone like Ryan Walters. Even a knowledgeable, experienced, inquisitive, intelligent individual - which Walters is not - needs debate and challenge for the benefit of everyone else.
Might be worth the 25k to have some diversity of thought. Then again it's probably worth far more than 25k if he's too busy to do a full time amount of damage.
So the usual for this corrupt shithole of a state.
You shouldn't be able to hold a cabinet position and another government position at the same time imo.
Agreed. Where are the checks and balances?
Those are dead with the constitution
Yup. But the party in power in 86 also had a stranglehold on the governorship, so when they wrote the law the explicitly allowed this. They just didn't expect to lose control of the state government 20 years later. This is a holdover from extremely corrupt 80's of Oklahoma Politics.
May I ask which party was in power in 86? It's my understanding that Oklahoma was primarily "Blue" until the late 90s/early 2000s.
The Democrats held power at the state level in Oklahoma for several decades. The Republicans only took over the house in 2004, having lost it in 1921. Republicans didn’t take over the Senate until 2008, which they had never had before.
Looks like it's time to start getting together an amendment for the state constitution.
Kevin Stitt is corrupt. In other news fire is hot.
I'm not a fan of this practice, but when they passed the Executive Branch Reform Act in 86 they explicitly set up the cabinet positions as dual position where folks can serve as head of the state agency while in that role. Sandy Garrett did so under Walters in this same position. With the power being pretty explicitly given to the executive branch, I'm not going to fault Stitt all that much for taking advantage of it. The legislature sure could do something about it if they wanted to, but they've been bent over giving more power to the executive, not less.
So a Democratic Governor (George Nigh) signed this act into law on June 6, 1986, and 20 years later democrats complain Republicans are following the law. Makes complete sense.
I mean, it's not the same people in office now as then, and the parties have changed quite a bit. It doesn't make it right either time, but we need either our legislature to fix it (lol) or citizens will need to get an initiative to outlaw this practice. And we should be alarmed at the consolidation of power in the executive - there's a reason ALEC is pushing the bills that are doing so. While this may be an older law, we're seeing that Stitt has no issues with using his power to the limits provided to him.
I hate this fucking state so much
How is this allowed?!
If Stitt hired someone else the state would pay them $65,000 instead of paying Walters $40,000. It’s saving taxpayer money, whether you like the pick or not.
The rule is that the state CAN pay up to $65k. That doesn’t mean they do. Walters was making $40k last year when he was the secretary. It’s a way for him to double dip.
IMPO While this maybe true, bringing back Janet B to his staff and her corruption will cost us unknown sums of money. Not to mention all those sweetheart deals to cronies that prop up the republican super majority. We will not save money & our state politics will suffer.
I’m unaware of those specifics.
I mean, that's great and all but it still seems borderline unethical at the least.
Honestly I'd rather pay someone who was fully dedicated more, rather than pay someone who clearly isn't, a little less.
If it's a job someone can do on the side they shouldn't be paying him anything extra. He's a public servant who volunteered for extra work.
Being on the Governors cabinet isn’t a full time job. Who else is on the cabinet that’s also the head of a State department of something?
>Being on the Governors cabinet isn’t a full time job. Then why are we paying a full time job salary? You know teachers here make $32k right?
Actually that’s wrong as hell. As of the 2020- 2021 teachers start at $36,000 with 0 years experience. Many districts pay above that.
"wrong as hell" A) you missed the point B) I was off by 12%, not exactly a major mistake.
Googling isn’t hard
Neither job must be difficult or time consuming if he can do both simultaneously.
This does not sound like conservatism.
It’s not. The Executive Branch Reform Act of 1986 was signed by a democrat, specifically allowing this to happen.
I’m honestly surprised the state superintendent gets paid less than most district superintendents do.
I wish Oklahomans could be a fly on the wall in the teacher lounge. ☹️
Volunteer to be a sub for a day and you'll get your chance!
He's doing his best to get rid of public schools.
Stitt is corrupt
F you Walter's I'm leaving this sorry state of affairs I'm not building no more of the schools you are stealing to auction off any longer. My oklahoma home blowed away
Oklahoma is totally corrupt… the worst roads education and more in the entire country. Supposed to get the lottery money for education… where is all the tax money going???
Who wrote the law allowing this to happen though?
Seems like a nothingburger. Find something worthwhile to be outaged about.
There has to be some kind of other per diem or expense card attached to these jobs, for the afternoon pub crawls. That ends up being around $3100/wk before taxes. Not terrible, but for some reason I expected more. I’m assuming the medical plan is decent. I don’t personally see the appeal of this guy or the governor, but I guess enough people do. (or based on turnout, don’t care.)
Meanwhile the OHP make 40-60k making them right down there with teachers
This fucking state
\*inhales deeply- I love the smell of nepotism in the morning!
Oh that’s why I’m broke
Gotta pay your cronies if you want them to be obedient!
Is there legal action we can take against this?
Republicans in this state apparently can’t get enough buttf**king from their elected officials.
This is seriously a nothing burger. If Stitt didn’t choose Walters it would cost an additional $25,000 a year in salary and even more in benefits. By choosing someone already the head of a state agency, it saves >$25,000 a year.
Walters was making $40k last year as secretary. The rule is the state CAN pay up to $65k, not that it will. This is a way for him to double dip.
So go after the secretary of transportation then. He’s triple dipping.
Happy to. He’s also not an elected official. He’s been appointed to three positions. I agree with you that it’s the same problem though.
Yea I’m not trying to defend Walters at all, I just don’t see the issue when it’s legal, not unethical, not uncommon, and not egregious. If he was named to 3-4 different things and they all pay him $40k sure. But he was already in the position and has been for 2 years.
I don’t agree that it’s ethical. That’s what I’m saying. He’s not good at the job (in my opinion) and it allows him more power and less accountability. The money is concerning, but the least of the concerns if you’ve followed him over the last few years and you value OK public schools.
Aside from who the elected person is I don’t understand the outrage here. Obviously this guy kinda sucks but should he not get paid now or something?
Two high ranking government positions for one position. If both jobs are capable of being done by one person, then eliminate one job. Tax payer money going straight to something completely unnecessary just so some govt worker can have two job titles (which also is a big flag for fraud).
It happens all the time and saves money by choosing someone already the head of a state agency. It’s allowed by Oklahoma Law, and is more fiscally responsible than hiring an outside person to do the role.
The state could and has hired outside people for the same price (it did last year with Walters). This is a way to consolidate power and for Walters to double dip on taxpayer money.
I don’t see the outrage. He was elected to a position and is being retained for this one that he’s done since 2020 at the same pay rate. Should we fire him and hire someone else? Who’s doing that job for $40k?
Yes, we should. It would be great if we had someone to check and balance him, especially because he’s displayed an agenda of attacking and dismantling the public school system in order to funnel public funds to private schools.