What a weird, manipulative, uncouth, deceiving piece of work she is. Her actions here are a true reflection of her destruction of the DNR, fake everything
Dear EPA Staff, Bumbling, stupid Cathy Stepp - except that no, she isn't. She is very good at using any means to get what she wants, which is erosion of environment protection and confusion in the agency. She will start out by appearing to try to get to know you. She will show up in the lunchroom. She will be chatty and personable. She will make odd jokes at the expense of her deputies and they will all laugh. It will be awkward. She will have potlucks and then, when you are thinking that sure she is anti-environment but she seems nice, she will have listening sessions.
Some of these listening sessions will be recorded and upper management will answer questions and take comments. She will travel to different offices and hold listening sessions that aren't recorded in any way. She will encourage you to make suggestions via "confidential" not "anonymous" emails.
She will make changes to your agency, saying that "these suggestions come from you." She will repeat this phrase often because none of these changes make any sense and you cannot see how these odd changes could come from your colleagues. Oh, she will start all agency-wide emails with "Dear Colleagues." I remember thinking that in no way was she my colleague.
After reorganizing the region, she will notice that some of you are not happy. So she will hire a consultant to do a survey. This survey too isn't anonymous but "confidential." By this time many of your real colleagues will have retired or moved to other jobs. They will not be replaced for a long time. You will think that you need to keep your program running and will put in extra hours. There will be awards and certificates but no raises. New hires will make significantly more than you and will be much less qualified. Most will be veterans. She likes to hire veterans because she can profile them in agency newsletters. By now you might be thinking she isn't really very nice.
After the mood survey, she will hold more listening sessions and make more changes attributed to "you." She will surround herself with lawyers upon lawyers who will determine all enforcement actions. They will be bad lawyers and you will see enforcement go down. Now you realize that she has made major changes to your regional office, she is attributing these changes to staff. She has inserted layers of permissions for anything sort of action. And then, when you think it can't get worse, she will run all decisions past the Department of Justice and now more lawyers are making environmental decisions that should be made using science. Industry lawyers will be a constant presence in your building.
You will spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to explain to the people making decisions why they should do a certain thing. Good luck. They don't care. They really just don't care. They want to facilitate development in any way possible and that includes skirting legal requirements for environmental protection.
I would say I am glad she is gone but my friends who are still at DNR tell me Dan Meyer is just as bad if not worse. I feel for you, EPA staff. The next few years will be confusing. That is what Cathy Stepp does. She creates chaos to impede environmental protection.
Best of Luck, I got out and am learning to live with that.
What a weird, manipulative, uncouth, deceiving piece of work she is. Her actions here are a true reflection of her destruction of the DNR, fake everything
ReplyDeleteDear EPA Staff,
ReplyDeleteBumbling, stupid Cathy Stepp - except that no, she isn't. She is very good at using any means to get what she wants, which is erosion of environment protection and confusion in the agency. She will start out by appearing to try to get to know you. She will show up in the lunchroom. She will be chatty and personable. She will make odd jokes at the expense of her deputies and they will all laugh. It will be awkward. She will have potlucks and then, when you are thinking that sure she is anti-environment but she seems nice, she will have listening sessions.
Some of these listening sessions will be recorded and upper management will answer questions and take comments. She will travel to different offices and hold listening sessions that aren't recorded in any way. She will encourage you to make suggestions via "confidential" not "anonymous" emails.
She will make changes to your agency, saying that "these suggestions come from you." She will repeat this phrase often because none of these changes make any sense and you cannot see how these odd changes could come from your colleagues. Oh, she will start all agency-wide emails with "Dear Colleagues." I remember thinking that in no way was she my colleague.
After reorganizing the region, she will notice that some of you are not happy. So she will hire a consultant to do a survey. This survey too isn't anonymous but "confidential." By this time many of your real colleagues will have retired or moved to other jobs. They will not be replaced for a long time. You will think that you need to keep your program running and will put in extra hours. There will be awards and certificates but no raises. New hires will make significantly more than you and will be much less qualified. Most will be veterans. She likes to hire veterans because she can profile them in agency newsletters. By now you might be thinking she isn't really very nice.
After the mood survey, she will hold more listening sessions and make more changes attributed to "you." She will surround herself with lawyers upon lawyers who will determine all enforcement actions. They will be bad lawyers and you will see enforcement go down. Now you realize that she has made major changes to your regional office, she is attributing these changes to staff. She has inserted layers of permissions for anything sort of action. And then, when you think it can't get worse, she will run all decisions past the Department of Justice and now more lawyers are making environmental decisions that should be made using science. Industry lawyers will be a constant presence in your building.
You will spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to explain to the people making decisions why they should do a certain thing. Good luck. They don't care. They really just don't care. They want to facilitate development in any way possible and that includes skirting legal requirements for environmental protection.
I would say I am glad she is gone but my friends who are still at DNR tell me Dan Meyer is just as bad if not worse. I feel for you, EPA staff. The next few years will be confusing. That is what Cathy Stepp does. She creates chaos to impede environmental protection.
Best of Luck,
I got out and am learning to live with that.