With President Trump’s nomination of Kash Patel for director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), you don’t have to imagine. It is happening right before us, only not in a company — rather, a country.

Trump called Patel “crazy,” and many others went on record to speak out against him for a senior position. Patel himself made inflammatory and false accusations about the agency he now hopes to lead. You don’t have to understand the government to know the director of the FBI is a serious job.

I spent my first career as an employment specialist, coaching employers and job seekers in writing and reading job announcements. If the FBI director were a job requiring a resume or CV, I would advise candidates to list 10-plus years of experience investigating criminals, their unquestioned security clearance record, their absolute commitment to confidentiality and their high-level leadership experience with a history of positive reviews. I would recommend highlighting characteristics like integrity, tenacity and the ability to problem solve and make respected judgement calls.

Patel cannot honestly claim these qualifications, but he doesn’t have to. He was nominated. No qualifications required.

Patel must, however, pass through what amounts to rigorous job interviews by senators we elected. He answered one round already, dodging questions and concealing to the point that Patel may have even violated the FBI’s own standards of conduct and honesty. It is clear to most observers that Patel’s primary qualification for this position is his uber loyalty to Trump, and this is alarming.

Keep in mind the FBI would be charged with providing investigation into any alleged illegal conduct of the president. Senators wanted to know whether any of Patel’s previous statements of loyalty and previous national security breaches would prevent him from doing his job as an apolitical FBI director. I was unsatisfied with his noncommittal answers, and I hoped the senators were, too. The majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee voted him through to the Senate for more questioning.

Patel is not yet confirmed. This is the time for Utahns to make their expectations known. Congress holds the power of opposing unqualified candidates, and final votes will be counted concerning Patel’s nomination over the next two weeks. Congress members’ role to provide advice and consent for the president can be a powerful method of one branch of government checking another. Their votes for Cabinet nominations should represent their constituents’.

Would you hire Patel for this job? We should expect Sens. Lee and Curtis and our representatives to ask this of themselves and of us, too. We, in return, have a responsibility to let them know what we want and whom we don’t.

Utah votes along a spectrum of political beliefs, but I believe most Utahns share the common expectation of our lawmakers to approve qualified government officials. This is especially true when considering positions that require the utmost confidentiality and directly impact national security. If you believe the FBI needs to be reformed, is Patel your pick to do it, or would you rather have someone who meets the hiring standards required of this critical position? Wouldn’t improving the FBI require someone with expertise, discretion and impartiality?

If you were sitting on the interview panel to decide whether to hire this candidate, is there anything this former employee can say to change your mind about trusting them? Did they say it? If not, you would not recommend not hiring. You may even work to persuade others on the panel to oppose them.

Voters in Utah have voices on the panel interviewing Patel this week. If you, like me, feel alarmed not only by his lack of qualifications to lead the FBI but also by his proposed plans to dismantle it, let your recommendation be known to your elected officials. It’s a group interview. More than one person has a say.

Sherilyn Stevenson is a retired state of Utah employee and current lead advocacy writer for Mormon Women for Ethical Government.