Troopergate
September 14th, 2008
I have performed my due-diligence by researching the facts in the Palin-Troopergate saga, and have come to the conclusion that the argument we should be having is whether or not unions have a place in our law enforcement professions, and whether or not a sitting Governor has every right to exercise their executive power to remove anyone in his or her cabinet for any reason at all.
What We Know
State Trooper Wooten (Governor Palin’s now ex-brother-in-law) was the member of a State Trooper union. He was a menace to the society he was sworn to serve and protect, and this has been proven. His actions were appalling for any profession, let alone one of power such as law enforcement.
Yet, when the evidence against Wooten was proven to be factual, the department chose not to discharge him for actions that any otherwise reasonable person would conclude warranted his discharge. Instead, Col. Julia Grimes (head of the Alaska State Troopers) proposed a ten-day suspension, which was quickly reduced to five days due to union protest.
Are Unions standing in the way of citizen safety?
In this case, yes. Had Trooper Wooten been discharged–which I think any reasonable person would agree would have been justified–we wouldn’t be discussing whether or not Governor Palin orchestrated a grand scheme to fire her Public Safety Commissioner.
Discharging union employees often reads like a bad joke in cases where unions jump to the defense of ‘one of their own’, rather than looking objectively at the job the individual in question was hired to perform. As we all know, police officers wield a great deal of power, carry a sidearm, and are presumed to be honest and trustworthy. Honesty and the upholding of the law they are required to enforce is their basic job function, and one that cannot be compromised. They also take an oath to serve and protect. They should be held to that standard, and when they don’t, they should be removed from their position.
I’m not saying that people don’t have a right to organize, so please don’t misunderstand me, but I do believe that we should seriously consider looking into whether or not police unions in particular are counterproductive and even dangerous to the people who pay their salaries (taxpayers) when they don’t perform the essential functions of their jobs. This case should at least bring the conversation to the table.
Since Trooper Wooten wasn’t discharged as he should have been due directly to union protection, and since he remained in his position, we must now shift our attention to the next part of this story, which involves the removal of a Governor-appointed Public Safety Commissioner, allegedly based upon his refusal to ‘do something’ about Wooten’s continued employment as a state trooper. We must then ask ourselves whether or not a governor has the right to remove any person from their cabinet, at any time, for any reason.
An ‘Appointment’, not ‘Employment’
If we truly do not believe that a Governor should have the right to remove from their cabinet anyone, at any time, for any reason at all, we should be discussing whether or not this is something that should be changed, since currently, this is the law of the land.
From a randomly-chosen state’s website:
Cabinet members serve at the Governor’s discretion and together form a constructive advisory board in assisting the Governor’s in running the affairs of state, with reporting duties based on their respective agencies.
[emphasis mine]
A Governor doesn’t need to prove that someone from his or her cabinet should be removed for a specific reason. Working in the service of a Governor is an appointment, not a regular job like you and can apply for and work for decades in until we retire. There are times when a person spends decades in a governor-appointed role, even though the governorship changes hands, but that doesn’t change the fact that these are appointments, not ‘jobs’ as you and I think of them.
If we’re being honest, the real issue at hand should be whether or not this practice should be banned from offices of executive government. Yet strangely, I don’t hear any clamoring from the masses pleading for required documented corrective action when an individual is removed from a position under a governor. That’s because not every governor is a Republican, and Democrats find this practice necessary as well, when ‘their guy or gal’ is in office. When gubernatorial office-holders change, so do the cabinets…overwhelmingly.
Many Americans see the position of Public Safety Commissioner as a job, just like yours or mine in the private sector. But this isn’t the case.
A Red Herring
Since a large number of Americans don’t understand how government operates, they presume a number of things that aren’t based upon reality, and therefore render themselves–at the present moment–incapable of coming to a logical conclusion on this matter.
This whole Troopergate saga creates a smokescreen for the real issues at hand, those being a) whether or not in this case a union hindered the ability of law enforcement higher-ups to protect their civilian citizenry from a monster and human time-bomb, and also b) whether or not a sitting governor should be able to appoint and remove their cabinet members as they see fit.
That’s all there is to this. I know that’s not as ’sexy’ as what the media’s reporting (and not nearly as intriguing), but as with most scandals whipped up by the media machine, the truth isn’t usually as interesting as what we’re being fed by them on a daily basis.
I will admit, however, that reading the whole story was in fact interesting, and mind-boggling. For the entire Troopergate story, including official testimony of Sarah and Todd Palin and the official corrective action paperwork of Trooper Wooten, go to Flopping Aces, who has done a phenomenal job of putting all the facts together. A truly great piece of investigative journalism by–once again–a guy in pajamas.
(Keep in mind that Flopping Aces uncovered all of this information less than one day after McCain revealed his choice for VP. I’d say that the media has had ample time to find and report the truth if a blogger can do it within hours, wouldn’t you?)
September 14th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
It seems to me that the Flopping Aces post takes everything that the Palins have to say about Wooten as indisputable fact. Wooten certainly sounds like an unpleasant person to me but I don’t know that I can accept at face value everything that one side of a messy divorce has to say about the other side without some corroboration. Moreover, many of the incidents that Palin was reporting were not things that she had witnessed herself.
Colonel Grimes certainly did not think very highly of trooper Wooten, but she only sustained three of the allegations that the Palins made, the taser incident, the moose shooting, and drinking while driving his patrol vehicle (although it does not look like she found him to be drunk at the time). I think that those are the only allegations that can be considered established facts.
September 14th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Only three?
Come on, Vinny. The guy had three incidents of unbecoming conduct, three incidents of personal conduct, one incident of failure to perform job duties properly and use of government property, two incidents of conformance to laws, one incident of the use of alcohol, and one incident operation to be prudent and lawful.
A state trooper drinking and driving his vehicle (not once, but twice), tasering his young step-son (fully knowing the dangers)and shooting moose without a tag are a pretty good sign as to what sort of guy Wooten is, let alone what sort of state trooper he is. What more do you need?
Do you honestly believe that Sarah Palin made all of this stuff up just to ‘help her sister out’ in the divorce? Come on, man. Wooten is a creep, with a history of rage.
September 14th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
And here’s some more:
[A] reprimand in January 2004 for negligent damage to a state vehicle; a January 2005 instruction after being accused of speeding, unsafe lane changes, following too closely and not using turn signals in his state vehicle; a June 2005 instruction regarding personal cell phone calls; an October 2005 suspension from work after getting a speeding ticket; and a November 2005 memo “to clarify duty hours, tardiness and personal business during duty time.”
September 15th, 2008 at 6:11 am
You’re completely ignoring the fact that it wasn’t Trooper Wooten who was fired, it was his boss, Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan.
While it is certainly true that as a gubernatorial appointee, Monegan served at the governor’s pleasure, but the question remains: Did Palin fire Monegan for personal reasons (Namely, Monegan’s defiance of Palin’s pressure to fire her former brother-in-law) that had nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with Wooten’s nasty divorce from Palin’s sister.
If the latter is found to be the case, then Palin abused her authority as governor to settle a personal score. THAT’s the real issue here.
September 15th, 2008 at 8:35 am
Umm, no Skeeter, I did not ignore the fact that Trooper Wooten wasn’t fired. Go back and read it again. I think I made it pretty clear that he WASN’T discharged, but that he most certainly SHOULD have been.
So it’s your belief that Monegan was removed from his appointed position because he refused to fire Wooten. I find this incredibly hard to believe since there would have to be more issues with his performance to warrant discharge, and since the union would again be involved. What you’re really saying is that Palin thought that Monegan was ‘above the law’ and could discharge Wooten at any time, simply because she told him to do so. No one can fire a union employee for past issues that had already been addressed (even if you’re the Public Safety Commissioner). This would have created an even bigger stink, since Wooten and/or the union would have filed suit for wrongful termination. Also, it appears that Wooten got his act together after his suspension, and apparently is doing well as a trainer. Why on earth would Palin drudge all of this up again, and remove Monegan for not doing something that she would have to understand would create a complaint and/or lawsuit by the union on behalf of Wooten???
THERE IS NO MOTIVE HERE, PEOPLE!! The only motive I see are a bunch of liberals trying to smear Palin with bullshit…the same liberals who refuse to acknowledge Barack Obama’s sordid past and involvement (and business dealings) with KNOWN criminals, terrorists, and generally shady characters.
This is really starting to piss me off, and I don’t get pissed off very often.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Truth? Like having babies? Bikini pictures? Banning books?Independence party? How abut Gibson’s edited interview?
Truth from the media? That’s funny.
September 16th, 2008 at 1:31 am
Joey,
This is not an issue being stirred up by liberals. The Alaska legislature made a bipartisan decision to pursue an investigation long before John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate. Supporters of Barack Obama had absolutely nothing to do with it.
The problem is that McCain made an impulsive decision at the last minute to pick the unknown Palin when Republican party bigwigs told him that he could not pick Joe Lieberman.
Jimi,
The media is not responsible for the bloggers who started the stories about Palin’s daughter being the mother of Palin’s baby.
The media is also not responsible for jerks who photoshop bikini pictures.
The media has gotten stories I have read about her interaction with the librarian right. I think that her actions indicated her desire to have books removed from the library, but I am well aware that she never actually did so.
I don’t think that the Alaska Independence Party story was the media’s fault. Her husband had been a member for several years and the party chair said she had been a member. When the party chair changed her statement, the media reported it.
I frankly think that ABC made her look better. In the unedited transcript, Palin rambled more and sounded more like she was relying on talking points. The edited interview made her answers sound tighter and more focused.
September 16th, 2008 at 4:14 am
You’re correct, Vinny. This issue isn’t only being stirred by liberals. In fact, the whole thing started with Palin’s opponent in the Republican primary, Andrew Halcro, who began screaming about the alleged ’scandal’ of removing Monegan. Apparently, he’s a sore loser out for revenge.
As for the media, if they’d report on the ‘dirt’ from both sides, I’d be content. Unfortunately, they seem intent on ignoring the skeletons in Barack Obama’s closet while reporting on allegations of Palin’s desire to burn books. This is insane. Obama’s sketchy past is like low-lying fruit (and a good deal more scandalous) yet they pick on Palin for a prayer she said in her church without showing her entire statement, which of course was taken completely out of context.
Even the New York times reported that Charlie Gibson was talking down to Sarah with the attitude of an ‘impatient schoolteacher’.
I’ve come to grips with the fact that the media is in the tank for Barack Obama, I just wish they’d come out and say it so they would stop being intellectually dishonest and reveal that they aren’t really interested in reporting the news unless it benefits their candidate.
September 16th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
What’s wrong with an impatient schoolteacher. It was Palin’s first real interview, and from what the McCain campaign has said, it may be her last. Didn’t you want to see how Palin responded when she was put on the spot?
I have seen plenty of media coverage of Obama’s unsavory connections. I subscribe to the Chicago Tribune and I see columnist John Kass vilify Obama on a regular basis. If he is as dirty as you say, he has certainly been careful not to leave many fingerprints because no one seems to come up with much beyond the fact that he knows guys like Rezko and Ayers.
We have one of the toughest federal prosecutors in Chicago in U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald. He has pursued investigations and prosecutions against corrupt politicians in both parties but he has not laid a finger on Obama yet.