Republican Governor Kay Ivey Last month the “almighty e” call was madeThe “executive power” to remove the State Commissioner of Veterans Affairs, which is not specified anywhere in the state Constitution or statute but has received rave reviews from the veterans community, contrary to certain provisions of state law. In doing so, Ivey angered, among many others, a state veterans board member who has national influence as a former senior adviser to the U.S. chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. High-ranking retired Marine Bryan Battaglia called Ivey “war against veterans.”

Oh, and the fired commissioner had just filed an ethics complaint against state Department of Mental Health officials and others for allegedly colluding to divert $7 million in federal funds away from the veterans groups for whom the money was intended. Essentially, Ivey appears to be engaging in some form of whistleblower retaliation.

Almost all state media Right, centre-right or leftfairly plunder Ivey. The reasons he gives for dismissal are completely unrealistic; However, the Byzantine state mental health system that it (essentially) protected continuously ranks among the five worst or worse in the nation in terms of quality and quantity of services.

If this seems like a mess, it is, and the situation is likely to get worse as the ousted commissioner, retired Rear Adm. W. Kent Davis, considers legal action on what most people see as at least two possible fronts. Legal “discovery” alone should make both the entire Ivey administration and the state’s mental health oligopoly extremely uneasy.

If a case escalates, investigative reporting should be pulled from major national news organizations, as the entire situation unfolds against the backdrop of consistent and growing national interest in mental health and mental health-related stories in general. high rates related to Suicide among veterans.

What’s really going on here is the oligopoly’s apparent reluctance for veterans’ service organizations to provide mental health treatment. out of oligopoly control. This is an ignorant attitude that ignores the fact that veterans’ mental health needs are specialized in nature; post-traumatic stress disorder more than any other reason. Indeed, veterans’ suicide rates are high almost directly related with PTSDVeterans are, on average, less likely to suffer from other mental health conditions than the general population. It makes sense to have a general population system that deals with serious conditions that often result from disease. biological may be less equipped to treat causes experimental-Problems triggered by struggle or struggle-like conditions.

It is not clear to this writer whether this unnecessary resistance to treatment of specialized veterans is specific to Alabama or a national problem, but it is an issue worthy of national attention. It became a scandal in Alabama.

Alabama case in brief

Since it has taken so long to thematically determine the national significance of this story, let us try to explain the features of this extremely complex situation as succinctly as possible. What happened is that at the last minute, the Alabama Department of Mental Health pulled out of its partnership with the Alabama Department of Veterans Affairs to give $7 million in federal American Rescue Plan Act funds through grants to 33 veterans organizations. Three members of the State Board of Veterans Affairs, the oversight body to which Davis responded, then approached Davis with ethics-based allegations against the Commissioner of Mental Health and others. Invoking state law, Davis expressed “reluctance” to file a complaint but ruled that “under Ala. Code 36-25-17, he was obligated to do so on pain of committing a criminal offense if he did so.” Negative fulfill this perceived obligation.

ethical complaint leaked lagniappe, An excellent weekly newspaper in Mobile. Angered by the leak, Davis demanded the complaint be withdrawn, but the state Ethics Commission, which itself has long been accused of being toothless, or worsepublicly dismissed the case as (allegedly) frivolousQ. Ivey, whose office was said to be close to many of the “others” named in Davis’ involuntary complaint, had a full-blown crisis.

Citing extremely vague allegations that Davis “misused” federal funds, Ivey demanded that the state Board of Veterans Affairs fire Davis and then pressured Davis to resign. Davis agreed to do so at the end of the year to avoid a fight. But the SBVA challenged Ivey, unanimously demanding that Davis, who is credited with greatly improving the quality of services for the state’s veterans, reconsider his resignation.

Davis flatly said he wasn’t willing to do it, but Ivey said she wouldn’t leave him alone long enough. This time, he called a special meeting of the SBVA to demand that Davis be fired. immediately not at the end of the year. But Ivey lost the vote.

An hour later, Ivey’s attorney arrived with a letter informing him that the governor had unilaterally fired Davis and then sent state police to his office and home to demand keys and files, as if to make him look like a criminal.

In most states, the head of a state department can of course be removed from office by the governor. But in Alabama, Veterans Affairs is semi-independent and answers not directly to the governor but to the veterans board described above. State law specifically states that the governor may “remove” any employee serving “by appointment” of the current or former governor. The veterans commissioner is not appointed by the governor. State law says the State Board of Veterans Affairs, not the governor, “shall appoint a commissioner…subject to removal.” by the board of directors for some reason.” (Emphasis added.)

So Ivey went through the nonsense of demanding special board meetings and a vote to fire Davis instead of doing it directly: because he he doesn’t have that power. However, once blocked, it asserted something like this: take this – “the supreme executive power of the state.” In arguing that this broad authority superseded other relevant sections of state law, he cited a state Supreme Court case that seemed entirely inapplicable to Davis’ situation.

Even stranger, Ivey’s vague claim that Davis had somehow mishandled the grant money was actually nonsense. Davis, who was battling cancer at the time, specifically withdrew himself from the selection process. Instead, a special scoring panel ranked grant applicants. Neither the Department of Veterans Affairs nor the state veterans board to which it responds even checked the panel: Three of the five panel members were appointed by the Department of Mental Health. This means that any unexplained “misuse” of intended grants that were never actually awarded due to ADMH withdrawal would be the fault of ADMH, not the veterans and certainly not the withdrawn, cancer-stricken Davis.

Moreover, a key member of the legislative oversight committee had already said publicly that no funds were mismanaged; The state’s own Finance Director had said no funds had been mismanaged, and a review committee of the entire state veterans board had reported as much.

All Ivey had to do was just say it and do nothing. The Ethics Commission, rightly or wrongly, had already dismissed Davis’ half-hearted ethics complaint against the mental health lobby, and Davis was clearly in no mood to continue pursuing it. He just wanted to move on, continue his exemplary service.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Like noted with Battagliaj’s former deputyDavis, oint’s chief of staff, led the opening of 12 new veterans’ service offices in five years “without increasing ADVA’s annual budget due to automation and increased efficiency.” He has taken concrete steps to combat veteran suicide, and the rate is falling. Davis “planned and successfully directed the construction of a new state veterans home,” developed the GI Dependent Scholarship program, expanded the State Veterans Memorial Cemetery, and more.

Ivey should use the occasion of Veterans Day to claim that there had been “a series of misunderstandings” but that she would reinstate Davis after receiving “clear and concise” information from veterans groups around the state. In doing so, he may be avoiding a lawsuit that would deeply embarrass his administration and perhaps tear it apart altogether.