In Alabama, veterans’ controversy has national implications.

Republican Governor Kay Ivey last month called for “higher eExecutive Branch” is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution or state laws, but is contrary to specific provisions of state law, to fire the state Veterans Affairs Commissioner, who has earned rave reviews from the veterans community. In doing so, Ivey, among many others, angered a state veterans board member who happens to have national influence as a former senior enlisted adviser to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Retired senior Marine Brian Battaglia wrote a guest newspaper column whose headline accused Ivey of being “aggressive.”war with veterans“

Oh, and the fired commissioner just filed an ethics complaint against state Department of Mental Health officials and others for allegedly conspiring to divert $7 million in federal funds from the veterans groups for whom the money was intended. Essentially, Ivey appears to be engaged in some sort of revenge against the whistleblowers.

Almost all state media, whether right, center-right, or leftfair pillory Ivy. The reasons she gives for her dismissal are completely inaccurate, while the byzantine public mental health system she (essentially) defends sequentially ranks among the five or so worst in the country in terms of quality and quantity of services.

If this sounds like a mess, it is, and it’s likely to get worse as the fired commissioner, retired Rear Admiral W. Kent Davis, considers lawsuits over what most people believe are at least two possible fronts. The legal “discovery” alone should make both the entire Ivey administration and the government mental health oligopoly deeply nervous.

If the legal case does heat up, it should attract investigative reporting from major national news outlets, as the whole situation comes against the backdrop of consistent and growing national interest in stories about mental health in general and high stakes from veteran suicides.

What’s really going on here is the oligopoly’s apparent reluctance to provide mental health treatment to veterans-serving organizations. outside the control of the oligopoly. This is an ignorant approach that ignores the fact that veterans’ mental health needs tend to be specialized in nature, as they are much more likely to stem from post-traumatic stress disorder than for other reasons. Indeed, the high suicide rate among veterans almost directly correlates with post-traumatic stress disordercases, while veterans tend to be less likely on average than the general population to suffer from other mental illnesses. It goes without saying that the general population system, which usually deals with serious diseases arising due to biological causes may be less treatable experimental– caused by problems associated with combat or near-combat conditions.

It is unclear to the author whether this unnecessary resistance to specialized treatment for veterans is unique to Alabama or a national problem, but the topic deserves national attention. Here in Alabama it has become a scandal.

Alabama case in brief

Having spent so much time trying to thematically establish the national meaning of this story, let’s try to explain the specifics of this extremely confusing situation as briefly as possible. What happened was that at the last minute, the Alabama Department of Mental Health pulled out of a partnership with the Alabama Department of Veterans Affairs to provide $7 million in federal American Rescue Plan Act funds in the form of grants to 33 veterans organizations. Three members of the State Veterans Affairs Board, the oversight body to which Davis reports, then approached Davis with ethics-based allegations against the mental health commissioner and others. Davis, after reviewing state law, expressed “reluctance” to file the complaint, but determined that he was “obligated by Alabama Code 36-25-17” to file it under penalty of committing a criminal offense if he did so. No fulfill this supposed obligation.

Ethics Complaint there was a leak in Lagnappe, Excellent weekly in Mobile. Davis, angered by the leak, asked to withdraw the complaint, but the state ethics commission, itself long accused of toothlessness or worsepublicly dismissed the case as (allegedly) unfoundedWith. Ivey, whose office is reportedly near several of the “others” mentioned in Davis’ reluctant complaint, was delighted.

Citing extremely vague allegations that Davis had “mishandled” federal funds, Ivey demanded that the state Veterans Affairs Board fire Davis and then force Davis to resign. To avoid a fight, Davis agreed to do it at the end of the year. But the SBVA, contrary to Ivey, voted unanimously to ask Davis, who is credited with significantly improving the quality of services for the state’s veterans, to reconsider his resignation.

Davis publicly stated that he was not inclined to do this, but Ivey was not going to leave it alone. She called a special meeting of the SBVA, this time demanding that Davis be fired. immediately not at the end of the year. However, Ivey lost the vote.

An hour later, Ivey’s lawyer showed up with a letter saying the governor had unilaterally fired Davis and then sent state police to his office and home to demand keys and files, as if to frame him as a criminal.

Most states assume that the head of a state department can, of course, be fired by the governor. However, in Alabama, the Veterans Administration is quasi-independent and reports to the veterans board described above rather than directly to the governor. State law specifically states that the governor can “remove from office” any employee who serves “by appointment” of the current or former governor. However, the Commissioner of Veterans Affairs is not appointed by the governor. State law states that the State Board of Veterans Affairs, not the governor, “shall appoint the commissioner…subject to removal from office.” at the blackboard for a reason.” (Emphasis mine.)

That’s why Ivey went through all this nonsense of asking for special board meetings and a vote to fire Davis instead of doing it outright: because she does not have such power. However, when interrupted, she stated something called: take this – “the highest executive power of the state.” In arguing that these broad powers supersede any other relevant part of state law, she cited a state Supreme Court case that appears entirely inapplicable to Davis’ situation.

What’s even stranger is that Ivey’s vague claim that Davis had somehow mismanaged the grant money was factually absurd. Davis, who was battling cancer at the time, specifically opted out of the selection process. Instead, a special evaluation commission evaluated applicants for grants. Neither the Department of Veterans Affairs nor the state Veterans Council, to which it reports, even supervised the work of the commission: three of the five commission members were appointed by the Department of Mental Health. This means that any inexplicable “mishandling” of intended grants that were never actually issued due to ADMH’s withdrawal would be ADMH’s fault, not the veterans’ and certainly not the opt-out, cancer-stricken Davis’s.

Moreover, a key member of the Legislative Oversight Committee has already publicly stated that no funds were improper, the state finance director has stated that no funds were improper, and a review panel of the entire state veterans board has reported the same.

All Ivy had to do was just say and do nothing. The Ethics Commission, rightly or wrongly, had already rejected Davis’s reluctant complaint to the Ethics Lobby against the Psychiatric Lobby, and Davis was clearly in no mood to pursue it any further. He just wanted to move on and continue his exemplary service.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

How marked To Battagliaformer assignee jSecond chief of staff, Davis led the opening of 12 new veterans services offices in five years “without increasing ADVA’s annual budget through automation and efficiency gains.” He has taken concrete steps to combat veteran suicide, and the rate is declining. Davis “planned and successfully led the construction of a new government home for veterans,” improved the military scholarship program, expanded the State Veterans Memorial Cemetery, and more.

Ivey should take the opportunity of Veterans Day to say there has been a “series of misunderstandings” but, having heard “loud and clear” from the state’s veterans groups, she will now reinstate Davis. By doing so, she may also avoid a lawsuit that will undoubtedly deeply embarrass her administration and possibly tear it apart.