Flap's Blog – FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog

this isn’t the only time palin has done this sort of thing . her mooses are coming home to roost.
http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/515512.html
mccain will regret picking palin, as i said a month ago

Tell you the truth, I liked her better before she was chosen as VP nominee. She seemed like this earnest crusader who was clearing out the corruption in Alaska. But looking at her image in the media now, that seems like another person altogether. Probably the media’s fault, I think…

Much confusion has been generated by the legislative report’s seemingly inconsistent findings that Palin abused her power, but that there was nothing “improper” about Monaghan’s firing. The finding validating the firing appears to be premised on decisions holding that at will employees may be terminated without good cause or for any cause..

Branchwater may have overlooked the Alaska Supreme Court’s recent recognition of the “public interest” exception to the “at will” employment contract rule. See the November 2, 2007, opinion in Miller v. Safeway and its discussion of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in all contracts, including at will employment contracts.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

I am a seasoned attorney and an Obama suppporter, and not a reluctant one at than, but I like McCain although he his behavior in the last few months troubles me. I am a Vietnam Veteran. I have voted the straight Republican ticket for over 30years, but there is no way I will vote to put Palin in office. My comment is a two edge sword, as it casts some doubt on the report to the legislative council.
It seems that the MSM is confused, Fox News is confused, and the people are confused over how Branchwater could have found that Palin abused the power of office in pressuring Moneghan to fire Trooper Wooten, but Branchwater also found that her firing of Moneghan was a proper and lawful exercise of Palin’s constitutional and statutory authority. Permit me to explore the issue.

The inconsistency may stem from Branchwater’s possibly incomplete understanding of Alaskan employment law. See the discussion around page 66 of the report regarding Alskan law of wrongful termination. Branchwater appears to believe that any employer’s, not only but including the Governor of Alaska’s, firing of an “at will” employee is proper and lawful in the sense that the court’s will not set it aside. Check the date of the legal decisions he cites in support of his finding and then look at the Alaska Supreme Court 2007 decision in Miller v. Safeway. Miller held that even an at will employee may not be fired for reasons in violation of public policy.

“The objective prong of the covenant (of good and fair dealing that is implied in every contract, including an unwritten employment contract) is breached when an employer fails to act in a manner that a reasonable person would consider fair, which includes treating similarly situated employees disparately, terminating employees on unconstitutional grounds, and terminating employees in violation of public policy.” Miller v. Safeway. (Parenthetical statement added by me for clarity.)

There may be some Alskan rule of which I am not aware that explains Branchwater’s failure to discuss the impact of Miller. Some states uphold a firing for reasons against public policy so long as it is not the sole reason but other legitimate reasons led to the firing. That may be the case, as I see that Mr. Branchwater refers to the fact that the Monaghan’s refusal to fire Wooten was the sole reason for the Commissioner’s termination.

Hopefully this answers more questions than it raises.

I tool a look at the post from “Beldar” and was not that impressed. True, the arguments are well written and beautifully represented, but the logic was a bit superficial and sophmoric. Anyone with a temperature abover 80 degrees would have recognized the logical inconsitency between finding that Palin violated the ethic law by pressuring Monagan and the finding his actual firing was proper and lawful.

Another ten minutes with the aid of google confirmed the suspicion I mentioned in the final paragraph of my earlier post. “Some states uphold a firing for reasons against public policy so long as it is not the sole reason but other legitimate reasons led to the firing. That may be the case, as I see that Mr. Branchwater refers to the fact that the Monaghan’s refusal to fire Wooten was the sole reason for the Commissioner’s termination.” Alaska does indeed apply the doctine of “mixed motives”.

“In mixed-motives cases, the employer “must show that its legitimate reason, standing alone, would have induced it to make the same decision. ” See Alaska Law Review at http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?24+Alaska+L.+Rev.+287#H2N2 . While Branchflower doesn’t make any reference to the rule of mixed motives, his discussion of the reasons for his conclusion illustrates that he was aware of the the Governor had valid motives for firing Monegan. See the finding that Monegan’s refusal to fire Wooten was not the sole reason for his termination and there was evidence that he was not a team player and the Governor had loss confidence in him.

While it isn’t clear that Brachflower was that conversant with “mixed motive” termination law, and he failed to mention it and the public policy exception to the at will rule for some reason, perhaps the press of getting the report together in time for the Judicial Council’s meet, which would have been difficult given the last minute filing of the witness affidavits, I now see where there really is no internal inconsistency in the two findings.

Palin abused her power, but the termination still was proper and lawful because, in addition to being motivated by Monegan’s refusal to fire Wooten, Branchwater found that he would still have been fired solely on account of valid motives; the loss of confidence and not being a team player.