Republican governor. Kay Ivey last month invoked the “supreme eexecutive power,” is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution or state laws, but contrary to specific provisions of state law, to fire the state Commissioner of Veterans Affairs, who has earned rave reviews from the veterans community. In doing so, Ivey angered, among many others, a member of the state veterans board who happens to have national influence as a former senior enlisted adviser to the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff. That senior retired Marine, Bryan Battaglia, wrote a guest newspaper column headlined accusing Ivey of making a “war against veterans.”

Oh, and the fired commissioner just filed an ethics complaint against state Department of Mental Health officials and others for allegedly colluding to embezzle $7 million in federal funds from veterans groups who the money was earmarked. In essence, Ivey appears to be engaging in some form of whistleblower retaliation.

Almost the entire state media, either correct, center– right, or the lefthe is right pylori Ivy. The reasons she cites for firing are completely inaccurate, while the byzantine mental health system she (essentially) protects consistent ranks among the five or so in the nation in the quality and quantity of services.

If that sounds like a mess, it is, and it’s likely to get worse, as the fired commissioner, retired Rear Adm. W. Kent Davis, considers legal action on what most people see as at least two possible fronts. The legal “discovery” alone should make both the entire Ivey administration and the state mental health oligopoly deeply nervous.

If a court case heats up, it should attract investigative reporting from major national news outlets, as the whole situation comes against a backdrop of steady and growing national interest in stories about mental health care in general and high rates of suicide among veterans.

What really seems to be going on here is the oligopoly’s apparent unwillingness to have veterans service organizations provide mental health treatment. outside the control of the oligopoly. This is an unremarkable attitude, ignoring the reality that the mental health needs of veterans tend to be specialized in nature, as they more often arise from posttraumatic stress disorder than from other causes. Indeed, the high suicide rate of veterans correlate almost directly with PTSD occuWhile veterans tend, on average, to be less likely than the general population to suffer from other mental health illnesses. It goes without saying that a general population system that usually deals with serious conditions arising from biological causes may be less equipped to treat experientially-triggered issues related to combat or combat-like conditions.

It is not clear to this writer whether this unnecessary resistance to specialized treatment for veterans is unique to Alabama or a national problem, but it is a topic worthy of national attention. Here in Alabama, it has become a scandal.

The Alabama case, in brief

Having taken so long to establish the national importance of this story thematically, let’s try to explain as concisely as possible the specifics of this extremely complicated situation. 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 award $7 million in US federal bailout funds through grants to 33 organizations of veterans. Three members of the state Board of Veterans Affairs, the oversight body to which Davis answers, then approached Davis with ethics-based charges against the Mental Health Commissioner and others. Davis, consulting state law, expressed “reluctance” to file a complaint but determined that he was “required by Ala. Code. 36-25-17” to file it under penalty of committing a felony if he did. not fulfill that perceived obligation.

Ethics complaint was leaked to Lagniappe, an excellent weekly newspaper in Mobile. Davis, angered by the leak, asked to drop the complaint, but the state Ethics Commission, itself long accused of being toothless or worsepublicly dismissed the case as (alleged) meritsSr. Ivey, whose office is apparently close to several of the “others” named in Davis’ reluctance complaint, had an absolute match.

Citing extremely vague allegations that Davis had “mishandled” federal funds, Ivey demanded that the State Board of Veterans Affairs fire Davis and then pressured Davis to resign. To avoid a fight, Davis agreed to do so at the end of the year. However, the SBVA, in defiance of Ivey, voted unanimously to ask Davis, who is credited with massively improving the quality of state veterans services, to reconsider his resignation.

Davis has said publicly that he is not inclined to do so, but Ivey would not leave well enough alone. She called a special meeting of the SBVA, this time to demand that Davis be fired immediate rather than at the end of the year. However, Ivey lost the vote.

An hour later, Ivey’s lawyer showed up with a letter announcing 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, one would assume that the head of a state department is, of course, dismissed by the governor. In Alabama, however, Veterans Affairs is quasi-independent, reporting to the veterans board described above rather than directly to the governor. State law specifically says the governor can “remove from office” any employee serving “by virtue of appointment” by the current or former governor. The veterans commissioner, however, 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 council for reason.” (Emphasis added.)

This is why Ivey went through all the tricks of calling for special board meetings and votes to fire Davis instead of doing it outright: because it it doesn’t have that power. However, once foiled, she stated something called – get this – “the supreme executive power of the state”. Claiming that this sweeping power supersedes any other relevant part of state law, she cited a state Supreme Court case that seems completely inapplicable to Davis’ situation.

More bizarrely, Ivey’s vague claim that Davis somehow mismanaged the grant money was absurd. Davis, who was battling cancer at the time, had specifically recused himself from the selection process. Instead, a special scoring panel ranked the grant applicants. Neither the Department of Veterans Affairs nor the state veterans board, to which it answers, even controlled the panel: Three of the panel’s five members were appointed by the Department of Mental Health. This means that any unexplained “mishandling” of the intended grants, which were never awarded because ADMH withdrew, would have been the fault of ADMH, not the veterans, and certainly not recused, cancer-stricken Davis.

Moreover, a key member of the legislative oversight committee has already said publicly that no funds were mishandled, the state’s finance director said no funds were mishandled, and a review committee of the entire board of state veterans reported the same.

All Ivey had to do was say and do nothing. The ethics commission, rightly or wrongly, was already rejecting Davis’ reluctant complaint against the mental health lobby, and Davis was clearly unwilling to pursue it any further. He just wanted to move on, continuing his otherwise exemplary service.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

That RECORDED of Battagliathe former assignee of jsingle chief of staff, Davis, over five years led the opening of 12 new veterans service offices “without increasing ADVA’s annual budget, due to increased automation and efficiency.” He has taken concrete steps to combat veteran suicide, and the rate is falling. Davis “successfully planned and led the construction of a new State Veterans Home,” improved the GI dependent scholarship program, expanded the State Veterans Memorial Cemetery, and more.

Ivey is expected to use the Veterans Day opportunity to say there have been a “series of misunderstandings” but that after hearing “loud and clear” from state veterans groups, he will now reinstate Davis. By doing so, she could avoid a trial that would surely embarrass her administration deeply and perhaps tear it apart.