“less than Honest” why can’t factcheck call it what it is…a lie!
Yes, I know and also that position is allowed to actively campaign. That’s weird to me. If during the last San Jose mayorial eclection (for example) I had campaigned openly for our current Mayors oppeent, I’d expect to be fired- that’s becuase I am a civil servant, and my political activity is limited by law. Should I have been an appointed position such as the Mayor’s Cheif of Staff, then I’d also expect to be let go, since I was appointed by the previous Mayor.
So the whole thing in that dinky pissant town is weird.
And that’s why the distinction from Librarian (almost always a Civil Servant) and a Dept head (political appointee) is critical. Firing a Librarian is hard to do- they are a Civil Servant after all. But they would be barred from actively campaigning for a partisan political election. OTOH, a dept head could campaign, but also serves at the will of the Cheif Executive. “Firing the Librarian” is a more loaded statement. Which is exactly why they are calling Emmons 'the Librarian" instead of “Library Director”. It makes it sound worse.
You are making the supposition that Emmons had any direct control over choice of books. Facts not in evidence. It appears to me that Emmons had control over the person who had direct control.
But it does, in Wasilla’s case. No one is contesting that Emmon’s position as “Library Director” or “Dep’t head” was a Political appointed postion that served at the will of the Mayor. Why the fuck they did it that way is beyond me. It was not a Civil Service position. I do not know if it was “full time”.
I’ll bet a nickel that in your town, the Librarian was a Civil Servant, not a political appointee.
I’ll contest it. I haven’t seen one shred of evidence that the Library Director was a political appointment. I strongly suspect, just like the Police and Fire Cheifs, that a panel of knowledgeable people conducted inteviews of qualified applicants and selected one. The City Council and Mayor sign off on the selection, but they do not select the person on their own accord. I’d be shocked if that were the case. That just isn’t the way local government works.
I do not know but given what we can glean from all this I suspect Emmons wore two hats. Library Director and Head Librarian. Or rather Library Director encompassed the Head Librarian position. For such a little town it probably makes sense to have it that way. They are just too small for the extra layers of bureaucracy larger cities enjoy. Likewise the person responsible for hiring/firing that position is the mayor. Again, in such a small town, who else would you think had that responsibility? There just really isn’t anyone else short of making it a committee matter in the city council which seems an even more awful idea.
My guess is this worked fine in such a little town as generally they do not see a mayor turn grasping dictator in the fashion Palin did.
As for campaigning I do not know the laws restricting that. Are you saying that as an individual you cannot campaign on behalf of a candidate because you are a civil servant? I can understand being restricted from doing it in the guise of your civil servant role but as a citizen that sounds overly restrictive.
Give it up, bubby; trying to argue that Ms. Emmons was some kind of political hack appointment is just making you look silly:
Please note that the cite is to the Boston Herald, a decidedly rightwards-leaning newspaper, so cries of liberal bias in their reporting are hogwash.
You can vote for whomever you want, a put a bumper sticker on your car and a sign on your lawn. But using your position or title will get your fired. So if I said:
“As DrDeth, assistant Coroner,
I support and endorse candidate xxxxx” that would get me fired.
ETF : “hack”? I make no such claim, but as for “political appointment” certainly. That is exactly why she (as a dept head) could be fired, and served at the pelasure of the Mayor.
To use your cite: “Four days before the exchange at the City Council, Emmons got a letter from Palin asking for her resignation. Similar letters went to police chief Irl Stambaugh, public works director Jack Felton and finance director Duane Dvorak. John Cooper, a fifth director, resigned after Palin eliminated his job overseeing the city museum. Palin told the Daily News back then the letters were just a test of loyalty as she took on the mayor’s job, which she’d won from three-term mayor John Stein in a hard-fought election. Stein had hired many of the department heads. Both Emmons and Stambaugh had publicly supported him against Palin.”
http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/510219.html
“Now he’s talking to an attorney. While both Stambaugh and Emmons serve at the mayor’s pleasure, Stambaugh said he has a contract that prohibits the city from firing him without cause.” Read that again- “…Emmons serve at the mayor’s pleasure…”. That is the definition of a political appointee, as opposed to a civil servant. Also a civil servant would be barred from publicly supporting a mayorial candidate.
Personally, I’d make a distinction, for accuracy, between (1) firing everyone and (2) asking for a letter of resignation from each. One action is definitive, the other, merely intimindating.
Either way, it indicates a heavy-handed method of governing.
DrDeth
You seem intent on advancing the notion that the firing was legal, hence legitimate. If I had five bucks for everything I’d witnessed that was reprehensible and perfecly legal simultaneously, it would be hookers and blow for the ol’ luc, from now till dirt nap time.
It was legal, no doubt. But it could also well have been an ill-advised power grab by a newb Politico. In fact, I’d say that was better than an even bet.
EddyTeddyFreddy seems to be advancing the idea that Emmons was well qualified, thus not a political appointee.
Let’s look at Michael Mukasey, the current AG. wiki “*Mukasey also served for 18 years as a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, six of those years as Chief Judge. He has received several awards, most notably the Learned Hand Medal[6] of the Federal Bar Council.” * So certainly Mukasey is well qualified to be AG. That doesn’t mean that Mukasey wasn’t a political appointee, nor that Pres. Obama won’t kick Mukasey’s happy ass out of office as soon as possible.
A political appointee is someone who is appointed to a position by a politician. You have not demonstrated that this is the case with the librarian. I’d wager that she wasn’t. If she was, it would be an incredible departure from the normal way things are done.
In fact she was appointed by the Mayor before Palin, the one Palin beat in that election. “Stein had hired many of the department heads”.
Whether or not it would be an incredible departure from the normal way things are done, it’s the way things were done in Wasilla. Haven’t you read any of the cites or posts?
Which proves nothing. To be clear , I’m not saying I’m sure about what happened, when and how. The larger issue is the consideration of book banning.
Your conclusion doesn’t necessarily follow the evidence. Since it’s a small town and there was outrage the night of the letters and the next morning, the rehiring may have been because of that outrage. It’s more likely that Palin knew about it. Either way, those details are not the relevant ones.
Yes that’s what was reported to the paper, since Emmon’s wasn’t commenting on the book banning request.
How about something more substantial than just your opinion?