I would fire the guy just because he’s an embarrassment. That interview was so horrible. His inarticulate rebuttals made me wonder just how he’d risen so far up in the legal system.
Even if I were the biggest homophobe in the world, I’d want the guy fired just because he just makes “my” side look idiotic.
(Anyone want to bet that the jerk will eventually be revealed to the Biggest Gay on Earth?)
For some reason I actually saw this segment on CNN at breakfast the other day. Interesting from a psychological point of view.
This was my immediate reaction. The guy looks like he’s capable of all kinds of evil. I’m seriously worried for Armstrong.
OK, **Bricker **has a point in that as a lower-ranked AAG the man’s position may not be subject to summary dismissal – his higher-ups would probably have to start a paper trail of multiple repeated counseling advisories to the effect that that his conduct shows bad judgment and is bringing the office into disrepute and so on and so forth, in order to eventually start disciplinary actions, and even that would depend on whether sanctions to that effect are part of the ethics rules for people in his post to begin with. (Which, dammnit, there should be! “37: No abusing citizens, even in your spare time or in private.”)
At least, since it’s off-duty conduct, I’d expect the State would NOT be compelled to defend Shirvell when/if Armstrong sues him.
The guy is a lunatic. I wouldn’t hire him but that ships already sailed. I wouldn’t feel justified in firing him unless I saw evidence his behavior carried over into his professional life. He’s allowed to advocate all this stupid shit on his own time IMO. If they find something he’s done is actually illegal charge him and get rid of him asap.
If he was in the private sector gone in an instant.
He is such a sad man. Watching the Anderson Cooper video I was laughing out loud. I loved the classic Glenn Beck attack, ‘well he’s not denying it so it must be true’ Seems almost everyone I know is a radical homosexual spawn of Satan, I’ve yet to hear anyone reject being one.
Cooper had a followup last night that included an interview with Michigan AG Mike Cox.
Maybe Cooper will become Shirvell’s new fixation. It’d free up Armstrong from his psychosis and Cooper’s a public figure who’d be a much better target for a cyberstalker.
Ordinarily, positions involving a large amount of discretion, like prosecutorial work, are in a special category under the various civil service laws of the states and the Feds. I worked for an advocacy agency where the positions were all “exempt/non-competitive”. New York’s gloss on this category of job. In such positions, one is typically not entitled to the full gamut of civil service protection – a point midway between the high job protection of normal civil service and at-will firings is typical – and one is expected to comport oneself, including in one’s private life, in a way that does not bring disrepute on the agency. I do not know the law in Michigan, nor if an Assistant Attorney General position falls in this area, but I’d be very surprised to find that Michigan does not have such positions and that this is not one of them.
As for why Shirvell has this job, it’s made clear, by innuendo, that it was because he was a strong supporter of Cox’s campaign for Attorney General. However, after an initial statement defending Shirvell’s rights, Cox has issued a subsequent statement distancing himself from Shirvell.
Wow. I think I’d lay money on the bet that that within 10 years he’s going to be arrested cruising men’s bathrooms for man action.
Wait, you expect anyone to buy the comparison of a guy with no real power and who has done nothing wrong other than be gay to Karl Rove and Dick Cheney?
I would be embarrassed to post that. Really.
The AAG shows himself to be somewhat insane or at least an extreme bigot. Not enough to get him fired from most jobs but sure enough to get him fired from his job. I assume being AAG requires the person to be somewhat rational.
From this Bienniel Report, it seems Shirvell is one of quite a few Assistant AGs (he’s listed on xvii of the document and nowhere else).
The way I interpret Cox’s comments on Cooper, which I admit might be incorrect, is “Look, I’d love to fire this nut and I’d do it in a heartbeat, but he’s a lawyer and knows exactly how far he can go without crossing legal lines and he’d probably sue the crap out of me- I’ve only got 3 months to go and then he’s somebody else’s problem.” (Does anybody know if an Assistant AG still has a job when the next AG comes in?)
I wonder if Shirvell has a clue how obvious he is. I was curious if there was a Mrs. Shirvell and looked at his Facebook page (easily accessible) and he says he’s still “looking for the right woman”, which reminds me of the retort by Lucia (Lisa Kudrow) when her brother-in-law’s boyfriend says the same thing in Opposite of Sex:
If you go to the Lansing State Journal’s web site and search for Shirvell, we see that in June 2007 he was listed as a “Legal Assistant” making under $46K. My semi-educated guess is that he is still in the Civil Service classification and his position would not depend on the presence or absence of Mike Cox or Jennifer Granholm.
It also seems he is telling Armstrong to get a restraining order of some kind, which would then allow the AG office to do some enforcement action. Presumably if Shirvell violates the restraining order that would be grounds for termination.
OTOH, it’s really unclear to me whether this kind of speech or conduct is grounds for a restraining order under Michigan law.
Can’t someone help Mr. Shirvell out of the closet? Anderson Cooper says: “It appears you are obsessed with this young gay man.” Says it all for me. He can’t stand a hot young guy being out and happy when he feels like he has had to hide in the closet.
I don’t think Shirvell’s employment is relevant to the situation other than his employers should take a look at the guy’s sanity.
I think it’s interesting that Cooper’s interview with Shirvell was pre-recorded. I wonder if this had anything to do with not wanting Shirvell to include in the airing any comments Shirvell might make about Cooper’s (commonly assumed but not official) homosexuality affecting his interest in the matter. I’ve noticed before that AC is far more likely to pre-record segments with unknown and fanatical social conservatives than he is others who are more likely to “behave” themselves on camera.
Once again, I feel I must point out that this post hints at an argument, but really doesn’t develop it.
So I’ll ask the same question I asked Jack Batty:
Is it…
-or-
-or-
He’s a civil service employee. I don’t know the specifics in Michigan, but in general, you have to be able to point to specific, documented instances of behavior which flout specific rules, and the employee must be given counseling and a performance improvement plan that lays out what he needs to do (or stop doing) in in what timeline these changes must be accomplished.
I doubt that there’s a performance standard for being an Michigan civil service employee that says, “Be somewhat rational about gay college students.” Or, more accurately, I doubt there’s a particular standard that he’s violating.
If there is, of course, I’m open to hearing about it.
Yes. More than that, I’d trust him with my life, and the lives of everyone I know. I think he should be President. No, no… King.
I think he should be King.
Right. But apparently that’s his right to do in Michigan, a state with no cyber-bullying laws.
I share your opinion about the value of his actions. But if you’re saying he should be fired, then I’m afraid I don’t see how that can be done. I welcome more information on this point.
Would not allowing Shirvell to be involved in investigating/prosecuting crimes against gays constitute some kind of punishment or censure by the AG’s office? IMO, that is the absolute least they should do. And if they can’t, they need to re-write the civil service laws, or elect a new AG who interprets the civil service laws differently. If nothing else, Shirvell has demonstrated a virulent bias against some of the types of victims that his office needs to protect.
I’m saying he should be sued by Mr. Armstrong … I mean, Chriss* … for harrassment. In my opinion, he should be fired by his boss for being a complete douche, but that’s up to his boss.
As to your first question: sorry I didn’t answer directly, but I figured my snarky responses (as is my motif, as it were) were pretty plain. I choose Option 1.
*Shirvell name checked Armstrong’s first name like he knows him personally at least a dozen times in that interview … I’m just surprised he didn’t refer to him as “Chrissy-wissy, my lil hugga-bear.”