Wednesday, March 07, 2007

Day 2 of our challenge -- still no responses

We're about 24 hours into our challenge for any Democrat -- or anyone, for that matter -- to give us the name of any state employee covered by merit system protections who was illegally fired by the Fletcher administration. We will extend that challenge to identifying anyone who was illegally involuntarily demoted.

A commenter yesterday asked why we did not extend that challenge to the Northup campaign. Well, for one thing, Northup has not been talking about possible merit system violations per se, but instead her focus has been about the fallout from the investigation.

And for another, Northup hasn't been on or PolWatchers whining and crying about how poorly the Fletcher administration has treated those intelligent, devoted, dedicated career state employees the way the Democrats have.

Democrats are continually insisting that there are dozens of state merit employees who were fired or forced out by this administration. We deny that this has occurred, since we have seen no specific evidence that it has, and we are offering them an opportunity to prove otherwise.

So if anyone can provide specific information -- names, positions and agencies -- of people who were illegally fired, we'd love to hear it. But we aren't holding our breaths that we will be given any proof.

Until we do get proof, we have to operate on the assumption that these claims are simply more of the outrageous lies that Democrats can't help telling about Republicans.


At 8:20 PM, March 07, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Scotty Fugate was transferred more than 3 hours away. Do you support that?

At 8:22 PM, March 07, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

the grand jury report says: those who got in the way were moved or fired.

At 10:06 PM, March 07, 2007, Blogger K-Pac II said...

Anonymous 8:20, we know some details on the Scotty Fugate matter that have never been shared with the general public. We won't share all those details here at this time but we will say that Fugate did not choose to contest his transfer through any administrative or legal action, which he could have done. We will also say that you shouldn't have believed everything you read in the Courier-Journal about that deal.

Anonymous 8:22, yes it does, but it doesn't list any specific incidents. Given what we know about the makeup of the grand jury, we put little credence in that general document that lists broad allegations of wrongdoing but offers no specifics on which charges could have been brought (or were brought, prior to the pardons). We will point out that all the indictments except the one for the Mike Duncan dismissal were for hiring decisions, not firing decisions. To us it would have been far more egregious for someone already employed in state government to be fired based on politics than in hiring someone based on politics.

At 10:13 AM, March 08, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kpac-ii- The problem with what you say is that the grand jury says one thing and we read about a guy transferred because he's a democrat and the only defense is that you have secret information that rebutts both charges. how can you expect voters too respond to that.

At 8:38 PM, March 08, 2007, Blogger K-Pac II said...

Anonymous 10:13, the grand jury made a general allegation but provided no specifics. Granted, the grand jury was constrained from naming anyone to be accused of wrongdoing who was not indicted, and the pardons effectively wiped the indictments off the slate, but the grand jury still had the option of naming people who were allegedly harmed by the purported crimes.

Instead of saying "people who got in the way were moved or fired," or whatever the language was, the grand jury report could have stated, "John Doe who works for the Scott County Maintenance Barn was transferred because he was a Democrat who had a Chandler sticker on his personal vehicle."

Scotty Fugate maintained in the Courier-Journal story that he was transferred because he was a Democrat. We don't know Mr. Fugate and wouldn't know him if he walked into the room, but we don't want to intrude on his retirement. Therefore we will refrain for now from making public some information that would not reflect well upon him. We will say, however, that he chose not to contest the transfer through any of the avenues available to him, he would not have been financially harmed by the transfer because the state would have been required to provide him housing at his new location as well as transportation to and from that office, and he had publicly indicated an intent to retire within the office where he worked.

That being said, we would not condone him being transferred a long distance from that office for purely political reasons, despite having heard that there were reasons to believe that he would not be cooperative with the new administration.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home