|
MADISON - Members of the Wisconsin Veterans
Affairs Board had detailed plans to fire Secretary John Scocos and
replace him with Ken Black a week before the vote, including talking
points defending the decision, e-mails show.
Gov. Jim Doyle's office also advised a
board member to detail displeasure with Scocos in public before removing
him, the e-mails obtained by The Associated press show. Taken together,
they raise questions about whether the board acted independently of the
governor's office or violated the state's open meetings law.
On Nov. 24, the board voted 5-0 to fire
Scocos and replace him with Black, a department administrator. The
decision came after months of acrimony between Scocos and the board,
which cited concerns with what it called mismanagement of agency
spending and personnel.
Scocos has filed a lawsuit claiming his
removal violated a federal law protecting returning service members
since it occurred just two months after he returned from his second tour
of duty in Iraq with the U.S. Army Reserve.
Scocos, a Republican appointee, also
alleges that the Democratic governor and his appointees fired him for
political reasons. Doyle and board members deny the claims.
Scocos' attorney, Jim Troupis, declined
to comment on Thursday because he had not seen the e-mails in question.
The agency released the e-mail exchanges
between board members in the weeks leading up to the firing at the AP's
request. They show that three of the five who voted to remove Scocos had
discussed nearly every detail about the firing beforehand, including
whether he should be physically removed afterward.
The Wisconsin Department of Justice
advises public officials that "agreeing on a uniform course of
action" before a meeting could violate the open meetings law, which
promotes government transparency.
The Justice Department also cautions
public officials when using e-mail, citing the potential for inadvertent
violations. Veterans Affairs Board Chairwoman Marcia Anderson previously
has said that members are careful to comply with the law.
Anderson declined to comment on Thursday,
given the ongoing lawsuit.
But a week before the firing, board
member Jackie Guthrie sent two other members a proposed public statement
describing their rationale for the decision and talking points to
respond to questions they would face.
If asked "Why was John fired?",
Guthrie suggested responding that it was the board's consensus to move
on after Scocos' six-year tenure. "As we've stated the Secretary
serves at the 'pleasure of the board' and it is time for a change,"
the document reads.
If asked whether the action violated the
law, Guthrie suggested responding that his service in Iraq "had
nothing to do with our decision today." Guthrie's statement added
that board members asked Black to be secretary while they sought a
permanent replacement and "are pleased to announce that Mr. Black
has accepted this appointment."
"You rock!" Anderson responded.
But she wrote that they should not release the conditions that "we
asked Ken to serve under — do not want to give anyone an opening to
contest his authority to make decisions or changes."
The same day, board member Dan Naylor
thanked Anderson for meeting with him to discuss the change. He attached
a document summarizing the process they discussed to remove Scocos, and
asked, "Is it wise to do it days before Thanksgiving?"
Naylor outlined how the special meeting
would unfold one week later: a public session where members would grill
Scocos, a closed session to consider removing him and an open session to
approve the move. He wrote that the decision should be based on
"performance issues" such as rate increases at the veterans
nursing home in Union Grove and poor communication with the board, which
were later cited.
Naylor wrote that Scocos should be
removed from the building after collecting his belongings and the board
should be "prepared for crowd control."
Anderson forwarded Naylor's outline to
Guthrie, wrote that it "captures our thoughts very well" and
asked her to develop more talking points. The next day, Guthrie sent
additional material to Anderson and board member David Boetcher.
If asked whether the meeting was being
called to fire Scocos, Guthrie wrote that they should say the board was
merely exercising its responsibility to oversee the secretary. "Our
goal Tuesday is to ensure this is being accomplished — not to 'fire'
anyone," she wrote.
On Nov. 19, department chief counsel
Jimmy Stewart e-mailed Anderson advice on board rules for removing the
secretary. He noted that the governor's office had cautioned Anderson
"to ensure appropriate public exposure prior to the actual removal
vote" and suggested the board draw up a "bill of
particulars" for his firing.
"It will allow the Board to
demonstrate exactly what the Governor's office was requesting, namely
that there are a lot of reasons for doing this," Stewart wrote.
Doyle, who appoints members to the board,
has said he was careful not to be involved in the firing. The agency is
supposed to be insulated from political influence.
Then-board Chairman Marv Freedman was
traveling overseas before the meeting but kept in touch with other
members via e-mail. Freedman told Anderson she should brief Susan
Crawford, Doyle's top lawyer, and meet with Stewart "to be sure
that all the bases are covered from a technical standpoint, especially
if the 'ultimate decision' needs to be made."
Freedman also reminded Anderson that
Boetcher could not vote because he had not been confirmed by the Senate.
"As I am sure you realize," he wrote, "you have to be
sure you have all five remaining votes" to fire Scocos.
|
