Proposed rule changes benefit
veterans secretary, not veterans
A rule change pending before the state Board of Veterans Affairs would allow the agency's head to be dismissed by the board only for cause, and only with the votes of all seven board members. It looks like a partisan political ploy, designed to keep Secretary John Scocos, a Republican appointee, in power even if Democrats gain a majority of seats on the board and want to replace him. The secretary now serves at the pleasure of the board. The proposed rule change is now scheduled for action on Friday. Gary Fisher, who has been following the issue, checks in with this:
"Backwards dancing."The Fabulous "409"
She's real fine my 409
She's real fine my 409
My 409
Well I saved my pennies and I saved my dimes
(Giddy up giddy up 409)
For I knew there would be a time
(Giddy up giddy up 409)
When I would buy a brand new 409
(409, 409)
Nothing can catch her
Nothing can touch my 409
(409 409 409 409)
Giddy up 409
(409 409 409 409)
Giddy up 409
(409 409 409 409)
-The Beach Boys
That's what one vet calls the Veterans Affairs Board's swift retreat on rules compromising the statutory requirement that the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs secretary serve at the board's pleasure. The rule change is now scheduled to be acted on Friday.
As originally proposed, Rule 4.09 requires seven votes to remove the secretary from office for wrongdoing. It doesn't take a unanimous vote of members present. If there's a board vacancy it's impossible to get seven votes, and the secretary is protected.
DVA Secretary John Scocos should encourage the board not to adopt the proposed changes, State Rep. Terry Musser, R-Black River Falls, a Vietnam vet, said. "The John Scocos I know would be urging the board not to adopt these unreasonable changes on hiring and firing the secretary," he said.
The proposed changes also give the board chair unprecedented power in appointing a special committee, determined by the chair, to replace the secretary. But Board Chair Ken Wendt pretty much scrapped that idea.
During a board teleconference, Wendt said he wouldn't support a rule change that would give "unilateral powers" to a secretary.
The proposed rule changes would also enable the secretary to pick and choose his or her own legal counsel and the department budget or veteran's trust fund would pay defense attorney fees.
Board member Walt Stenavich said the department shouldn't have to pay even reasonable attorney fees if a secretary is charged with misconduct or mismanagement in office. Stenavich also supports five votes to amend board procedures; so if three board members object, it's not going to happen.
Changing the rules won't benefit vets. It punches Scocos' ticket and solidifies his influence by insulating him from any possibility of losing his job unless he's caught with his hand in the till or otherwise breaking the law.
Another Vietnam vet said, "It comes down to whether the secretary serves at pleasure of the board or board must demonstrate cause to dismiss, that's the battle."
The board could decide not to vote on the changes, to table, postpone, or defeat them. But the proposed changes to the board's rules of procedures are on the agenda when the board meets at 9 a.m. Friday, Dec. 9 in Union Grove.
A staffer for Rep. Jerry Petrowski, R-Marathon, member of the Military Affairs Committee, said they'd "be keeping watch and monitoring" the board's action on the proposed rule changes.
Shielding Scocos, board member Kathy Marschman takes all the credit for the arcane changes, but she offers no explanation why such sweeping modifications are necessary.
Board member Pete Moran reasons the board and the agency should be nonpartisan in its responsibility to make the right decisions for the benefit of state veterans.
"I know that we can appoint a department secretary in a nonpartisan manner," said Moran. "There is no reason to believe that we would act otherwise in removing the secretary, if misconduct or mismanagement is evident."
And that would not require any rule changes.
posted by xoff @ 8:50 AM
4 comments
4 Comments:
If you can step back from the Scocos Cult of Personality, I think you will find that the benefits you enjoy as a veteran come from actions taken by the legislature and the governor.
If you think you "owe most of those benefits to Secretary Scocos" you are mistaken. He has supported veterans benefits, to be sure, but you incorrectly think that all good things flow from Secretary Bountiful. That is not how government works in Wisconsin.
Our veterans will be treated well whether Scocos or someone else is the seccretary sometime in the future.
The post has said Pete Moran for at least 24 hours.
The point is not whether the secretary is a Democrat or Republican. Regardless of party, this has never been a lifetime appointment, which is what Scocos loyalists are trying to engineer now. That's the issue. Why shouldn't he be treated the same as every secretary of the department in the history of Wisconsin?
I am a 62-year-old veteran who's been around the block a few times myself. I like to think I'm part of the "veterans community" too.
John Scocos may be a great guy and I'm sure he cares about veterans. I don't care what party he's in. But the Republicans clearly do, and want to change the rules to keep him in office. All I would like to see is that he be treated the same as past secretaries, who have gotten alone fine and had long tenures without needing the kind of protection the GOP is trying to give Scocos.
If he's doing a good job, 5 out of 7 members -- the current requirement -- would never vote to replace him. He has more job security right now than any other cabinet secretary.
What he should do is to tell the board that he appreciates their confidence in him, is flattered by the proposed rule changes, but can get along just fine the way every other person who has ever held the job has operated.
Why doesn't he speak up?
OK,let's quit changing the subject and talk about the rules.
Why should the rules be changed to give Scocos the kind of job protection and tenure that no other secretary of any state agency has ever had in the history of the state?
And why doesn't he just tell the board he doesn't want it? Because he does?
That's the only issue -- why this special status for Scocos?
Post a Comment
<< Home