It's Out.

The non-partisan Legislative Auditors report into the allegations of wrongdoing in the Attorney General's office is out. The Legislative Auditor's preliminary letter can be found here. The report is a mixed bag. While Mr. Noble's preliminary recommendation is that there is no grounds for further investigation, it does tell what we already knew....that there are real problems in the AG's office.

The individuals we interviewed under oath testified that the events involved in the allegations did occur. The individuals said—as Representative Simon relayed to the commission—that they felt pressured to act inappropriately, and they gave detailed accounts of specific events. However, they also stated that no inappropriate, unethical, or illegal actions resulted from the pressure.
In addition, the individuals we interviewed did not cite direct and specific job-related threats from either former-Attorney General Hatch or Attorney General Swanson in connection to the events in the allegations. Rather, the individuals we interviewed linked the pressure they felt to the fact that attorneys in the Attorney General’s Office work “at the pleasure” of the Attorney General; in other words, they can be dismissed or demoted “at will” rather than “for cause.” In addition, they said it was “well-known” that termination, demotion, or reassignment often fell on an employee who lost favor with the Attorney General. Some of the individuals we interviewed said they thought his or her demotion or reassignment was retaliation for having not followed a directive from either former-Attorney General Hatch or Attorney General Swanson, but acknowledged they could not prove the connection.
The individuals we interviewed also linked the pressure they felt to an office environment that focused on obtaining favorable media attention rather than the methodical legal work required to successfully litigate cases. Several of the individuals we interviewed pointed to cases they thought had merit that were dropped in favor of new cases that would draw media attention.
The individuals we interviewed focused a large share of their criticism and discontent on Mike Hatch, both as Attorney General and during the time he served as a deputy to Attorney General Swanson.2 Indeed, a principal criticism they made of Attorney General Swanson was that she appointed Mr. Hatch to a position in the office after Attorney General Swanson was sworn into office in 2007. This—and Mr. Hatch’s continued influence on the office—was said to be the “tipping point” that caused some current and former employees to voice criticisms and accusations against Attorney General Swanson. Mr. Hatch resigned his position with the office in May 2007.

But wait, you say....if the testimony did show that there was undue pressure put on people to focus not on merit worthy cases but cases that would bring the most positive publicity to the office then why not investigate further? Well....

While the individuals we interviewed provided sworn statements based on first-hand knowledge, their testimony did not establish a basis for further investigation by OLA. OLA has authority to investigate alleged noncompliance with legal requirements related to the use of public funds.

Since there was no mis-use of public funds the OLA can not investigate further. That does not mean that the individuals involved (ie Ms. Lawler) can't do anything...we will have to wait and see what happens there.

Meanwhile the OLA does offer a common sense solution to the whole mess...a solution that I hope the Legislature will take to heart next session.

We understand that legislators do not want to become involved in the recent unionization dispute in the Attorney General’s Office. However, the “at will” status of attorneys in the Attorney General’s Office is a separate issue, and we think it should be considered by the appropriate legislative committees.
The status of employees that work for the state’s elected constitutional officials is mixed. All employees in the Governor’s and Lieutenant Governor’s offices are in the unclassified civil service (in other words, they are “at will” employees). In contrast, most employees (60 of 77) in the Secretary of State’s Office are in the classified civil service, and most employees (86 of 110) in the State Auditor’s Office are in the classified civil service. In the Attorney General’s Office, 87 employees (secretaries and administrative staff) are in the classified civil service, and 267 employees (attorneys, legal assistants, investigators, etc.) are in the unclassified civil service.3
Since a state employee’s status as either a classified or unclassified employee is largely determined by law, we think a legislative review of the current status of attorneys in the Attorney General’s Office would be appropriate. The question for the Legislature to consider is whether the legal services provided by the Attorney General’s Office require that all of the attorneys in the office serve “at the pleasure” of the Attorney General.

I am really not a huge fan of unions, however this is one place where unionization is a necessity. These attorney's should not be subject to the whims of partisan elected officials. They really should be above politics and all about what is best for the state. In this case, we can clearly see that if we want what is best for the state, the attorneys, legal assistants and investigators of the AG's office need to have union protection. Come on Ms. Swanson...what are you afraid of? After all, don't you belong to the Democrat, Farmer and LABOR Party?