Recent Comments

Chazz Michael Michaelzz's picture Chazz Michael Michaelzz
| 1 month 1 week # | John Rocovich removed as Rector by Gov Spanberger

Obviously I am not naive enough to say that there wasn't some part of political motivation here but anyone who is saying this is just Spanberger trying to replace a Youngkin guy with her own apointee is way off base.

There is definitely political motivation. In the hypothetical world that Earle-Sears won the governorship, this doesn't happen. Primarily because Rocovich would likely not need to rush to get Youngkin people through. And even if he was skirting procedures, Earle-Sears likely would not have cared if it was politically aligned. And alternatively, if the prior governor and appointees were of the same party as Spanberger, she likely overlooks the skirting of procedures if it ends up with a politically aligned result.

Here, we're definitely in a scenario where the appointees in power were appointed by a prior Governor of a different party, and as such, the Governor has an interest to ensure her political persuasion influences the decision of VT's president. It's just like when any Executive is of a different party of their predecessor. They will replace all prior appointees with appointees that align with their political agenda. It's the way the US government works. It's the reason why SCOTUS judges are slanted 6-3 towards a party, why DOGE was legal, why many vaccines are no longer suggested by the CDC, and why the EPA has unregulated the oil and gas industry. And as the current party in power always says, if you don't like it, take it to the ballot box.

(And my personal belief is one of the reasons that the 2-party system sucks is this constant Executive overhaul. Everything built in either direction gets taken down by the other party, often in spite, cultish opinion, or due to campaign promises to the donor class. Even popular programs are removed because it doesn't favor the current political party. Wake me up when the US has ranked choice voting and there are legitimately 4-5 parties that don't caucus as only two parties.)

HokieRif's picture HokieRif
| 1 month 1 week # | Hokies Baseball Tournament Edition

Renfrow loads the bases with 1 out, and we somehow escape without giving up a run. Early concern for the pitch count as it took 34 pitches to get through the 1st.

jhs9412's picture jhs9412
| 1 month 1 week # | VT/Maryland series cut in half

I know you're teasing but he means "a school the fanbase will care about playing."
WVU would fit that bill.

Chazz Michael Michaelzz's picture Chazz Michael Michaelzz
| 1 month 1 week # | John Rocovich removed as Rector by Gov Spanberger

Is the Governor well within her rights to potentially defame the character and reputation of a very well-respected attorney in VA and alumnus of the University for alleged "ethics violations" which are totally unsubstantiated at this point?

Yes. Of course yes.

Anyone is allowed to defame anyone else within the laws of libel and slander. I mean, look at the president, congress, judges, etc., on both sides of the aisle. They constantly defame other peoples character without any substantiation. Unless it's illegal, then it's within someone's right.

Chazz Michael Michaelzz's picture Chazz Michael Michaelzz
| 1 month 1 week # | John Rocovich removed as Rector by Gov Spanberger

I see what you're saying, but I would think the Governor's statement would be sufficient. For a couple of reasons:

  • The statute doesn't state removal is only allowed to remove from office for malfeasance, misfeasance, incompetence, or gross neglect of duty... The statute reads as a list of possible reasons that removal may occur (similar to why you can have under 2A despite not being a member in a militia): "the Governor may remove from office for malfeasance, misfeasance, incompetence, or gross neglect of duty any member of the board of any public institution of higher education"
  • If explanation was required under D, I would think the statute would say the magic words "with particularity". If it read like "The Governor shall set forth in a written public statement his reasons with particularity for removing any member pursuant to subsection C...." Without it, not so sure.
  • Lastly, this seems similar to the US Executive Admin law which SCOTUS has found that unless dictated by statute, the President has the right to remove any Executive from Office if he has the power to appoint that Executive. And given that the statue actually sets the power is solely of the Governor, I think the Governor has strong arguments she has power to remove without making any statement.

Alternatively, if there is "any other provision of law" that the Governor has not met, I think that would be Rocovich's strongest argument. For instance, maybe there is statute that requires the Governor to make decisions that are not "arbitrary or capricious" or some other statute that covers appointments and removals.

I do think Rocovich's argument is enough to get into court. And I think we've seen enough to know that once in court, the outcome is more political than strictly legal. So, idk.

Pages