Process worked in legal case of trooper firing

Periodically, in our attempts to understand the goings-on of government, we have a very specific door slammed in our face.

When we want to understand why a particular employee no longer works for the government, almost always the reply we get is that our request for information relates to a “personnel matter” and therefore is not open to public disclosure.

We understand why that is. Were the details of our employment made public, certainly we wouldn’t appreciate it.

And there’s also a liability concern to take into account. Telling the world what terrible thing a person did to get fired is a very good definition of lawsuit bait.

So we were understandably fascinated Friday when the ruling in state of Alaska vs. Public Safety Employees Association landed in our hands.

The ruling, from the Alaska Supreme Court is 44 pages long and includes a main opinion and a dissenting opinion.

The state trooper whose termination led to the lawsuit is not named on any of those pages. But the incidents leading up to his termination are shared in detail.

Here’s the story. The trooper was very young and very new to law enforcement. An acquaintance seemed to be in trouble with her husband and the trooper called another trooper to talk to the husband. When that talk went south, the original trooper showed up as backup.

The husband went to jail. The trooper flirted with the wife, but went home. Later, off duty, the trooper went back to her place and had sex with her.

The trooper’s immediate supervisor said discipline was enough of a punishment. But the colonel in charge of all state troopers overruled that supervisor.

The case continued on from there, through a state arbitrator and into superior court. In the end, the trooper’s law enforcement certification was revoked. He’s no longer a trooper.

Reading the court’s ruling, we found ourselves in agreement — the conduct was certainly inappropriate. The court said it this way, “engaging in sexual conduct with a victim shortly after responding to her call for help, even if consensual, is inappropriate behavior for a state trooper.”

We hold the men and women who serve in the Alaska State Troopers in the highest regard, and conversely, we expect them to hold themselves to the highest standards of moral and ethical conduct. Most of the time, we think they hit this bar and are sterling examples of good conduct.

What we found fascinating here was getting to look behind the curtain and see the way the state handles employment matters. For us, this ruling is both enlightening and encouraging.

It’s good to see that our legal system doesn’t brush such ethical lapses under the carpet, even when it might be easier and tidier to do so.