The Arneson firing: Legally dubious |

The Arneson firing: Legally dubious

Gov. Tom Wolf sure has an odd sense of how to command respect.

The new Democrat governor says he acted out of principle and hoping to gain the respect of the Republican Legislature in firing his predecessor’s new open records director and recalling 28 other late-term appointments of Gov. Tom Corbett. After all, you have to “push back” on things you believe in, Mr. Wolf said.

But he employed a legally dubious rationale in firing new Office of Open Records boss Eric Arneson.

The governor cited a letter from former Gov. Ed Rendell to Terry Mutchler, the state’s first open records boss, that said she was an “at-will” employee who could be fired at any time for any reason. But that’s contrary to the legislative design of the position — independent and with a six-year term.

As we previously editorialized, when Gov.- elect Wolf first made a stink, Gov. Corbett clearly was within his constitutional purview to make the appointments he did. Should Wolf do the same at the end of his tenure, we’d say the same thing.

That said, if Wolf thinks his moves demonstrate some kind of principled leadership machismo, he’s more naive than we thought. And he need feign no surprise that, having established such a confrontational tone, the objects of his supposed “respect” outreach (plus Mr. Arneson) struck back Monday in a legally sound Commonwealth Court lawsuit.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.