brokeninoz
07-22-2005, 06:17 PM
Strong reactions to Phelps column
My column last week pointed out the bizarre fact that Margie Phelps -- a spokeswoman for the hate-mongering Phelps clan -- is also a high-ranking public official with the Kansas Department of Corrections.
I thought readers should know that a Kansas public servant has been traveling the country in her off-hours, spewing hatred against gays, picketing soldiers' funerals and blessing the bombs blowing up our troops. I asked: Is that appropriate?
Readers responded overwhelmingly: No way.
Said one: "The man who died in Iraq gave his life so that Margie Phelps could protest at his funeral. It is hard to believe that she can be impartial on the job when she is not when off."
"She may be a public servant who is doing her job," e-mailed another, "but she should not be working in a system where she will be able to persecute homosexuals. She says she doesn't know who they are, but you can bet she stereotypes them."
And this: "God bless your article. As Kansans, we tend to be conservative and turn our cheeks to any potential conflict. It's about time we make a stand against this inhuman behavior."
Several callers identified themselves as employees at the Department of Corrections. One said that Phelps' actions were a joke at a time when the department is trying to project a "kinder, gentler" mission.
How, she asked, does Phelps' public hate-mongering square with that mission?
Good question.
Visible public official
Another corrections employee called with good things to say about Phelps as a colleague. He described her as bright, progressive, even "wonderful" to work with. But he also expressed shock at what she was quoted as saying. It didn't square -- not at all -- with the person he knew.
And that's a problem.
Phelps has crafted two wildly contradictory public personas, offering contradictory messages.
One preaches a message of tolerance and caring; the other preaches a message of contempt and hatred.
Will the real Margie Phelps please stand up?
This is about judgment, trust and credibility.
Violation of KDOC policy?
Corrections Secretary Roger Werholtz had told me last week that Phelps wasn't violating any state law, and that his evaluations were based on her job performance.
But a caller tipped me off about KDOC's own extensive employee "Rules of Conduct" policy. Here's a key section:
"Employees shall, whether on duty or off duty, avoid conduct, which would be likely to bring criticism upon themselves or the Department" (emphasis added).
How could this policy not be relevant to Phelps' outrageous behavior?
The policy says up front that violation of the code may subject the employee to "disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal."
But Werholtz said Thursday that the department does not discipline employees for exercising their First Amendment rights of free speech. "The expression of an opinion that many people -- including myself -- find to be unpopular, even offensive," he said, "is not illegal and is not subject to employee discipline."
So KDOC's standard for improper employee conduct is illegality? That's not setting the bar very high for corrections officials, is it?
As I said last week, I strongly support the First Amendment protections of unpopular speech.
But there's a complicating factor here: Phelps is a visible public official with power over others, including some who are gay. She has a right to say whatever she wants -- but does she have the right to a sensitive taxpayer-funded state job?
I also learned this week that Margie isn't the only Phelps activist on the KDOC's payroll: Fred Phelps Jr. is employed as an attorney for the department.
As a top KDOC manager, Margie Phelps' actions reflect poorly on the department's required commitment to equality and to treating all groups with respect.
In fact, her actions reflect poorly on the entire state.
As many readers have told me -- she doesn't represent them.
My column last week pointed out the bizarre fact that Margie Phelps -- a spokeswoman for the hate-mongering Phelps clan -- is also a high-ranking public official with the Kansas Department of Corrections.
I thought readers should know that a Kansas public servant has been traveling the country in her off-hours, spewing hatred against gays, picketing soldiers' funerals and blessing the bombs blowing up our troops. I asked: Is that appropriate?
Readers responded overwhelmingly: No way.
Said one: "The man who died in Iraq gave his life so that Margie Phelps could protest at his funeral. It is hard to believe that she can be impartial on the job when she is not when off."
"She may be a public servant who is doing her job," e-mailed another, "but she should not be working in a system where she will be able to persecute homosexuals. She says she doesn't know who they are, but you can bet she stereotypes them."
And this: "God bless your article. As Kansans, we tend to be conservative and turn our cheeks to any potential conflict. It's about time we make a stand against this inhuman behavior."
Several callers identified themselves as employees at the Department of Corrections. One said that Phelps' actions were a joke at a time when the department is trying to project a "kinder, gentler" mission.
How, she asked, does Phelps' public hate-mongering square with that mission?
Good question.
Visible public official
Another corrections employee called with good things to say about Phelps as a colleague. He described her as bright, progressive, even "wonderful" to work with. But he also expressed shock at what she was quoted as saying. It didn't square -- not at all -- with the person he knew.
And that's a problem.
Phelps has crafted two wildly contradictory public personas, offering contradictory messages.
One preaches a message of tolerance and caring; the other preaches a message of contempt and hatred.
Will the real Margie Phelps please stand up?
This is about judgment, trust and credibility.
Violation of KDOC policy?
Corrections Secretary Roger Werholtz had told me last week that Phelps wasn't violating any state law, and that his evaluations were based on her job performance.
But a caller tipped me off about KDOC's own extensive employee "Rules of Conduct" policy. Here's a key section:
"Employees shall, whether on duty or off duty, avoid conduct, which would be likely to bring criticism upon themselves or the Department" (emphasis added).
How could this policy not be relevant to Phelps' outrageous behavior?
The policy says up front that violation of the code may subject the employee to "disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal."
But Werholtz said Thursday that the department does not discipline employees for exercising their First Amendment rights of free speech. "The expression of an opinion that many people -- including myself -- find to be unpopular, even offensive," he said, "is not illegal and is not subject to employee discipline."
So KDOC's standard for improper employee conduct is illegality? That's not setting the bar very high for corrections officials, is it?
As I said last week, I strongly support the First Amendment protections of unpopular speech.
But there's a complicating factor here: Phelps is a visible public official with power over others, including some who are gay. She has a right to say whatever she wants -- but does she have the right to a sensitive taxpayer-funded state job?
I also learned this week that Margie isn't the only Phelps activist on the KDOC's payroll: Fred Phelps Jr. is employed as an attorney for the department.
As a top KDOC manager, Margie Phelps' actions reflect poorly on the department's required commitment to equality and to treating all groups with respect.
In fact, her actions reflect poorly on the entire state.
As many readers have told me -- she doesn't represent them.