 |
| Second runner-up for Mr. Minnesota. Winner, Mr. Congeniality ... photo from here |
Readers can search the web for other coverage, but Strib's reporting was striking:
The hearing didn't delve into the relationship he admitted having with former Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch, which cost Brodkorb his job as communications chief for the GOP caucus and Koch her leadership post.
No immediate decisions were made. Brodkorb was terminated from his $90,000 a year late last year after reports of an affair surfaced.
According to a record read by the judge during the telephone hearing, Brodkorb filed out a form where he said he was appealing because there was "no violation of any internal senate policy. No employee misconduct."
If the Koch situation was not the lynchpin for deciding it was a firing for cause, might it perhaps have hinged on MB wanting to be the boss of the show while having been elected to nothing, and having been hired as press secretary not as boss of anything?
Might that be the actual scenario, the one DEED relied on in denying benefits, the one that violated employer policy ("internal senate policy") in that legislative hirelings are never intended to be the boss of the elected ego tripping show, that being unstated but clear "policy?"
Was it that the lead ego trippers of the Republican side sent the Reaper with that message to fire the guy for that "cause"? That diddling of the "boss" by the boss-wannabe was coincidental, it was the wannabe dimension that was problematic, not the diddling?
It looks that way. Brodkorb's error might have been his getting his finger too deeply into policy (and perk distributions) re gambling and stadium stuff, where "senate internal policy" is shared decision making by those elected after much speechifying and posturing by the ego-tripping elected wonders.
I never saw any ballot with Brodkorb's name on it. Did you?
So, how much of a reach is Strib making with that "... which cost Brodkorb his job ..." language regarding bed incidents? That seems to be conclusory editorializing, not reporting. The reporting part is, "Brodkorb was terminated from his $90,000 a year [job] late last year after reports of an affair surfaced." The sequence is there, but any cause-effect conclusion awaits whether Brodkorb goes to trial and we get to see testimony and emails and such introduced into evidence.
That "... which cost Brodkorb his job ..." surely is the story Mike wants to sue on, but is it the real story? The theme of surface and underlayers at play is explored in a linguistically flowery way fitting the situation, in Brodkorb coverage including exceptionally fine use of images (and with a cautionary headline about not misstepping); by who but Nick Coleman, this link.
Over a month old but still warm. Bookmark the website.