SB67 REDUCES THE STATE BOARD OF VETERANS AFFAIRS (SBVA) TO AN ADVISORY BOARD WITH NO REAL AUTHORITY.

March 1, 2025 - MONTGOMERY, AL - In at least 39 places, this bill takes powers away from the SBVA and places them instead with the Governor, the Commissioner, or the Department of Veterans Affairs.

It takes away this power in a variety of ways:

By striking “Board” and inserting instead “Governor,” “Commissioner,”, or “Department,” wherever the Board formerly had actual powers. Those powers are now transferred to the Governor, the Commissioner, or the Department. Except for management of one secondary fund, if this bill becomes law the Board have no actual powers at all.

By changing provisions that currently require the “approval” of the Board and instead striking the word “approval” and saying instead that action will be taken “in consultation with” the Board, “advising” the Board, or after “recommendation” by the Board.

The Governor, Commissioner, or Department are free to ignore or disregard the Board’s advice, recommendation, or consultation. If this bill becomes law, the Board will be nothing but a figurehead.

THE BILL MAKES THE COMMISSIONER SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE GOVERNOR.

Currently, the Commissioner is chosen by the Board and can be removed by the term before his term expires only for cause.

If SB67 becomes law, the Governor will appoint the Commissioner, and the Governor may remove the Commissioner, not for cause, but “at the Governor’s pleasure.” In other words, the Governor does not need a reason for removing the Commissioner. Even if the Commissioner has done an outstanding job, the Governor may remove the Commissioner solely because he/she has offended the Governor or embarrassed the Governor with an ethics complaint. Few Commissioners will dare to do what they know is right, if in doing so they risk the Governor’s displeasure.

THE BILL MAKES THE COMMISSIONER A CABINET-LEVEL POSITION.

If the Commissioner is a cabinet/level position, he/she might have better access to the Governor. However, there is no requirement that the Governor must follow a cabinet member’s advice or even listen to a cabinet member. Other officials of the executive department may have the Governor’s ear much more than others who hold cabinet-level positions.

The advantage of greater access to the Governor is much more than offset by the fact that Commissioner can be fired at the Governor’s pleasure and is therefore unlikely to offer frank and straightforward advice.

So far as I can determine (and I may be wrong about this), neither the Alabama Constitution nor Alabama statutes have any requirement that all cabinet-level officers must be appointed by the Governor. If I am correct about this, the Commissioner of Veterans Affairs could be made a cabinet-level position without providing that the Governor appoint and have power to remove the Commissioner.

THE PROCEDURE FOR SELECTING BOARD MEMBERS IS CONFUSING.

Each of six veteran service organizations is to nominate three veterans for each position available to them, and the Governor chooses among these nominees. However, each organization is to choose at least one representative from every war in which its members participated, in proportion to total membership. This will be difficult for World War II veterans, the youngest of whom are in their upper 90s, and Korean War veterans who are mostly at least 90. Also, the Board shall “be representative of the entirety of the state’s veteran community in terms of branch of service, race, gender, geographic, urban, rural, and economic diversity. However, there is no way of compelling any particular veterans' organization to pick certain people, so there is no way of ensuring that the pool of nominees will conform with this provision.

Furthermore, Section 1(a)(1) says the Board “shall be selected from the memberships of” the various veterans' organizations, but 1(a)(4) says they shall “consist of both members and nonmenbers of veteran service organizations.” This appears to be inconsistent.

Section 1(a)(4) says the Board shall include “active-duty service members, so long as permitted under federal law.” It is unclear whether this means persons currently serving on active duty or veterans who had served on active duty; if the former, it seems doubtful that active-duty service members could give the time commitment necessary to serve well on the Board.

CONCLUSING OBSERVATIONS:

It doesn’t matter who serves on the Board, if the Board is stripped of all authority and is nothing but an advisory body with no power. We have not been shown a need for this bill. While there are problems with the U.S. Veterans Administration, the Alabama Department of Veterans Affairs seems to be run well and seems to provide very good service to Alabama veterans. Proponents of this bill have the burden of proof to demonstrate that a problem exists and that this bill is necessary to remedy it. Otherwise, if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.

Among veterans, there is a growing groundswell of opposition to this bill. From what I have observed, this opposition among veterans is virtually unanimous. Veterans also believe they have not been consulted about this bill, and they feel slighted.

This bill has been hastily drafted and hastily passed in the upper chamber. It would make far more sense to table the bill for this year and consult veterans and veterans' organizations for their input, and then, if necessary, draft a new bill to be considered in the next session of the Legislature, which will take place before the current lawmakers’ terms expire.

Respectfully submitted,

John Eidsmoe

USAF JAG (Lt. Colonel Ret.)

Mississippi St. Gd. Chaplain (Colonel Ret.)

Professor, Oak Brook College of Law & Government Policy

Senior Counsel, Foundation for Moral Law