Wickwire v. State

at- municipality is an instance where retroactively the assessed

tempting to raise improvement. or the land of either

value 29.45.180(a) 29.45.110(a) AS also

AS 29.45.110(a) re- holding. AS our

support property assess

quires the assessor to 29.45.180(a) AS

its full and true value. as- who receives an

requires taxpayer to advise the assessor

sessment notice assessment of

errors omissions emphasize the These statutes

property. fairness to all tax-

legislature’s policy of payment by tax- by insuring each

payers taxes and of its fair share of

payer asses-

disallowing windfalls due to tax errors.8

sor’s fur- REMAND for REVERSE and opin- proceedings consistent with this

ther

ion. WICKWIRE, Appellant,

Thomas R.

v. Alaska, Appellee.

STATE

No. S-1138.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

Sept. separately improvements valued the land. See of the omission have been aware ADCOshould 12.15.040(A). AMC land is since the addition of the warehouse

Wickwire worked for the State as an attorney general assistant from 1970 until his in late 1982. In October 1980 promoted Wood was to chief of the office, General’s Attorney Fairbanks where worked, Wickwire and became Wickwire’s supervisor. immediate over, Soon after he took requested Wood an attorney assigned additional be to the Fairbanks office of because overload cases in the human services section. No attorney months, was added for several so began assigning human services lawyers May sections. In assigned 1981 Wood pro- two children’s ceedings Wickwire, normally who objected handle such cases. Wickwire assignments because he was fa- “not miliar busy.” with them” and was “too July, refusing assign- another case ment, Wickwire wrote a memo to Wood Friedman, Royce, H. Wollenberg Richard expressing concern that workload had Friedman, Sitka, & appellant. heavy endangered become so ability to handle cases competently. Council, Crosby, William T. Council & part: memo stated Juneau, appellee. point coming deadlines are RABINOWITZ, C.J., Before up frequently I so that do not have time BURKE, MATTHEWS, COMPTON and to reflect on the totally content. This MOORE, JJ. position affecting poten- defensive is, tial outcome of these cases. That MOORE, Justice. am malpractice position forced into a be- appeal This stems from the termination pay cause I cannot attention to detail. position Thomas R. from his important have overlooked some details attorney general an assistant for the past despite several weeks work- State of Alaska. asserts ing evenings and weekends.... was fired for out on a speaking matter of my duty It is ... to refuse work that public concern and that his dismissal violat- I do not have time to handle diligently ed his free speech and to neglecting without other work. government under the state federal reply In a part: memo Wood stated constitutions. We conclude that the trial caseload, regard your With the obvi- properly rejected court Wickwire’s claim. ous you recently reason sat with down summary We affirm the judg- award good was to make sure had handle on State, ment to the but reverse the award what situation is—and I found out. attorney’s against fees Wickwire. You have no more work to do than of the rest of us. I. FACTS AND HIS- PROCEDURAL TORY responded long with a memo caseload/malprac- which he reiterated his appeal Because resolution of this re- tice concern. He stated quires complete understanding of the facts, leading up making events do believe some mis- set termination are forth detail. takes that until corrected are unnecessar- busy bigger problems re- was too ily risking the interests. State’s will spect authority am under and them I left. deal with before I cannot except when conflict stop my follow orders cases while take vacation. obligation I each owe to with the ethical or, course, agency represent client your being the boss authorizes something illegal or to do the order were me to to order work more cases when “Watergate” type order. immoral—the require neglect will me believe that to comp I take the work refused to When already I have then I need cases to I so to last did because case week higher you. hear that from someone than it at all would have spend any time on recently You ordered me to file a new already en- neglect cases forced me to unemployment collection tax case me well as the new case. trusted to as right deadline that middle of recently 6-101 & reread [DR 6-102] large, preparation very trial in a active Canons.... of the Professional going not to do that. case. am words, to I am not allowed In other month, During the next October if the orders me malpractice, even boss permission Wickwire asked to Wood but, do, try if not allowed to to am to take on Wickwire termed “full scale what saying, example, of it squirm out involving prosecution foreign na- case” to. ordered me the boss for violation of Alaska fish and tionals on a days later Wickwire left A few game initially laws. Wood refused because return, Upon Wickwire re- vacation. previous com- Wickwire's workload detailing several a memo from Wood ceived plaints. persisted Wickwire When during ab-

problems arose case, subsequently get efforts to sence, arrange to to have his failure due to agreed assign then it to him. Wickwire Wood also criticized his cases covered. denied, permission to requested, but was leaving on vacation without Wickwire for Belgium investigative trip to take an telephone number as providing a contact the case. connection with required policy. Wood further by office copies In Wood sent Lorensen stated: concerning of Wood-Wickwire memos carefully re- and sat down read the caseload. Lorensen every and one of viewed each materials, caseload evaluated Wickwire’s you have no more a and concluded that de- compared the caseloads us in the of- anyone than caseload attorneys. Lorensen concluded partment fice. ... on more “could fact take that Wickwire short, your work- In I am satisfied that willing rearrange his work he were even you to undertake load should allow priorities.” own work cases, reassigned are and if others more refused, we, again, going to have are a memo to Lorensen wrote December problem. a real authority emphasizing Wood’s as part: send chief. The memo stated planned office Wood indicated that Lorensen, copies of memos to Ronald their reading doubt, on based I have no general in Juneau who deputy attorney memoranda, you genuinely various Department in command of the was second your professional judgment believe that of Law. being and, at- perhaps, integrity or, least, questioned. While stating responded with a memo tacked I don’t—and you may way, it that see It’s real- Larry does either. believe don’t Concerning problems you had with authority to authority: vacation, ly question my cases while was priorities to reorder priorities and set that I nuisance matters were all small arises; authority to as- the need my responsibility when no idea were had deadlines— and establish sign work a vacation. in order to take eliminate respect With to the work of the month-long Fair- from a vacation days two later office, Larry banks has that authori- and, than scheduled prior year, like the ty.... failed call the office during his absence

and also arrangements failed to make all have his cases covered. Immediately my temper easily ... don’t lose returned, after Wickwire Wood called Lor- often. so do when ensen and recommended that Wickwire be through (despite very memos some fired. Lorensen traveled to Fairbanks and insubordinate ill language considered separately met with Wood and by you). But I have to admit that I came discuss the basis for Wood’s doing when, recommenda- pretty dam close to so tion—that Wickwire had reading over failed to and over how cover his didn’t vacation, calls, cases while on phone time available to make failed to call through comp read requested, worker’s files ... or returned to work late. make sure hearings that scheduled are In a August 4, 1982, letter dated Loren- leave, you covered while on were I real- Attorney sen and General Wilson Condon you up ized how had set me the Fish informed they had decided and get Wildlife commander to Larry to against termination, but were to sus- assign you handling the Belgian guide pend days, him for 30 at a time to be case. happened That your after all com- by selected Wood disruption. to minimize plaints about workload and after part: The letter stated in Larry already assign had declined to it to We want to make it crystal clear to you because you had too a heavy case- you you that stay will be able to on with load. I fail you’ve to understand how Department if, the only if, of Law and got time to handle a difficult case like you substantially are able to improve you that when can’t seem to find the your performance anas Assistant Attor- time up simple to draft complaint in a case_ ney General the Fairbanks office. We straight-forward ESD collection have both Larry reviewed in detail Further, ... if more of these inci- complaints Wood’s your perform- about your failing refusing dents of to ac- ance, particular and in your continuing cept arise, Larry’s authority particu- and failure to make sure matters for which larly Larry you recommends that be you responsible are are adequately fired, cover- you’ll be out. ed when you are on leave and your un- Wickwire answered Lorensen in a Janu- willingness to accept the supervision and ary 1982 memo in which he reiterated direction dealing of the office chief his workload concern and belief that it was assigned with matters which are professional obligation his the raise is- you.... you If accept are unable to the sue. This was the last time men- gives, problems direction he on the work tioned his workload/malpractice concern and specifically you cases he directs writing superiors. stated, to his He on, accept priorities work and establishes, you then will have to leave. point disagree on is that I will not The letter also that stated four next accept assignments new work Iwhen am monthly months Wood was to make reports already malpracticing neglect by on ma- jor performance. on Wickwire’s cases.... The decision on Wood’s first when I surpassed my reports have ability to two indicated that handle more he and Wickwire competently regard cases is getting along mine as I a were better and that there lawyer’s duty malpractice not to as an problems.” had “no real been nondelegable. ethical one 30-day suspension began November 1. The memo war responded ceased for next On November 8 sever- al July months. Wickwire returned the Condon/Lorensen letter

$99 performance tude this office. sending four-page letter to Condon.1 letter, work, fir- discipline prompted clearly This Since will not ing, responded to several criticisms except believe have no choice to termi- in- performance, had made Wickwire’s you. nate the office and cluding his to call failure deposition, In his Condon stated that he on vaca- while arrange cover for “absolutely would not” have fired Wick- with the letter concluded tion. Wickwire’s if he not wire had written November 8 following paragraphs: four letter. enough time with Lar- spent You have suit, wrongful discharge Wickwire filed a judge ry quick to character. and are Condon, Lorensen, naming as defendants Larry must know what have You Wood and the State. The individual de- avoiding assume so I can subsequently dropped from fendants were happens No matter what problem. complaint the suit. Wickwire’s amended me, will problems causes claims, including a claim set forth several They just to be dealt with. will violated constitutional go away. speech to free and to grant everyone were to government. sought damages on a He immunity and them what office ask stating theory breach-of-contract of- really think about how the Fairbanks for relief under U.S.C. claim § run, something you might learn fice (1982). get perspective a new who problem is. The morale is what the summary Ruling on cross-motions all low. time granted summary judgment, the trial court 30-day this as well place judgment to State on all Wickwire’s the crystal to it clear “we want make as the that Wickwire claims.2 The court found your language in letter you ...” specifically, for was fired insubordination — threats I have re- class as other same para- in for statements the next-to-last the during my career. believe ceived letter —and that of his November 8 graph place legal judgments in no threats have any connection he “not demonstrated had I am not or matters of conscience. firing and his concern over his between you anything if think different do or the The court awarded malpracticing.” if don’t. threaten me than $70,945.81 attorney’s in and costs State soon as expect hear from appeals from the decision fees. possible. petition claim. He speech free and on his letter, receiving the At- Shortly after the challenges fee award. also the decided to fire Wickwire. torney General telephone 2 conversation In a December DISCUSSION II. date in- and letter of the same Condon must decide is whether The issue we of his termination. Con- formed Wickwire firing his constitutional violated in letter stated don’s that writ- rights. asserts terminating is for that My reason he ing 8 letter to Condon November para- the next to the last on the basis of exercising his illegally terminated your letter to me of November graph protected by the first right speech free 8, 1982, is convinced that there no am States Constitu- the United amendment to effectively alter atti- way we can alleged 8, the State repro- employment He also contract. is 1982 letter investigation opinion. that led to unfairly Appendix this conducted duced as an termination, contract his in violation speech to the free In addition I, Constitu- the Alaska rights, section 7 of article claim, alleged he was fired viola- not at claims are AS These tion and 11.76.110. implied public policy covenant and the tion of appeal. in this issue dealing in his good fair contained faith and 700

tion,3 Swanner, applicable 940, (Alas- made action state Sitka v. 649 P.2d 1982). fourteenth also government amendment. He claims a ka This test “allows a speech right employer violation free to limit the First Amendment petition guarantees rights an employee only the Alaska Constitu- can demon- tion, I, legitimate art. 6.4 Wickwire con- strate its that interest in promot- §§ granted ing efficiency operation tends the trial court should in its outweighs summary judgment his motion for on these employee interests of the in comment- ing upon issues. public matters of concern.” Swanner, 943, 649 P.2d at citing Picker- A. The amendment claim 568, 1734, ing, 391 U.S. first 88 S.Ct. at L.Ed.2d at 817. We addressed the issue of termi public employees nation of for their exer interests, In balancing these seven cise of first amendment State v. considered, including factors are whether (Alaska 1984). Haley, 687 P.2d 305 speech impact govern- has an on the implicit every employment held that con operation employee’s ment’s and on the promise the state is a tract with not to daily job performance, and whether the employee terminate the for an unconstitu speech legitimate addresses an issue of Thus, tional reason. Id. at 318. if Wick- public concern. Haley, 687 P.2d at 311. firing wire’s violated first amendment require- The latter factor is threshold speech right, free state liable for 138, ment. v. Myers, Connick 461 U.S. employment breach of contract. 1684, 1689, 103 S.Ct. 75 L.Ed.2d (1983). If employee’s speech does three-pronged showing A required political, to a “matter of relate social or discharge establish that Wickwire’s violat- community,” other concern to the the court right: 1) his free speech ed that he en- need not scrutinize the reason the dis- 2) gaged protected activity; charge.5 Id. activity was a “substantial” or “motivat- ing” him; factor in fire the decision to Supreme “pub Court addressed the 3) that the state has failed to demonstrate Connick, lic concern” criteria in which in would have been fired even if the volved the of an assistant district protected speech had not occurred. Mt. attorney objected who had to a transfer to Healthy City School District Board of a different section because she claimed she 274, 287, Doyle, v. 429 Education U.S. 97 would have a conflict of interest. She was 568, 576, 471, (1977). S.Ct. 50 L.Ed.2d 484 fired questionnaire after she circulated The employee proving the burden of bears asking co-workers their views on office criteria, the two while the employer first morale, policy, office transfer the need for disprove must the third. Id. grievance committee, the level of confi protected To determine what constitutes dence supervisors, and trust in certain and speech by public employee, we employees pressured have re- whether felt to work balancing 141, 103 political campaigns. lied the test set forth in in Pick- 461 atU.S. ering Education, 563, 1686, Board 391 Only v. U.S. S.Ct. at 75 L.Ed.2d at 716. the of 1731, (1968). 88 question regarding political S.Ct. 20 L.Ed.2d 811 See latter cam 311; Haley, Borough City paigns 687 P.2d at public & was held to raise a matter of assemble, provides right people peaceably U.S.Const. amend. in the government Congress abridging and shall never be shall make no law ... speech.... abridged. freedom of Const, I, provides: 4. Alaska art. § 5 speech 5. The determination whether raises a Speech. Freedom Every person may freely speak, publish and, public ultimately, matter of concern wheth write, protected balancing er under the test are subjects, being responsible on all Connick, 7, questions of law. 461 at n. U.S. 148 right. the abuse of that 7, 7; at n. L.Ed.2d at 720 n. 103 S.Ct. 1690 75 I, provides: § Alaska Const. art. 6 Haley, P.2d 313 687 at n. 5. Assembly; Petition.

701 149, 1689, at 103 Belgian concern. Id. S.Ct. at 75 the guide case “unless at the time L.Ed.2d at 721. The Court found the re I thought that the cases I already had were maining personal issues to be matters manageable at a level.” The last time he concern that were “mere extensions of had even malpractice mentioned the issue [plaintiffs] dispute over her transfer” and writing to one of superiors his was Janu- 148, public importance. not of Id. ary nearly ten months before his S.Ct. at 75 L.Ed.2d at 720-21. November letter. When Wickwire met July with Lorensen in 1982 to discuss speech We turn now to Wickwire’s free Wood’s recommendation fired, that he be undisputed claim. It is that Wickwire was bring Wickwire did not up his case- writing terminated for let- load/malpractice concern, nor did he send ter to Condon. specifically, More Condon any memos complain or superiors to his terminating stated his letter about malpracticing violating the Code that he fired him because of the next-to- during August, September or October 1982. paragraph last in the November 8 letter.6 facts, Given these it seems clear that Wick- argument that his malpractice wire’s argument had ceased to illegal is premise rejected by based on the — be an issue in dispute with his the trial court—that his November 8 letter superiors. addressed three public issues of concern: 1) We note that Wickwire first possibility that Wickwire faced the raised his caseload/malpractice malpracticing violating writing concern in the Code of superiors July During Professional Responsibility due to caseload; 2) period July heavy ethically that he was November 1981 his supervisors obligated to discussed this concern refuse additional cases if with him and both believed Wood and Lorensen separately would cause him to violate Code; analyzed 3) in comparison caseload problems that serious the caseloads of other attorneys existed in the de- Fairbanks office caused partment. supervisor Both concluded Wood. that he was not essentially ar- gues protected overloaded. In view of speech Wickwire’s silence was a substan- subject on the January after his tial factor termination decision. We memo, it disagree. superiors was reasonable for his caseload/malpractice believe the issue We first consider Wickwire’s claim that had been laid to rest. the letter addressed his concerns about malpracticing violating legal Finally, ethics due Wickwire’s November 8 letter heavy response to a caseload. not was a to the Condon/Lorensen These issues are asserts, August letter, expressly mentioned. Wickwire made no however, caseload/malpractice mention of the impliedly the letter issue. raised primarily these issues Both letters dealt with the rea- when viewed the context of correspondence the chain of sons for Wickwire’s between Wick- fail- —his ure, superiors. year, for the reject wire and his We second to have his cases ar- gument, following for the reasons. covered to call the office while on vacation, vacation, tardy return from First, deposition Wickwire’s own testimo- unwillingness accept and his to Wood’s au- ny thought indicated he had not that he thority supervisor. as a malpracticing was due to a case overload year reasons, nearly prior writing reject for a to the No- For these we Wickwire’s impli- vember letter. He testified that he contention that his letter requested assignment would not edly by of addressed an issue which all out- job performance improve 6. Condon stated in the termination letter that was not to firing necessary the was deposi- because he believed the as he had been tion, to do. In his directed paragraph next-to-last of Wickwire’s November firing Condon reiterated this reason for discipline 8 letter showed that the effort Wickwire. Wickwire had worked and not that Wickwire First, appearances questionnaire like the office ward he had abandoned Con nick, the trial “prob months earlier. We conclude that Wickwire’s letter referred to genuine by correctly specify no caused court found there was lems” Wood but did not regarding light issue of material fact whether or seek to or bring details actual communicating his was fired for potential wrongdoing public of or breach malpractice. part. Connick, concern about Wood’s trust on See 148, 103 U.S. at S.Ct. at 75 L.Ed.2d at Regarding concern about Wickwire’s Second, correctly the trial court by problems in the office caused Fairbanks found, essentially re complaint Wickwire’s Wood, agree raised this we his letter personal supervi dispute lated a with his case, the of this how- issue. Given facts sor, to the similar situation in Connick. ever, nature of essentially personal and the dispute initially While the involved Wick- Wood, employment dispute with Wickwire’s concern, it de caseload/malpractice wire’s rise to the this issue did not we conclude veloped into a conflict between being public a of concern. level of matter management and Wood over internal office distinguishable situation is authority and Wood’s to run the Fairbanks ruled from two recent cases in which we give office and directions. This employees speaking who were fired for made clear returned was when Wickwire public of on matters concern. out in August from vacation 1982 and Wood Swanner, 940, police cap- In 649 P.2d a immediately recommended his be for signing tain was fired two letters —one and, had cause Wickwire returned late signed by patrol signed all one officers and failed to year, the second consecutive had except department members of by all the follow Wood’s directions to cover police the chief—-that were sent to several telephone a and leave contact number complained local officials. The letters call in while on vacation. safety patrol of vehicle and about a responded Wickwire’s letter to Condon expressed continual dissatisfaction with complaints these and made Wood changes department policies and a lack job performance. With about Wickwire’s organization. concerns of Id. at 942. Such exception single of a statement obviously personal dis- relate to a low,” morale at an all time “[office] pute single employee a and his between four-page letter discussed mat Rather, supervisor. letters reflected a personal him and re ters of interest opinion of all members difference between sponded specific allegations of unsatis chief, was department and the which factory job performance. pre are not We general public clearly “a matter ... pared say that this letter raises a matter interest.” Id. at 944. legitimate public concern. As the Court legislative re Haley, 687 P.2d a stated Connick: ex search assistant fired after she public employee speaks not as [W]hen views, pressed during a television inter concern, upon public a citizen matters view, criticizing presence of multina upon instead as an matters employee but corporations There is no tional in Alaska. interest, personal absent public is of question but that such an issue circumstances, federal most unusual distinguished specifically concern. appropriate not the forum court is entirely speech Haley, which “focused person to review of a which the wisdom public personal issues as distinct agency public decision taken nel Connick, ones,” in from that employee’s allegedly in to the reaction speech “internal office matters” and volved behavior. per of “primarily that matters concerned employee.” 1690, to the at 314 147, sonal interest Id. 75 461 U.S. at 103 S.Ct. at n. 6. L.Ed.2d at 720. suggest, contrast, not nor do we read Con situation is anala- We do Wickwire's com- holding, employee’s

gous two reasons. as so that an to that Connick for nick 703 plaint supervisor public about a never could raise requirement concern liberally, id. at 148 See public issue of concern. we conclude that Wickwire’s statement re- 8, 8, n. 75 103 S.Ct. at 1691 n. L.Ed.2d at garding problems caused However, 721 n. 8. conclude Wick- we that public address a matter of interest. expression prob- wire’s of concern about In summary, we hold that Wickwire’s lems in the office caused by Fairbanks writing the November 8 letter to merely personal, Wood reflected a internal Condon did not right violate his of free dispute office raise a which did not matter expression under either the federal or state legitimate public of interest. constitutions. The trial court’s award of Because the letter for which Wickwire summary judgment to the prop- State was public was fired did not address a matter of er. concern, properly court ruled the trial right speech his first amendment to free C. Attorney’s Fees was not violated. $70,845.81 The trial court awarded costs and attorney’s fees to the State. B. The state constitution claim challenges grounds this award on Wickwire also asserts that fir 1) the trial court abused its discretion ing rights speech violated his to free and to full, awarding partial, rather than fees petition government under the Alaska 2) the number of hours claimed Constitution, I, urges art. 5 and 6.7 He §§ attorneys State’s was excessive. interpret tous our constitution as afford In November 1984 the ing protection speech more State made Wick- to the free $50,000 judgment, pursuant wire offer of public employees than Su 68, to Alaska preme rejected. Civil Rule which he Court has allowed. parties signed In March 1985 the stipula- the Picker- previously applied We dismissing tion the individual defendants ing balancing illegal firing test to address providing pay for each its side own brought claims under the state constitu- attorney’s subsequently fees. The State See, e.g., Haley, 687 P.2d at 311-12. tion. summary judgment won on all of Wick- Although we see no reason alter this attorney’s wire’s claims and moved for fees approach, appropriate we believe it to con- pursuant and costs to Civil Rules 68 and “public broadly strue concern” criteria During argument oral counsel indi- encompass speech range on a wide $73,- cated that the State had incurred subjects. public policy standpoint, From a total fees, attorney’s 316.50 of which encourage employee it makes sense to $64,641 were incurred the offer of speech operations government about the judgment. No mention was made of the employees posi- since often are in the best $64,641 stipulation or whether the included opinions. to offer tion informed Our read- representing fees incurred the individual ing Connick suggests may that there be defendants. instances where we would find that certain speech public addressed a matter of con- The court ruled that the was enti- State protected cern and was under Alaska’s tled to full fees incurred after the offer of $64,641 though judgment, Constitution even a federal claim and awarded the State However, might yield fees, contrary attorney’s plus result. costs. The court $70,945.81 interpreting subsequently judg- not such a case. Even entered a Smith, (Alaska 1986). analyze right petition We do not See also McDonald v. 2789-91, separately speech U.S. -, -, 2787, claim his free claim. S.Ct. held, recently slightly different con- (1985) (refusing elevate L.Ed.2d 388-90 action, of a libel text provides that Alaska’s Constitution petition special clause to first amendment greater protection speech no be- by granting greater protec status constitutional petition government cause it is contained in a types protected to a than other tion expressed officials rather than man- in another speech). Court, Superior ner. Doe v. 721 P.2d 627- 704 against for costs and attor- Wickwire’s decision to name

ment individual de- fendants. ney’s fees.8 superior court’s summary The award of The award of full fees was erro judgment is AFFIRMED. attorney The ultimately A defendant who fares

neous. fee award is REVERSED and REMAND- only its Rule 68 offer is entitled better than ED. partial compensation post-offer at Equipment fees. Truckweld Co. torney’s APPENDIX Inc., Trucking Excavating, v. & Swenson Smythe 908 1982); Farns 234, (Alaska 649 P.2d 240 Fairbanks, AK 99701 Steiner, 266, (Alaska worth v. 601 P.2d 272 8, 1982 1979). therefore reverse the award We Wilson Condon remand, court, on to award and direct the Attorney General account only partial fees and to take into Capitol Pouch K—State stipulation regarding fees incurred Juneau, AK 99811 representing the individual defendants.9 Dear Wil: contends the award Wickwire also 4, response your August This is in reduced the 628 hours should be because 1982 letter. I did not intend to wait this by claimed the State's counsel was exces answer, long but did intend to wait spent compared sive when to the 344 hours any way to see if there several weeks attorney and his assistants. pass. could let it find cannot. In view of the broad discretion accorded substantially im- You stated that must awards, to determine fee we trial courts “performance prove my as an Assistant say comparison that this alone man cannot Attorney General the Fairbanks Office” number of hours dates a reduction Larry complaints and that Wood’s about compensated. How for which the State is are, my performance excep- minor with ever, improper the trial court considered an tions, absolutely legitimate. determined the fee factor when it award. suggested In its oral decision the court “per- you Please state what mean expenses the State had incurred additional Except seeing formance.” that matters leave, Wickwire chose to sue several indi because covered while I am on here, as the State. vidual defendants as well respond to I don’t understand the dismissing the individ stipulation charge, my Since the if it includes case particularly provided each side get along ual defendants opposed work as to how fees, attorney’s it was im pay you would its asked to look at Wood. proper for consider this factor quantity the court to and tell me if the my case work request deciding State’s fee quality whether the has declined. have not Since responded, was reasonable. have not done so. assume remand, adequately matters were not cov- the court recalculates Which On when disregard will tell should ered while was on leave? partial fee award it statutes, including U.S.C. 1983. While § record whether the 42 It is not clear from the $64,641 beyond against complaint constituted amount awarded the State Wickwire's amended attorney’s costs and fees incurred costs alone or prior three individual defendants included and the judgment. claim, to the offer subsequently agreed to § 1983 defendants, with each dismiss the individual argument reject the State’s that it is enti attorney’s costs and fees. side to bear its own attorney’s Rights fees under the Civil tled to full Attorney's remaining defendant was the State. 1976, U.S.C. Fees Awards Act "person” within the the State is not Since 1988, recently in Marek v. Ches § construed may meaning be sued in a 1983 and § — U.S. -, ny, L.Ed.2d 1 105 S.Ct. action, Green, P.2d State v. § 1983 (1985). statute authorizes courts to The federal (Alaska 1981), award statute the federal fee prevailing attorney’s fees and costs to award parties applicable to this case. is not brought under certain civil in suits

Concerning his order to in call twice a vacation, while on are, week he issued that or- I have me the criticisms will what during put der a two-hour stint I Then, respond if I to someone notice. can 24, Thursday, office on June a after seven the issues after he hears who will decide sleep Monday morning hours since side, I and a process, I have due my will plane day During crash the before. my right. point, is At this I believe believe two hours in the office I was on vacation. my suspension placement and the of that acts, my I had come in to check' mail for emer- illegal my personnel file are letter gencies. time, only At that did he tell drastically of which could affect latter thereafter, me to call twice a week he my career. goI through also insisted that all of the by my also state what mean Please high pleadings four-inch stack of mail and When did it start? continuing failure. during my that had come in I absence. What were the other matters? Were complied. prior in my mentioned evaluations? Predictably, my all cases have not been Concerning I what would have to have I on leave. dormant while was Several done to call in twice a week—and I told gone. life I am usually them come to while Ron. Lorenson this when we talked in late July evidently but it pursuade did not guess you may

I at the cases be will living fishing him—I was at a camp about referring my to in remark about con- up 30 miles the Yukon River from Emmo- tinuing adequately cover mat- failure phone nak where the nearest is located—a away ters while from the office on leave. pay phone community building in a that is you referring to a matter which Are open only irregular on some I schedule. during my year’s arose last vacation at go did not have a reason to to Emmonak problem get- Christmas time? There was a go “phone twice a week and when I did ting Supreme stipu- filed as a a Court brief building” was often closed. It at least a for extention of time had to mod- lation be trip four-hour round to town and when I opposing ified after counsel left town. The usually sleep. went it was on little It is an stating required a motion the terms Court I expensive, unpleasant risky trip. stipulation why of the and reason the time my family called not more than once a working I day needed. The next was week. office, left, spoke Niesje I called the also) her (Larry was out of town and asked circumstances, I In these was not so, through. when to follow it She if he Larry just to call twice a week to see work, Larry I told me she was returned me. sure there had some work for was getting leaving mad at me for without is, always there for me as there was work however, Niesje, filed first. never brief emergencies relayed there were no but mentioned it to me. Gary me from other calls Foster and thought alright leave on it would be Gary made to our families and made to the maybe 30 minutes’ my trip and ask for to, Larry office. had wanted he could filed, getting help worth of the brief but any gotten message to me about have evidently Larry did not think so. telling my by just problems with Gary it was and that he need- you referring Are to matters that arose Foster what only message ed to from me. But the during this summer’s vacation? The first hear Larry know got I ever was that wanted to thing Larry said to me when returned already knew was fire me for not where was. Since was that he wanted to see need to call. returning day Gary, did not calling in and later than circumstances, know, one of us call- of the Under these had said. As far as all apparent to me ing enough. It is Larry had to on while was matters that work particular in- Larry by my day did not want gone, I had resolved second assistance, frequent just emergencies; formation or None them were back. during checking in. While I have done anything. none cost the state must know Larry what so I can necessary, when would avoiding vacations assume problem. very have been inconvenient on this vaca- me, No matter happens what prob- why tion. That I took the vacation—to lems causes will have be dealt get it, away especially phone. I They go just away. with. will not during my will not when work vacation you grant everyone were to in the urgent there need. I do not think is no immunity office them ask what Larry impose can as a condition think really about how the Fairbanks office taking surprised I am vacation. Ron run, you might something get learn Lorensen, Law, experience in with Labor perspective a new who what the thinks apparently wrong, so. If I am problem is. The an morale all time please prove it. low. above, I Other than the do not know place I this 30-day suspension as well as you referring say what I you are when crystal the “we want to make clear to suspect you am may stubborn. I be refer- you language in your ...” letter in the ring to I several cases that was ordered to same class as other threats have received drop, person- my about which would like my during career. believe threats have not, nel file to a little more. If tell contain place legal judgments no or matters of you referring me what incidents are to so I conscience. am not to do or think may respond. anything you different if threaten me than I challenge you say sentence where you don’t. my get stubborn nature must not I expect you to hear from as soon as way proper performance of the this de- possible. partment’s obligations agencies to client or public. agencies client Which Sincerely, complained my performance? about Who /s/ Thomas R. Wickwire public” in “the adversaries —has com- —not Thomas R. Wickwire plained my performance? Nothing about (handwritten) typed P.S. This was out of years department in 12 this has ever discretely. Larry, the office anyone nor equalling Larry come close to copy. else has getting way performance of the BURKE, Justice, concurring. my obligations agencies client time, public. my job Most of I do concur the result. him, spite of not with his assistance.

Larry my 30-day suspension has told me pay

without do starts November 1. I findings

think this or the placement person- my letter and its legal justified

nel file are by anything I

have done. DADE, responding, please Appellant,

When tell me what Arnold gain dispute— think I expect v. my what any motives. Doesn’t it raise Alaska, STATE CHILD SUPPORT suspicions I tell when don’t want DIVISION, ENFORCEMENT ex rel. job; money; want more don’t LOVETT, Lynn Appellee. Patricia office; don’t want to run the want don’t anything except good job to be able to do a No. S-1194. on the cases? trust me more if Would Supreme Court of Alaska. I were empire trying builder or feed Oct.

my ego crushing people work with? enough

You have spent time with quick judge

and are You character.

Case Details

Case Name: Wickwire v. State

Court Name: Alaska Supreme Court

Date Published: Sep 19, 1986

Citation: 725 P.2d 695

Docket Number: S-1138

Court Abbreviation: Alaska