Governor LePage to intervene in Milas child protective services case ordering that
DHHS substantiate abuse of Mila by her father based on the Spurwink finding and
enforce all of all Spurwink's strongest recommendations.
I.
Id. at S26. In short, the authors of the study concluded, after studying the use of
executive orders in 49 states over two years, that most such orders are substantive in
nature, including directing particular executive action. Id. at S27.
II.
The breadth of the governors power as the chief executive of the executive branch was
recently affirmed in Maine in the case concerning the Governors removal of a mural
from the department of labor, ruling that it was a permissive exercise of gubernatorial
authority. http://www.pressherald.com/news/removal-of-mural-was-legal-judgesays_2011-04-23.html
III.
The constitutionally-based principle that the executive has the authority to remove (and
control) executive officers stems from the Supreme Court case Myers v. U.S., 272 U.S. 52
(1926). The Court stated:
...The ordinary duties of officers prescribed by statute come under the general
administrative control of the President by virtue of the general grant to him of the
executive power, and he may properly supervise and guide their construction of
the statutes under which they act in order to secure that unitary and uniform
execution of the laws which Article II of the Constitution evidently contemplated
in vesting general executive power in the President alone. Laws are often passed
with specific provision for the adoption of regulations by a department or bureau
head to make the law workable and effective. The ability and judgment
manifested by the official thus empowered, as well as his energy and stimulation
of his subordinates, are subjects which the President must consider and supervise
in his administrative control. Finding such officers to be negligent and inefficient,
the President should have the power to remove them....
Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 135 (1926)(emphasis added).
CONCLUSION
For all the reasons described above, it appears uncontroversial that the Maine Governor
may order an executive officer to take specific action, a power which is encompassed in
the unquestionable power to fire and remove executive officers, and which is implicit in
the responsibility to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Where, as here, the
agencys discretion has been abused, the Governor, as the executive branchs CEO, has
the power and arguably the responsibility to supervise its actions and correct its mistake,
in this case protecting a small child from ongoing abuse by her father, including sexual
abuse at the age of two which was substantiated by Spurwink, Maine's leading authority
on such matters.
###