So much for the "Sarah Palin didn't have
anything to do with this" lie from Kristan Cole's presser
--click on the picture to see the website that discusses the thank-you note.
Today: The above note was discovered on the interweb (h/t Phil Munger) and our soon-to-be-Ex-Gov tweeted this bit of gibberish (For those who don't speak "Twitter", read them bottom-to-top. For those who still don't understand the Gov., don't worry...nobody does):
 AKGovSarahPalinLegal Fees Fund trustee's press conf yest set record straight w/facts/truth re:recent complaint;read transcript in case press chooses not to
(about 4 hours ago from Twitterberry)
AKGovSarahPalinjudge investigation,destroy integrity of process&strip rights;Abuse WILL cont til leaks/friv filers r held accntble&press reports accurately
(about 5 hours ago from TwitterBerry)
AKGovSarahPalinThis wk saw add'l violation of law:filer of friv ethics complaint leaks confidential documents out of context 2 create false headlines, pre-
(about 5 hours ago from TwitterBerry)
I could not pick a better lead-in to demonstrate the title of this post!
In Part I, I discussed the Executive Branch Ethics Act (EBEA) and the process that an ethics complaint goes through. I focused mostly on the points in the process when a complaint can be dismissed. Here, I want to explain Tom Daniel's leaked report regarding the Governor's defense fund (AK Fund Trust) and where in the process they REALLY are, not where the Governor wishes.
The EBEA is extremely poorly written and it bounces all over the place. The Act seems to jump around in its explanation of the process. As I've also touched on in Part I, there are several ethics processes: one where an employee or their supervisor asks if something is a violation, one complaint process for most of the Executive Branch employees and then a second complaint process if the subject of the complaint happens to be the Governor, the Lt. Governor or the Attorney General. The main difference between a complaint against the Governor, Lt. Gov. or AG and a complaint against a regular Exec. Branch employee is that the Attorney General cannot get involved. The Personnel Board hires an independent investigator to fill his role.
The problem is that the EBEA does not seperately explain each process, probably because they are mostly the same. However, they leave it up to the reader to fill in those blanks or, more accurately, make the mental substitutions in the areas where they follow the same path. So, when reading the process, one must mentally substitute "independent investigator" for "Attorney General" or "designated ethics supervisor." Understandably, most people not intimately familiar with the Act find it difficult to do so.
After that rather lengthy explanation, here is where that report from Tom Daniel fell in the process (emphasis mine):
Sec. 39.52.335. Summary of disposition of complaints and review by personnel board.
(c) If a complaint is dismissed under AS 39.52.320 or resolved under AS 39.52.330, the attorney general shall promptly prepare a summary of the matter and provide a copy of the summary to the personnel board and the complainant.
Investigator Tom Daniel was acting as the Attorney General. According to the EBEA above, he was the one attempting to "resolve" the complaint. His almost fearful insistence in the report that the Personnel Board "has the final say" is technically correct, but they already knew he was attempting this resolution and according to this part of the Act, it is already considered "resolved" once it's sent to the Personnel Board.
He was attempting this resolution through this part of the Act:
Sec. 39.52.330. Corrective or preventive action.
After determining that the conduct of the subject of a complaint does not warrant a hearing under AS 39.52.360, the attorney general shall recommend action to correct or prevent a violation of this chapter. The attorney general shall communicate the recommended action to the
complainant and the subject of the complaint. The subject of the complaint shall comply with the attorney general's recommendation.
Investigator Daniel was EXTREMELY lenient, just like Petumenos regarding the "remedy" he offered the Gov. to reimburse the State for some of her children's travel. His findings would allow her to avoid a Personnel Board hearing, thus keeping her meme that she was not found to have done any "wrongdoing."
Where Tom Daniel came up with the "remedy" is found in another section of the EBEA (emphasis mine):
Sec. 39.52.210. Declaration of potential violations by public employees.
(b) A public employee's designated supervisor shall make a written determination whether an employee's involvement violates AS 39.52.110 - 39.52.190 and shall provide a copy of the written determination to the public employee and to the attorney general. If the supervisor determines that a violation could exist or will occur, the supervisor shall,
(1) reassign duties to cure the employee's potential violation, if feasible; or
(2) direct the divestiture or removal by the employee of the personal or financial interests that give rise to the potential violation.
Again, here we have to substitute "designated ethics supervisor," which applies to the other Exective Branch employees, with "independent investigator." Sending the very final report (per Investigator Daniel) was an offer of a "remedy" that required her simple acceptance of the terms (think "settlement") to avoid further action. Tom Daniel was once again trying to give the Governor an "out," passing over the fact that she had actually collected the money under the conditions he found in violation of the Ethics Act and giving her the opportunity to walk away scott free if she would NOT SPEND THE MONEY. Tom Daniel was acting with the full powers of the Attorney General, with the full knowledge of the Personnel Board and was allowing the Governor to avoid a hearing.
Her response? She sat on it...and sat on it...and sat on it...for a week. I believe she had every intention to continue to sit on it until after Sunday. And then, I STILL believe she has EVERY INTENTION to start spending that money AS SOON AS she steps down, even though it will be considered a violation for up to two years, according to the Act.
Finally, let's put that "ethical Sarah" fantasy to bed right now. They (Palin, Van Flein, Cole, Stapleton) are claiming that of THEIR OWN ACCORD, they decided not to spend a dime of that money.
Bullshit...
Sec. 39.52.210. Declaration of potential violations by public employees.
(a) A public employee who is involved in a matter that may result in a violation of AS
39.52.110 - 39.52.190...
This includes a public employee...a Governor...who has had a complaint filed against him/her.
...shall
(1) refrain from taking any official action relating to the matter until a determination is
made under this section
SHE WAS TOLD NOT TO SPEND THAT MONEY or the consequences would be that she WOULD be found to have done wrongdoing if the complaint went against her. She probably was ALSO TOLD to stop collecting money...probably around the time that SOMEONE had C4P do the dirtywork for her!
The reason I'm so sure of this is I have the emails between my investigator and Van Flein for my own (Arctic Cat) complaint, as well as the emails my investigator sent me. There is a constant dialogue that goes on, giving the Governor every opportunity to protect herself. I know this because of my experience with my investigator who, by the way, was Tom Daniel.
It's the same reason that I believe that she knew what was coming. Her glaring self-interest made her resignation far from altruistic; she resigned because SHE WANTS THAT MONEY. She resigned because little Sarah doesn't feel she should HAVE to spend her hard-earned book deal cash for the hours and hours Van Flein spent being her spokesperson on Eddie Burke, MSNBC, and for the time he was doing work she could have done but didn't want to do.
It's amazing! The more we see behind the curtain, the more we find that Sarah Palin isn't a mystery at all!
|
