In my house, you can almost always tell what I'm working on by which computer I'm using. If I'm in our loveseat/recliner in the living room with my feet up, a blanket over my legs (the living room is chillier when it hovers around zero) the fireplace going and a cup of coffee/tea, that usually means I'm settled in and working on posts for the blog. If I'm at my PC in the office with freezing feet (I always forget to put on slippers) and no coffee or tea (I get too hyper-focused to remember to eat or drink 'til I'm keeling over), that usually means I'm doing research, making phone calls, sending out email queries, etc...
Yesterday was an "office day."
Unfortunately, when I have an "office day," that also usually means I'm doing some things that I'm not quite ready to share publicly...you know, fact-checking...that stuff Palin calls "opposition research!" Yesterday was no exception, but I'll give you an idea what the subject might be.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Mayor Sullivan
Much has been made here in Alaska about a report put out by Mayor Dan Sullivan's appointee, Municipal Attorney Dennis Wheeler. It seems that Mr. Wheeler tries to claim that then-Mayor-now-Senator Mark Begich maybe, quite possibly, allegedly didn't give the Anchorage Assembly all of the information that he could have regarding the past budget. However, Mr. Wheeler also lets us know that his interpretation "is not unassailable" (p 59). Per the ADN:
In an interview and in his report, Wheeler concedes that other "reasonable minds" might disagree about whether Begich's financial reporting to Assembly members violated a provision in the charter that says: "If the mayor determines that revenues will be less than appropriations for a fiscal year, the mayor shall so report to the Assembly."
In other words, he's conceding that less-biased minds than his (will cover that a future post) could easily look at this and see no wrongdoing...hmmmmm.
Then there's this line in the ADN which seems incongruous with the rest of the article:
In any case, the labor contracts in question are valid, he said.
Wait...isn't this report on Mark Begich and the budget? What's this "union stuff" doing in here?
The Assembly in late September asked Wheeler to review the process used last year to approve the labor contracts, as well as a private attorney's opinion that was critical of the process.
AHA!!!! In other words, the Assembly NEVER ASKED HIM to review the budget information. When Wheeler determined that Senator Begich had done no wrong in the union contracts (as the right and talk radio previously was harping about) he decided to go beyond the "issues presented" (p 4).
What it really comes down to: The Assembly already had all the financial information that the Mayor had. The Conservative's beef: the then-mayor asked for a spreadsheet from then City Finance Officer Sharon Weddleton, where she combined the information everyone already had and inserted some "risk factors" the city might face. As she said, "Most of that information has been disclosed in the footnotes of the financial statements for years." (As it stands, most of these "risk factors" never came to pass.)
I guess the Assembly doesn't read their footnotes. Then, they fired Ms. Weddleton as soon as Mayor Begich left to become Senator and before the Budget was completed. Ooops...
Mudflats explains all of this in an EXTREMELY entertaining way and alludes to some of the information that...well...quite frankly required more research before it could be discussed at any depth.
Thus...yesterday was an "office day."
Here is Senator Begich's statement on the entire issue. If you click on the very first ADN article, you can find the report and Senator Begich's response to Wheeler's questions.
November 18, 2009
Statement from Sen. Mark Begich on release of Wheeler report:
-----
"It comes as no surprise that the report issued by Municipal Attorney Dennis Wheeler is critical of me and my administration. We should not pretend that this review of the facts was objective, fair or complete. The Sullivan Administration, in concert with a handful of Assembly members, is determined to tarnish the record of my administration and this is just the latest step in that effort.
"I cooperated with the Municipal Attorney, provided documents showing information the Assembly had about the state of city finances in 2008 and throughout my tenure as mayor, and supplied facts and information to put those documents in context. I sent Mr. Wheeler several letters inviting him to submit any additional questions he had, but it wasn't until Nov. 12 - after receiving my fourth such letter and three days before he released his report - that any questions were submitted. I promptly answered those questions (see attachment).
"As I have said since day one, the Anchorage Assembly was fully apprised of all financial information related to the Municipality throughout my terms as mayor. The suggestion that the Assembly was not fully informed about the Municipality's financial condition is absurd and totally at odds with the record. We held multiple work sessions, issued reports and memos, and fully answered all questions. I could not, however, hold their collective hand to make sure they retained and analyzed the information provided. I think what we've seen is the result of an Assembly that eliminated its own budget analyst office and then was unable to keep up with the job they were elected to do. It's regrettable that some have tried to gain political advantage calling into question labor contracts that were vigorously negotiated and contained terms that were fair, both to the Municipality and to the police officers and fire fighters who put their lives on the line for us every day.
"When I was elected mayor in 2003 and inherited a $33 million budget gap, I didn't complain about the previous administration. We got to work, closed the gap and pulled the city together. I would urge the Sullivan Administration and the Anchorage Assembly to stop trying to divide the community, deal with the budget challenges they face, and put the citizens of Anchorage above political games.
Stay tuned...there will be more on this one.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
It has been awhile since I gave you an update on where we stand with your email/records request.
HERE was the last update. I was put in a position that I could either agree to an extension or risk losing if I treated all of this as non-responsive and appealed to the Governor. The other option, the court option, isn't really feasible at this time.
So, I said I'd agree to the third option...to have the Governor belatedly ask the Attorney General to grant an extension.
This is the email I sent:
According to your October 9th extension request, you have stated that I have three options:
1) I could agree to an extension request.
You did not state how long that extension would be. I cannot agree to it if I do not know the length of time of that extension. Also, there have been a few weeks between your letter and my response. I would assume that should considerably reduce the length of the extension if not make it unnecessary. For me to agree to #1, the length of the extension must be identified and it must be of reasonable length for the small number of emails I have requested. Besides, as a result of my research and experience with this process, I believe you have already had plenty of time.
2) I could treat this as a denial of my request and appeal to Governor Parnell or Superior Court.
My understanding is that: a) your letter alleges that the services for which the $5,552.62 was covering have already been rendered (i.e. the email search and filtering-see attached June 5th modified request and June 17th additional questions). b) We are now waiting for the lawyers at DoL to go through and see if anything needs to be redacted-services for which Alaska Statute specifically states I cannot be charged.
I am not financially able to either pay the money again for the same search (if Governor Parnell denies the appeal) or afford an appeal to the Superior Court. Therefore, I would not choose this option. (As an aside, since you now know how many emails are being analyzed as the result of the search specific to my records request, I would like to know the number. You should now be able to answer that question as the search process is completed.)
3) The Governor could belatedly request an extension from Attorney General Sullivan.
I think this would be my first choice, as long as my request is in no way penalized for it. In other words, no matter what happens, this process moves forward.
My ultimate goal, after all, is to obtain these emails.
So, in conclusion, I would request number three as long as the above conditions apply.
I believe that the $5,552.62 we paid was for inefficiency and poor management. It was outrageous to pay those inflated rates even one time as this is information guaranteed by Alaska Statute and Federal Law to be accessible to the public, much less pay for them again. If any action you are about to take could lead to that as a possibility, I expect that you will contact me and await a response before acting.
Thank you for your attention
Linda Kellen Biegel
As soon as I know that they will be asking the Governor to make that request of the AG, I will let all of you know.
|
