How are the "Palin books" handling the ex-Gov's legal challenges? **UPDATE 2** HarperCollins email!

by: Celtic Diva

Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 14:37:30 PM AKST

I have been watching the emergence of the various books on Palin...from "journalists" who followed her campaign, to "writers" who don't understand the first thing about non-fiction and research, to Palin's own book.  My interest has been purely in determining how each will handle the information about the state Records Requests (FOIAs), the Personnel Board, Ethics Complaints and the APOC investigation.  The books I'm looking at are "Sarah from Alaska," released several weeks ago, "The Persecution of Sarah Palin" released this week and, because of a kind gentleman who gifted me with the pages, "Going Rogue," Palins own book not set to be released until Tuesday.

1)  APOC Investigation:  NOTHING.  Not ONE of these books even mentions that Alaska Public Offices Commission is investigating Sarah Palin's lack of sponsorship/Arctic Cat monetary information on Calendar Year 2008's Financial Disclosure form.  They also don't mention her non-compliance in revealing that information to them even though they have asked multiple times.

So, one of the most important and damning issues regarding Palin isn't mentioned in any book so far!  Hmmmmm...

2)  Ethics Complaints:  "Sarah from Alaska" covers it in just two pages...basically  including Arctic Cat...which is how my name got in the index (page 240!).

Here is PAGE 239 and PAGE 240.

As you can see, it was mostly rehashing Palin's bogus assertion of "frivolousness," and they were critical in their interpretation of their interview with Andree McLeod.  However the book did take her to task for her high-schoolish responses to each complaint's dismissal.  The authors also chastise Palin for her inappropriate response to me when the Arctic Cat complaint was filed.

Regarding Matthew Continetti's book...

I went to Barnes and Noble yesterday, grabbed his "persecution complex" book and a cup of coffee and sat down to speed read/skim.  

That's an hour-and-a-half of my life that I want back.

Continetti occasionally talks about having "lunch" with someone to get inforamtion, like AK Republican Party head Randy Ruedrich.  However, overall his book has a) no index b) no footnotes c) no endnotes d) no references and e) frequently uses sources like "a University professor" or "an Alaska insider." (Even his friends on Conservatives4Palin bust him for it.) When he reams Charley James for lousy sourcing last year, I laughed out loud.  When he talked about progressive blogs "linking" to James' article anyway, without mentioning those of us that took him to task, I just got angry.  

With all of that in mind, I was not surprised that basically one paragraph on one page (211) is dedicated to the entireity of Palin's legal challenges.  Continetti's presentation of the ethics complaints can be summed up in this factually challenged "quote" from the book, attributed to Legislator Gene Therriault:

"That was part of the Democratic plan to grind her up; use the ethics law as a blunt instrument to club the administration."

I guess the fact that of the 20+ ethics complaints filed, only 3 (that I know of) were filed by folks who are actual Democrats.  As Mr. Therriault knows quite well, Andree McLeod is strongly Republican, and I believe the rest were filed by non-partisan folks.

The thought of trying to get Andree McLeod to join a "Democratic Plan" just makes me laugh.

At least Continetti fixed his mistake regarding what my Artic Cat claim was about.  In his original article on the subject (that was riddled with inaccuracies), "Out of Alaska" in The Weekly Standard, he claimed that Palin was wearing an Arctic Cat "t-shirt."

I also found it interesting that he tied this line from Palin in with the Arctic Cat complaint:

"I got to the point where I said, 'May I just plead guilty?'?" she told me.

While Palin also attributes that line to the Arctic Cat complaint, parts of her "ethics" story is somewhat different in her own book, "Going Rogue."  The first two pages were posted early this morning which showed the direction her explanation was going...Andree McLeod-bashing.  We see much more of that nastiness in the next two pages:

HERE and HERE.

First off, Palin lied...there was never an official "complaint" about the dress code from McLeod and the target of the letter wasn't Palin.  Since her previous job with the State of Alaska Department of Labor was helping people prepare for the workforce, Andree McLeod was hyper-aware of what clothing was not appropriate for the government workplace...especially those folks who regularly deal with the public.  The letter was intended for Annette Kreitzer who dealt with those issues for the Office of the Governor.  When they decided misconstruing this was great way to attack McLeod, they passed this email to Alaska Ear gossipper Sheila Toomey.  The rest led to several records requests.

Considering all of the ethics complaints, I found it interesting that she spent the most amount of time lying (and bitching) about Arctic Cat.  

--She claimed that she'd been wearing "the logo and team colors for years."  Not while she was Governor and starting the Iron Dog race, she wasn't!  I went back three years and she never had a sports jacket on during that race.  

--She says the jacket "happened to be the team colors"...actually, it wasn't for 2009.  Team Davis/Palin's snow machines and outfits were orange and black while hers were yellow and green.  It's the big HUGE Arctic Cat logos all over the jacket and pants that made the difference.

A little worried about the eventual outcome of the APOC investigation, are we?

Of course, the other ethics issue she spends a little time on is the Alaska Fund Trust, that she "covers" on PAGE 374.

Wait a sec...did she just insinuate that the ethics complaint against her over the Alaska Fund Trust was the last straw in her decision to quit her job?  Where did I read that before?

So far, the authors have not bothered to achieve a working understanding of Palin's legal issues and the problems that still face her. I look forward to the more accurate books coming out from Geoffrey Dunn and Joe McGinness to see what they have to say about her legal troubles.

You can also look forward to future posts on the blog!

*******************************************UPDATE*************************************************

--As "EyeOnYou" pointed out in the comments (and I forgot to emphasize) Sheila Toomey insinuated via email that the way she got the Andree's memo was through a records request.  Nice that Palin cleared that up for us.

--Forgot to point out the rehashed lie that the ethics complaints were all dismissed.  There are still several complaints out there BESIDES the AK Fund Trust issue that should have dragged her in front of a hearing by now.

--The official Arctic Cat complaint cited her for vioation of AS 39.52.120 Misuse of Official Position.  You can read it HERE.

*******************************************UPDATE*************************************************

I found this in my email (and it seems that PALINGATES got one too):

I act as legal counsel to HarperCollins Publishers. I have just learned that you have posted substantial excerpts from our as yet unpublished book, Going Rogue, by Sarah Palin, on your web site. We view your posting of these excerpts as an infringement of our and Governor Palin's exclusive rights under copyright.  Accordingly, we demand that you remove them from your web site.

Christopher Goff
Senior Vice President & General Counsel
HarperCollins Publishers
10 East 53rd Street
New York, NY  10022
Voice:  212 207 7127
Fax:    212 207 7552

******************************************************

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This E-Mail is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this communication in error, please do not distribute and delete the original message. Please notify the sender by E-Mail at the address shown. Thank you for your compliance.

As you can see, I took the pages off the site.  However, the real story here is this:

--The Senior Vice President of Harper Collins,

--ON A SUNDAY,

--Sent emails to two specific blogs, one little blog based in Alaska, another based overseas,

--ignoring the multiple other outlets (many of which were larger or were "Palin-positive") that have pages or "extensive excerpts" from her book on the site.

They didn't do this on their own.  Palin  picked the ones she wanted them to email.  Perhaps not-so-coincidentally, my posts in question leaned towards fact-checking/lie-refuting than some of the others that were more for entertainment.

In other words, this was Palin-flattery!

I was once asked if, God forbid, Palin ever did become President, what would her first act be?  I stated that she would gather up the considerable resources available to a U.S. President and use them...to go after her "enemies" in Alaska and the media.  

I rest my case.

And in light of all this, the question I have for Mr. Goss and HarperCollins: HOW DOES IT FEEL TO BE PALIN'S BITCH?

My fairy godfather sent me pages from "Going Rogue"--here are two of them for you!

by: Celtic Diva

Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 02:58:52 AM AKST

I just got them in the email and I'm working on a post for the later today, but I'll share two of them with you before I go to bed.

PAGE 352 is alluding to our friends, Gryphen and Dennis Zaki, regarding the "divorce" issue but it's also the first page where she starts to delve into the records requests (FOIA) and ethics complaints. PAGE 353 is a continuation of that.

You can see the beginning of the attacks on Andree McLeod.  There is more of that in the next several pages as well as dealing with Arctic Cat.  I'll share those as well as my thoughts on it all with you later today.

Palin & emails, Arctic Cat, gifts, AK Fund Trust...how many "dropping shoes" does one person need?

by: Celtic Diva

Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 12:27:00 PM AKDT

In a piece by Justin Miller in "The Atlantic" yesterday titled "The Shoe that didn't Drop," Miller claims that there is no "scandal" that has influenced Palin to leave office:

The closest Palin is being examined is by an ethics investigator in Alaska who said it is probable she improperly used her position as a public official to collect donations for a private legal defense fund. However, the investigator suggests Palin simply not take money from the fund, and instead appeal to the state to handle these legal matters.

First off, Shannyn Moore and everyone else who talked about possible attention from the Feds NEVER SAID THE WORD FBI...they said F-E-D-E-R-A-L.  So, when the FBI did it's Van Flein-influenced-denial of any investigation into Palin, that was a clever political ADD distraction.  It worked, enhancing my theory that most journalists have ADD.

Last I checked, the IRS is a federal agency and I can attest to the number of emails I have received from folks telling me they reported the Palins to the IRS.  Having been a Fed for 15 years, I can PROMISE you that those emails will NOT be ignored...mainly because it's no skin off their nose to check into the allegations.

Secondly, the bit about the "closest" Palin has been examined is by the ethics investigator who found that "it is probable she improperly used her position as a public official"...as if it's no big deal.

Huh?  Misusing your position as a public official for financial gain is no big deal?  Where does this guy come from?

As a little explanation to Mr. Miller, and an update to everyone else, allow me to point out some information from the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act (EBEA) I pointed out last week.

1)  The portion that Mr. Miller summarizes from Tom Daniel's report, that "Palin simply not take money from the fund, and instead appeal to the state to handle these legal matters", was the remedy offered to Palin by Investigator Daniel.  As we knew when this report became public, Palin and Van Flein had ignored the report for a week.  Since the AK Fund Trust website is still up and accepting donations, we can safely assume that they have yet to accept that remedy.  Since that remedy was offered on July 14th and today is August 5th, I would think the time for acceptance has passed, so:

2)  Because, per the EBEA, "the subject of a complaint failed to comply with a recommendation for corrective or preventive action," Investigator Daniel SHOULD have sent/be sending a formal copy of the accusations to the Palins, which lays out the specific violation.  We should know as soon as this happens because EVERYTHING FROM THAT POINT FORWARD BECOMES PUBLIC INFORMATION.  

3) There are three possible replies to the formal accusation letter that Palin can make:

- Denial of the violation:  This then results in a hearing which involves a hearing officer (judge) and a formal procedure.  The only way for Palin to be able to claim "no wrongdoing" is if the issue is completely dismissed after this process.  Because she ignored the remedy, that isn't very likely.

- Acceptance of the violation:  Palin's case would then automatically be sent to the Personnel Board for the penalty phase.

- Palin "does not respond in a timely manner" (or ignores the charges):  "The allegations are considered admitted."  This means they automatically go to the Personnel Board for the penalty phase.  I find this scenario to be the most likely because in my experience with the Palins, they have a difficult time with deadlines.

Unless the unlikely occurs and the violation is dismissed after a full, public hearing, Palin has lost her "meme" that "she has not been found to have committed any wrongdoing."  Somehow, I don't find any of this to be a "minor" issue.

It's also not the only thing nipping at Palin's heels:

Arctic Cat

I spoke last week with Holly Hill, Executive Director of the Alaska Public Offices Commission.  I was double checking that she had received all of the documents I had sent the week before.  I asked if the response to Van Flein would soon be forthcoming regarding their claim that their benefits from Arctic Cat qualify as a "trade secret."  I mentioned how concerned I was about how this might effect attempts at income secrecy from other public officials.  Ms. Hill assured me that there were very many officials who had expressed concern about this upcoming decision as well.  She also stated that it probably wouldn't be out until the next meeting.

Interestingly enough, it came out early and a big "thank you" to Sean Cockerham and Lisa Demer for covering it:

In one lingering issue, the Alaska Public Offices Commission has refused Palin's request to keep secret the discounts that come from her husband's Arctic Cat sponsorship.

and...

APOC is giving Palin until Aug. 17 to make public "information related to the dollar amount of the discounts from Arctic Cat," as well as any gifts received in 2008 that she has not reported, said Holly Hill, the agency's director. Hill found that the state law Palin cited in arguing for an exemption from the Arctic Cat disclosure "only protects information submitted under the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act, and does not apply in this matter."

Personnel Board:  I turned comments into the Personnel Board refuting the Arctic Cat dismissal and have been watching and waiting for their next meeting.  That's most likely when they will have a "hearing" on them.

Emails:

First, to start out with the "most asked" issue...I have heard nothing more from Linda Perez on the emails.  My target date to start bugging them about it is August 24th although they have until September (the deadline).  I am very, very eager to see what I'll get and I'll pursue this until the bitter end.

Next, Sean and Lisa covered Andree McLeod's email cases very well:

A judge on Tuesday heard arguments in a lawsuit by Anchorage activist Andree McLeod, who is seeking to ban the practice and is arguing it could hide information the public has a fundamental right to see.

and (emphasis mine)...

"This is not something between Andree McLeod and former Gov. Palin. This is a very serious public policy issue," McLeod's lawyer, Don Mitchell, told the judge Tuesday.

The heart of the case is whether private e-mails obstruct the public's right to public information, Mitchell said.

Mike Mitchell, arguing for the state, said many e-mails aren't public records anyway because they are too trivial. McLeod is trying to expand the definition of a public record, and not just for the governor's office, he said.

What do you mean "too trivial?"  Who makes the decision on what's trivial and what isn't?  Emails about emails could be considered "trivial" except, in this case, they are not.  According to every Federal Law I understand, all information produced in government service is fair game.

Gifts

I have believed all along that these will be the bane of her existence.  

APOC also said Palin needs to disclose all the gifts she received last year, rejecting her interpretation that she doesn't need to until after she gets around to actually opening the gifts.

Palin has told APOC "there are boxes of unopened mail at this point, even mail that was delivered in 2008."

Andree has an excellent pending ethics complaint regarding the gifts and I believe Palin will encounter significant trouble with APOC regarding them as well.  I have a much more thorough post started on the gifts issue that I'll put out this week.

As you can see, it's a veritable rainstorm of shoes in the Palin camp these days.  It would be foolish to dismiss them offhand just because they are not federal indictments.  As we've seen in Alaska, federal indictments aren't always very successful.

Good interview with Andree McLeod in Vanity Fair

by: Celtic Diva

Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 14:52:43 PM AKDT

I'd been hoping Ms McLeod was going to do this for a long time...a solid interview in a high-profile publication.  Only long-time Alaskan political junkies know much about Andree's story.  It's one the rest of the world needs to hear:

McLeod is a Republican, and she was once a Palin ally. In fact, she was integral to Palin's effort to oust state Republican party chairman Randy Ruedrich from Alaska's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission in 2003 after it emerged that he had used his state email account for political purposes. So important was McLeod that one Anchorage talk show host, Rick Rydell, has said that "Andree's almost responsible for creating Sarah Palin." Recognizing her debt, Palin heaped praise on McLeod. "Thanks for working to instill the public trust," she wrote her in one email. In other emails she wrote, "I'm proud to know you," and "Holy Moly you are powerful regarding getting the word out to the press about questionable activity."

If you want to read snippets from those and more emails, you can find them on Andrew Halcro's blog back in 2008 in a story called "The email boomerang."

It's nice to see the truth get out, contradicting Palin's pathetic sliming of a citizen who just wants her public officials to behave ethically.  

Palin used to like that too...as long as it got her what she wanted.  

Newest Ethics Complaint: Van Flein claims documents Palin signed don't really mean what they say

by: Celtic Diva

Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 08:29:45 AM AKDT

Monday, July, 13, 2009, Anchorage, Alaska:  Anchorage resident and registered Republican Andrée McLeod has filed an ethics complaint today with the Attorney General's Office charging that Governor Palin violated the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act and knowingly, intentionally and willfully abused her official position and state resources for partisan political purposes and withheld official action for personal and political interests.  

"We've been had," says Andrée McLeod. "Sarah Palin failed to preserve, protect and safeguard the office of the governor for selfish reasons and the State of Alaska and Alaskans were left vulnerable and exposed."

Signed and completed official travel documents show that upon being summoned by the McCain campaign on August 27th Sarah Palin wrote "Conclusion of state business" for that day and flew off to places unknown.  After her failed bid, similar documents state "Return to duty status".   However, payroll documents show Palin continued to receive her $125,000 governor's salary and benefited by using state funded staff on the campaign for 'state business' while knowing she was off duty.  

"By signing these documents Sarah Palin knew she temporarily quit as governor to campaign for VP full-time; but by pocketing her salary Palin deceivingly used her official position and state staff for partisan political purposes to garner votes."  

The complaint also touches on the Alaska Constitution's Article 3, Section 9: Acting Governor ~ In case of the temporary absence of the governor from office, the lieutenant governor shall serve as acting governor.  

McLeod asks, "What was Sarah Palin thinking when she went off to the Lower 48 for God knows how long without transferring duties to the lieutenant governor?  Alaskans were left fending for themselves while Outside political campaign operatives hijacked our system of governance and rendered it paralyzed.  Who was looking out for Alaskans and where was the lieutenant governor? How could Sarah Palin be so thoughtless?"

Upon reading the complaint, (which you can do here), a few things stand out:

--All documents were signed by Sarah Palin and approved by the appropriate officials (Chief of Staff, Director of Department of Administration, etc...)

--Palin DID NOT, officially or unofficially, turn the duties of the Governor over to Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell.

--It is VERY clear that the documents tell one story (Palin did NOT consider herself to be on state duty while she was campaigning.  The perdiem and travel charges to the State of Alaska stopped and were picked up by the McCain Campaign for that period.) Yet she collected her paycheck throughout, claimed she was on-the-job 24/7 and BROUGHT STATE EMPLOYEES ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL WITH HER (Kris Perry, Bill McAllister) claiming they were doing the state business.

--The Ethics Act is clear...if Palin would turned over her duties to the Lt. Governor while campaigning (Like GW Bush and Bill Clinton before her), she would have been free-and-clear to campaign.  However, because she did not, she blatantly violated the statute:

Sec. 39.52.120. Misuse of official position.
(a) A public officer may not use, or attempt to use, an official position for personal gain
(b) A public officer may not
(4) take or withhold official action in order to affect a matter in which the public officer has a personal or financial interest;
(6) use or authorize the use of state funds, facilities, equipment, services, or another government asset or resource for partisan political purposes;

Yet, in a press release by Palin's attorney, Van Flein (Yes, you heard me correctly, HER ATTORNEY DID A PRESS RELEASE...there's that Legal Defense Fund at work!) the spin is absolutely desperate and makes no sense.

1)  It's not the same theme. He's referring to the complaint against Kris Perry, not the Governor which was dismissed for lack-of-information....the information she FINALLY received from the State and is contained in this complaint.

2)  If it is "meritless," it won't even make it through the Department of Law over to the Personnel Board for investigation.  I suspect that will not be the case.

Then there's this amazing claim:

In order to avoid the overlap?  You mean, in order to get away with campaigning while still acting as a state employee?...in order to received her $50,000 $5,000 every two weeks while still jetting all over the country and collecting boxes and boxes of gifts from the public?...in order to have everything her way, the LAWS SHE CAMPAIGNED ON BE DAMNED??????

OK, THAT I can see.

And once again, the Board has NOT ruled as such.

Are they scared of this complaint...yup...they have no defense because, well, everything has her signature on it.

Bon Voyage, Governor Grifter!

The Personnel Board (like the Palin Administration) lacking transparency and professionalism

by: Celtic Diva

Thu May 28, 2009 at 14:18:34 PM AKDT

What people have seen is the lack of honesty and professional behavior coming from the Governor and those in her employ.  It seems that this behavior is catching, even spreading to long-time state employees like her Chief-of-Staff and members of the Personnel Board.

Examples:

Governor Palin personally used her office to attack a private citizen:

"How much will this blogger's asinine political grandstanding cost all of us in time and money?"

The dishonesty , as we see in Bill McAllister's comments on dismissed complaints:

"Not one of the complaints actually reached the personnel board for its formal adjudication," noted Bill McAllister, the governor's communications director. "Rather the complaints have fallen short based on just a simple review of the facts and the law."

The Administration conveniently ignores the settlement of the family travel complaint where she shelled out thousands of dollars in reimbursement money in exchange for not having to "admit any wrongdoing"...kinda like the civil version of a plea bargain.

The Governor's Chief of Staff managed a two-fer...his dangerous unprofessionalism encouraged a backlash against citizens exercising their rights under the law and, once again, he joined other members of the Administration in "ignoring" the settled ethics complaint:

In the past several months, we have seen an orchestrated effort by the governor's opponents to make differences of opinion and ideology almost criminal," said Mike Nizich, the governor's chief of staff. "Governor Palin has spent a considerable amount of time and money fighting ethics complaints - and no charge has been substantiated. I hope that the publicity-seekers will face a backlash from Alaskans who have a sense of fair play and proportion.

The unprofessionalism has risen to heights of arrogance previously unimagined when yesterday, Bill McAllister actually puts out personnel information in a press release, possibly violating Alaska Statutes while trying to convince us they did nothing wrong:  

Michael Geraghty, investigator for the State Personnel Board, concluded that there is no need for a hearing on the complaint filed in March by Andree McLeod, who has been a vocal critic of the governor since being denied employment with the state last year.

Then, of course, we have obfuscation of what was really said regarding an email sent by Andree McLeod (calling their attention to the lack of professional dress in the workplace) to high-level Office of the Governor employees Mike Nizich and Annette Kreitzer:

If you follow the email chain, you'll note that the word "confidential" doesn't show up until Sharon Leighow gets hold of it...right after she sees whatever the Governor wrote.  Makes you wonder what incredibly "top secret" comments the Governor could have made about "cleavage."  Or, perhaps, I should replace the words "top secret" with "politically damaging."

Of course, who could expect the State of Alaska workforce to understand the concept of "professional attire" when they have this top-level-executive as an example:

photo courtesy of Shannyn Moore

As I briefly discussed in an earlier post, I saw all of this obfuscation and unprofessionalism reflected in yesterday's Personnel Board Meeting.  Nowhere was the lack of these ingredients more obvious than in Board Chair, Debra English.

This is significant because English was the only board member physically present at the meeting.  The other two, Al Tagmani and Laura Plenert, were on the phone (an issue I'll address further down).

During the meeting, English:

--Didn't bother to ask any of us who'd come to give public testimony what we were testifying about.  She assumed we were going to testify about a specific complaint during the Executive Session (i.e. behind closed doors) I explained that I would be testifying publicly on-the-record about confidentiality.  When Ms. McLeod stated that she would be testifying about public issues as well, English tried to disuade and intimidate her.

--We were each given only 3 minutes.  The microphone where we needed to speak was at a chair right in front of Debra English, next to her at the table.  Yet, rather than wait and get up between testifiers (there were only three of us), English excused herself out loud and stepped out to refill her water glass WHILE ANDREE MCLEOD WAS SPEAKING ON THE RECORD.  When Ms. McLeod was finished speaking, she requested answers from the Board members to questions she'd asked during her testimony. English bluntly stated that she stepped out so she didn't hear them.

--English asked their board attorney to find out information about changes made to rules of "other boards."  The attorney was confused at the general question and attempted to get more detail.  English struggled with that and seemed to get even more mysterious until I figured out that she was trying to get the information across to the attorney WITHOUT THE PUBLIC KNOWING WHAT SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT!  It was hysterical because I figured it out right away...she wanted to know the procedure by which the legislature was able to make all of their ethics complaints confidential!  

Perhaps she was hesitant to discuss that information openly because I'd just testified as to why attempting to make public information (what the citizen ethics complaints are based on) confidential is not in the spirit of the Alaska Statutes.  Perhaps she was hesitant because it is now a regular meme of the Administration to use the comparison of the two different ethics laws as an attempt to slam those of us who filed ethics complaints openly (which is legal, by the way, because it isn't illegal).  Perhaps they didn't want it to be so obvious that this "neutral body" is getting its marching orders from the Governor.  

Ooops, too late!  Her attempts at covert conversation were so poor, I was tempted to yell out "She means the legislature" but I restrained myself.  He then asked if she was talking about the legislature and she hesitantly acknowledged that she was.  However, they managed not to use the word "confidentiality."

Personnel Board Meetings fall under AS 44.62.310 which states that:

All meetings of a governmental body of a public entity of the state are open to the public

Since English was discussing potential legislative action, which does NOT qualify as "executive session" material, the pathetic attempt at obfuscation borders on the unethical.

--During that same conversation, English made a statement to the effect that she understood the legislature to be working some revision/amendment to the ethics complaint procedure.  When Ms. McLeod asked about that, she denied saying it.  When I asked about it because I heard it quite clearly, she told me that I was "mischaracterizing her remarks."  The rest of the observers didn't agree with her.  Sean Cockerham gives his (very restrained) version of what happened:

Personnel board members spoke Wednesday about possibly pursuing changes in the law regarding their ethics complaint procedures -- such as changing the "thresholds for investigations."

Ethics complainants in the audience asked board chair Debra English for detail after the meeting, but she curtly brushed them off, saying the meeting was over and she wasn't going to say more.

English also refused to answer when a Daily News reporter asked what the board had in mind. She said the reporter should have come before the board and given public testimony in order to get any questions answered from its members.

What she really told Sean Cockerham was that "the meeting was over" and he should have asked his questions during the public testimony.  His response was that he worked for the newspaper and "that's not how it works." (I felt like he should have added the phrase "you idiot" on the end of that but he's a professional.)  He then asked her, "Are you refusing to answer my questions?"  English, the same way she spat it at me, said "You are mischaracterizing what I said."

Uhhhh...he asked you questions and you said you wouldn't answer.  I don't think there's any "mischaracterizing" going on there.

Other signs of unprofessionalism:

--The Personnel Board meets three times a year and not on a set schedule.  You would think that since two of the board members live in Anchorage, they could both be at the meeting.  Nope.  Al was at "a hotel" in some undisclosed location.

--The Personnel Board seems obsessed with confidentiality, yet they had their "executive session" using OPEN PHONE LINES!  As a matter-of-fact, the various operators were jumping in and out during the regular part of the session; that "hotel operator" wherever Al was could have listened in to the entire meeting and no one would have been the wiser!  Not to mention, that use of the hotel phone was a dollar a minute plus an additional fee.  So they were paying extra for a completely unsecure line!

I worked for the Federal Government...the Army...where we have levels of confidentiality.  I've never heard or seen anything that was so sloppy from a security standpoint.  Also, in my 15-years I went to tons of meetings, including public meetings.  I would have been fired from my job or at the very least given a reprimand had I acted towards a member of the public the way that Debra English acted towards us.  It was made very clear to me that they consider Alaskan citizens who exercise their legal rights (and those who report on their activities) to be "annoyances."  The arrogance from the top is having a trickle-down effect.

However, English is a success in one area:  she'll be able to sidle up to Sarah Palin at the next party and whisper to her, "I had your back at the last meeting."  In Palin's world, that's really what counts.

Quick mention--Personnel Board Meeting/Complaint dismissal**Update**

by: Celtic Diva

Wed May 27, 2009 at 15:36:08 PM AKDT

VERY quick update:

Personnel Board Meeting:  I'll do a post on the meeting later but OY VAY...talk about an exercise in unprofessionalism!

Dear God...who holds a "Confidential Executive Session" ON AN OPEN PHONE LINE?  Who tells a newspaper reporter when he does the typical question-asking after the meeting "If you wanted to ask questions, you should have done it during public testimony?"  (Debra English, that's who, the friggin' Board Chair.)

I feel like we should have a guy standing at the Alaska/Canada border dressed like Jesus and waving a sign that says "Abandon all hope ye who enter here."  If the Personnel Board is the only avenue that citizens have to hold our government accountable when the Legislature won't...well...

Ethics complaint dismissal:  

*******************************UPDATE****************************

The AP has a summary of the report from Mr. Geraghty:

Among other additions to the complaint, one alleged Palin used state staff, time or resources to attend an anti-abortion event in Indiana in pursuance of her own personal and political purposes, an allegation also discounted by Geraghty. He also found no wrongdoing in another addition to the complaint alleging the governor's daughter, Bristol, used state resources on behalf of the Candies Foundation, for which she is an ambassador advocating for teen abstinence.

He also found no merit in another McLeod allegation. He concluded that when McAllister told the media Palin would not be attending the White House Correspondents' Dinner earlier this month due to flooding in Alaska, it was a matter of the governor's schedule, and that is state business.

I was especially interested in McLeod's recounting of communication from the lawyer and her comments at the end:

McLeod said Wednesday that it's troubling that Geraghty on May 14 requested she stop amending her complaint so that he could finish his work.

"When an attorney wants less information rather than more information during his investigation - that's a sure tell-tale sign that they've already made up their minds to dismiss a complaint," she said.

Here's the conclusion from Mr. Geraghty...does this sound in any way neutral?

1)  "Repeat complainant?"  What has that got to do with ANYTHING regarding this matter, other than his justification for not following through and doing his job!

2)  "We have chosen to construe her allegations narrowly..."  Yes, because to construe them broadly brings up this whole messy question of improper coordination...the "bigger question."

In other words, he has not eliminated the possibility of probable cause that a violation took place:

Sec. 39.52.320. Dismissal before formal proceedings.

If, after investigation, it appears that there is no probable cause to believe that a violation
of this chapter has occurred, the attorney general shall dismiss the complaint. The attorney
general shall communicate disposition of the matter promptly to the complainant under AS
39.52.335(c) and to the subject of the complaint.

He didn't do his job.

3)  Mr. Geraghty has chosen to play "lawyer semantics" with Ms. McLeod...like...errr...Palin's  defense attorney.  However, HE'S SUPPOSED TO BE A NEUTRAL PARTY HERE! Plus, one is supposed to be able to file an ethics complaint (and answer one) WITHOUT a lawyer.  As I saw today at the Personnel Board Meeting, the deck is stacked.  

Mid-week Wrap-up: Idiots, Backlashers, Soldotna Whiplash and Email Karma

by: Celtic Diva

Thu May 21, 2009 at 02:26:45 AM AKDT

A village is missing its idiot...

In the entertainment industry, if a talk-show host needs someone to fill in for them while they are away, the rule of thumb is to use someone less-talented as a replacement.

I didn't think Eddie Burke could find someone that almost...almost made me miss him.  Then, he had McHugh Pierre fill in for him on Friday afternoon.

Listening to both parts was painful at times.  It was as if he had a list of talking points sitting in front of him that he would check off as he awkwardly injected them into conversations with callers, many of whom he clearly knew personally.  However, the most idiotic thing he said by far was during his diatribe about the Governor's book deal:

"I just think it's so bogus, it's not outside employment.  It's not like Rishi has a job or I have a job.  It isn't a second job, writing is a hobby."

If one needs any proof of the embarassment, all one has to notice is that even though Conservatives4Palin members are the ones who religiously YouTube Eddie's Show and then post those YouTubes as a story, they recorded McHugh but made no mention of him anywhere on the blog.

Eddie, your place as king-of-the-idiots is secure.



Darth Stapleton joins in the Backlash.

In another Eddie Burke-related story, Meg Stapleton was on his show yesterday to promote the fact that the FEC dismissed the CREW complaint to the RNC about Palin's wardrobe.

During the show, she spent a great deal of time maligning those who filed ethics complaints.  Eventually, she dove headfirst into backlash territory:

...I think we are to a point where we may have to say you know what this is enough and if we have to stop it to the extent where we have to become more aggressive then we have to become more aggressive...

So, is she taking over for Nizich?



Changing direction this fast is giving me whiplash...

So Governor Palin has issued several statements in the last few days to try and convince people that she is on an equal footing with President Obama.  

One situation was just bizarre.

It seems that, according to the above-linked article in the AK Politics Blog by Sean Cockerham, Palin blames Obama for the closing of a GM dealership (Hutchings Chevrolet) in Soldotna:

"Today, we learned that Obama's decisions continue to impact Alaskans; while we as taxpayers now own General Motors, Obama closes another dealership - this time in Soldotna as more of Alaskans' hard-earned money and jobs are lost to big government."

The problem:  it's not actually closing (Hutchings is terminating the franchise agreement but staying open for service and used car sales) and the change has been coming for awhile, according to another May 10th article also referenced in the Politics Blog.

Then comes the weirdness...

UPDATE -- I just got a call from SarahPAC spokeswoman Meg Stapleton, who contacted Hutchings about this blog post. While I was talking to Stapleton, Hutchings sent me an email saying Palin is right.

His email said "the bottom line is this: Governor Palin is correct: Soldotna lost a new car dealership as part of the federal intervention. 44 local jobs were terminated. Over a million dollars in annual payroll was lost. The net effect to Soldotna is substantial. Obama's actions have directly impacted Alaska and Soldotna. The Governor is correct."

Two things:

1)  Why the HELL would Darth Stapleton and SarahPAC have anything to do with this?

2)  Ummmmm...doesn't that email, especially the repeat of the phrase "The Governor is correct" at the beginning and the end, kinda come off as rather creepy?  It seems rather "Stepford Wife-ish" to me!  I joke around (sorta) when I say "Darth Stapleton" but I swear that some day, I'm going to see her grab someone by the neck and hold him/her over her head.

Fittingly, the final story...


She who laughs last...

Governor Sarah Palin's email hacker, David Kernell, may be getting some serious help in escaping major penalties in the case.

That help originated with Alaskan citizen, Andree McLeod:

A lawyer for the Tennessee college student charged with hacking into the Alaska governor's Yahoo e-mail account last year says his client couldn't have violated Palin's privacy because a judge had already declared her e-mails a matter of public record.

"He's not suggesting that e-mail can't be private," says Mark Rasch, a former Justice Department cybercrime prosecutor. "He's saying this particular e-mail was not private or personal because of who she is and because it wasn't intimate communication. "

The reason he's arguing this is due to recent litigation in Alaska's courts:

Tennessee, he says, only recognizes an invasion of privacy when the invasion exposes something that is inherently private, and the victim was placed in a false light by the invasion. But Palin wasn't placed in a false light by the alleged hack, and her privacy wasn't invaded since "an Alaska court has issued an order requiring Ms. Palin to preserve the correspondence in her private e-mail accounts on the grounds that the e-mails are public records."

Davies is referring to litigation that was filed by an Alaskan activist before the alleged hack occurred. That lawsuit sought Palin's private e-mail. The activist charged that Palin used her Yahoo accounts to conduct official government business and therefore e-mail in the accounts was part of the public record and should be disclosed under Alaska's public records statute. A judge ruled, after news of the hack broke, that Palin was required to preserve the correspondence in her private accounts until the lawsuit was resolved.

Davies implies in his motion to dismiss that there are reasonable grounds to conclude that Palin's Yahoo correspondence was a public record, and cites case law showing that information that already appears on the public record can't be considered private.

That "activist" was Ms. McLeod.  At the time of the hacking, she had this to say about it:

"If this woman[Palin] is so careless as to conduct state business on a private e-mail account that has been hacked into, what in the world is she going to do when she has access to information that is vital to our national security interests?" she asked.

Now, a more timely question may be:  How will Governor Palin react if the young man who hacked her email accounts has his case reduced or dismissed because of litigation generated by Andree McLeod?

Oh, the delicious irony...

The Gov.'s Gifts--Part II: Why Andree McLeod scares the hell out of the Administration. *UPDATE*

by: Celtic Diva

Sun May 10, 2009 at 02:32:41 AM AKDT

We also discussed the yearly reporting requirements under the Alaska Public Offices Commission and mentioned testimony given by Andree McLeod at their latest quarterly meeting regarding those gifts.

You may have wondered:  Why was Andree McLeod testifying at that APOC meeting?  

On the agenda, the APOC was going to provide the answers to several "Advisory Opinion Requests" put in from Linda Perez for her boss, the Governor.  (Requests for "Advisory Opinions" come from candidates or other public employees who may be confused as to whether or not they need to report something specific on any of their APOC documents.  Here, we were talking about gifts so it was in reference to the Governor's financial disclosure form (POFD).)

The first of the Advisory Opinion Requests from Linda Perez was AO-09-05-POFD:

If Governor Palin donates to third parties the gifts that were received by her or her family as a result of her vice-presidential candidacy, must she report those gifts under Alaska's Public Official Financial Disclosure Laws?

Per the APOC:

The short answer is yes.  Even if a gift is donated to a third party, it must still be reported on the Governor's annual Public Official Financial Disclosure form.

So in other words, if the Governor...say...donates a bunch of clothes she just wore a couple of times to a charity organization, she must still report it on her gift disclosure forms.  Hmmmmm...

The second Advisory Opinion Request, AO-09-06-POFD, was related:

If a public official receives a gift, and returns that gift to the individual who gave it, must the public official report the gift under Alaska's Public Official Financial Disclosure Laws?

Per the APOC:

The short answer is no.  A proffered gift which is not accepted by a public official does not need to be reported on a Public Official Financial Disclosure Form.

So, hypothetically, if you were "given" a bunch of clothes by the Republican Party but you gave them back to the Republican Party then you wouldn't have to report them on your POFD.

Or would you?

When dicussion on this came up at the meeting, there was a spirited debate among the Commissioners because one important issue was not addressed in the response...the fact that NO BENEFIT could be derived before the "gifts" were returned.  

The decision was made for a rewrite of the response for the next meeting to address the issue of "no benefit."  So, hypothetically, the next meeting (June) the decision will be made whether wearing clothes before they are given back derives a benefit.

As I stated before, Ms. McLeod testified the day before in anticipation of the answers to Linda Perez's Advisory Opinion Requests.  Two of the issues Ms. McLeod raised were the subject of much discussion during "unfinished business" section on the second day.

1)  Would you please request Palin to submit the appropriate amendments to her [financial disclosure] report instead of waiting for a complaint?

2)  Why did Palin not completely disclose gifts she received last year?  There have been reports of hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of clothes, hair and make-up services that she and the family received yet they are missing from the report, although the travel costs are included. Though on the campaign trail, Sarah Palin was still in the role of governor and must abide by Alaska financial disclosure laws.  For consistency's sake, could you please request a full accounting of those clothes, hair and make-up services?  Even if they were given away, they were still gifts that she and her family did receive and must be accounted for in the report, as well as other gifts she received on the campaign trail.

During the discussion, it was clear that one of the members of the Commission (Kathleen Fredrick, the Republican member from Wasilla) felt that anyone who saw anything they believed to be incorrect should be forced to file a complaint before the APOC should investigate.  In other words, that would completely put the responsibility for honest politicians and campaigns on the shoulders of the public.  Commission Chair Elizabeth Hickerson did not agree, stating that Commissioners had the authority to investigate without the need for a formal complaint.  

Several of the Commissioners agreed that they found the first two items of Andree McLeod's testimony disturbing and upon discovery that the staff regularly sent out inquiries to public officials even without a complaint on file, they requested that the staff ask Governor Palin for clarification.

A letter, dated April 29, 2009, was sent to Governor Palin.  It stated that it was in response to testimony from the APOC meeting and it asked for two items of clarification:

1) Are there gifts which have been received by you or your family in your personal capacity during calendar year 2008, which have not been reported on your 2009 public official financial disclosure statement covering the period January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008?  If so, please amend your most recent disclosure statement to reflect this information.

This question was directly related to the public testimony given by Andree McLeod at the meeting.

The second question surprised me:

2) You have reported a "discount on snow machines" by Arctic Cat for Todd Palin. Was this discount exercised during calendar year 2008 and what was the amount of it?

Why is this question significant?  Governor Palin only listed the names of Todd's Iron Dog sponsors on her 2009 (covering calendar year 2008) financial disclosure statement, not any amounts.  This is different from her 2008 financial disclosure (calendar year 2007), where the Palin's claimed a total of $7,500.00 income/gifts from Arctic Cat.  Listing only the names of the sponsors and not the amounts is "legal" as long as the gifts for each sponsor total LESS THAN $1,000.00.

Remember, 2008 was the year AFTER he and Scott Davis won.  Also remember this is now a separate question coming directly from APOC regarding "disclosure" on her forms.  It's not affiliated with any other agency.  

(Next:  we'll look at the pieces of a smear campaign orchestrated by "Chief of Backlash" Mike Nizich against Andree McLeod.)

*UPDATED with links to Gov. Palin's financial disclosure forms for 2008 and 2009.

*All information for this piece was obtained:

1) - through attendance at the quarterly APOC meeting in April

2) - through $5.00 purchase of the CDs containing the raw recording information used in the eventual minutes of the meeting.  The minutes will not be available until the June meeting.

3) - through hard copies of the the "Advisory Opinion Requests" from Linda Perez and APOC's responses to those requests.

3) - via emails from the participants.  

The Governor's "backlash" campaign...the Eddie Burke component...

by: Celtic Diva

Thu May 07, 2009 at 02:50:25 AM AKDT

So Conservatives4Palin and radio hack Eddie Burke are joining forces in a newfound mission to harass and defame Ms. Andree McLeod.  

As heard on his radio show yesterday, Burke stalked and harangued her at the victory celebration for new Anchorage Mayor Dan Sullivan Tuesday Night. (Remember, folks, contrary to the misinformation we are spoon-fed by the right, the truth is that Ms. McLeod is a Republican...there is no "Democratic Conspiracy"...there are no checks from Obama **sigh**...)  

C4Pers are patting him on the back for a job well done. But listen to the YouTube...what's that I hear?  Is he actually RECORDING A CONVERSATION SHE'S HAVING WITH SOMEONE ELSE!!!!  Mr. Badass Toughguy didn't show her the mic until the point where she told him to get it out of her face?

Like I said, radio hack.

Let's remember, this was a celebration for THE NEW MAYOR OF ANCHORAGE.  This had NOTHING to do with the State of Alaska, Governor Palin, etc....Yet, he chose this place to stalk and harass her.

Gee, I guess that's pretty common behavior for him with the crotch-grab of a waitress, the undesired "sexting" of a legislator, verbally abusing the women leading a rally and giving out their phone numbers ON THE AIR (for which he was suspended).  Then there are other questionable issues:

-- Eddie once served in the Legislature (House) but...errr...had to leave.  What was it that could have happened on top of his desk that precipitated that and who else was involved/witnessed?

-- Eddie claimed that he was fired from KFQD (Morris Communications) for "pissing off the oil companies."  However, he was on probation for "inappropriate behavior" for MONTHS before.  What really was the last straw?

Of course the most recent question is:  as someone who can barely put an intelligible sentence together, how could Eddie spare the brain cells to file a records request all by himself?  After all, he erroneously states that he's filing/filed a FOIA (a federal request which requires that forms are filled out and sent to the federal government) as opposed to a state records request, which just takes a memo.

So who is filing it for him?  

Andree asks the big question on the YouTube piece:

Andree asks:  "Has the Administration asked you to expose me?"

Burke:  "Never!"

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that Palin's Chief of Backlash, Mike Nizich, put out the call for folks to go after complaint-filers just two weeks ago.  

Maybe not.

Today, I sent off a records request to the Governor asking for ALL emails between anyone who works for the Governor Office and Eddie Burke.  I also requested any emails where Eddie is discussed and a copy of "Eddie's" records request of Andree McLeod's emails.

Yes, that too is public information.

Soooo...let's see how much of Palin's "water" Eddie has carried over the years...and let's make it public!

Of Governors and Gifts--this week's APOC meeting

by: Celtic Diva

Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 01:31:51 AM AKDT

There is LOTS more Palin news going on out there than you realize!

For the Palin Administration "transparent government" has become an oxymoron.

by: Celtic Diva

Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 13:07:07 PM AKST

A few weeks ago, I submitted a couple of records requests to the Governor's Office.  They sent back letter responses to both at the very same time.

On the first one (regarding the "racist emails"...turns out that less than a handful of employees forwarded them on), the letter stated that the Office of the Governor had "no records that are responsive to your request."  However, they forwarded it to the Department of Administration who did.  I received a timely phone response from Kevin Brooks, then a written one with the information I requested.

The second letter was a different story.  It stated that because there was:

"no record responsive to your request we must deny your request under 2 AAC 96.335.(a) (2) Denial of request:

(a) A request for a public record that complies with this chapter may be denied only if

       (2) the record is not in the public agency's possession, and after a diligent search the public agency does not know where the record is to be found;

The records I was requesting in the second letter?

I request the Office of the Governor to duplicate and provide me with a copy of every contract and/or agreement the State of Alaska or any entity or agency of the State of Alaska awarded to Meghan Stapleton and family members and/or any company related to Meghan Stapleton and family.  

If there are public records that are described in this public records request that the Office of the Governor does not maintain, please let me know the name of the public agency that maintains those records and the name and address of each State of Alaska employee who is a custodian of the records.

My understanding from other former State employees is that the department containing that information is the exact same department they happily forwarded the first letter to...The Department of Administration.  For whatever reason, they are forcing me to do an appeal rather than forward my request to that department of their own volition.

Hmmmmmm...

Of course, this is not a surprise.  Considering the ridiculous six-month runaround the Alaska Democratic Party has experienced in their attempts to obtain retrieved emails from Governor Palin's government account AND the fact the Administration is asking for two more months, I should count myself lucky.  I find this especially suspicious in that I'm rather close to an individual who pulls emails from government servers as part of his/her job.  He/she couldn't imagine it taking longer than two weeks, especially since there are contractors out there who specialize in such things.

Then, of course, there's the unfolding court case from Andree McLeod, attempting to make sure that emails sent to one non-state employee (Todd Palin) cannot be kept off the public record from the rest of us and declared "confidential."

Between that and the ridiculous amount of money the Administration has attempted to charge individuals and agencies for those records, it's a frustrating experience trying to get the Administration to comply with that "transparency" we've all heard so much about.

I'll keep you all updated as to the status of my appeal.

Sarah Palin and the 2012 Two-Step **UPDATED**

by: Celtic Diva

Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 01:00:00 AM AKST

Governor Palin had a press availability in Juneau Wednesday morning (hat tip: Progressive Alaska):

This availability comes after the launching of her new "SarahPAC" on Monday:

I don't believe it's a coincidence that both of these come on the heels of two very big Ethics Violation filings against Bill McAllister and Kris Perry by Andree McLeod.

(Kris Perry is to the left of the Governor)

From McLeod's press release:

Anchorage resident and registered Republican Andrée McLeod has filed two separate ethics complaints this morning with the Attorney General's Office.  McLeod charges that Governor Palin press secretary Bill McAllister and governor's office director and long-time Palin friend Kris Perry used state property, time and equipment to promote Palin for her personal and political gain.

"It's common knowledge that Sarah Palin used tax-payer funded personnel and property for political campaign purposes unrelated to her position as mayor of Wasilla.  That impropriety went unchallenged," McLeod said.

"Once again, employees working for Palin conducted partisan political activities while on the state clock and on the public's dime.  These campaign activities have absolutely nothing to do with the public's business, and everything to do with promoting Palin's personal endeavors and political aspirations. This continuous breach of the public's trust must not go unchallenged."

It's not just the timing that gives the bigger picture of the Governor's PAC formation...it's the Governor's own words.  When asked if this is proof that she's running for president in 2012:

"No, not at all, not at all, no. It's helpful to have a PAC so that when I'm invited to things even like to speak at the Lincoln Day dinner in Fairbanks, to have a PAC pay for that instead of have the state pay for that because that could be considered quasi-political.

Quasi-political?  That sounds a lot like "being a little bit pregnant!"

It's obvious from her press availability and press release that she's trying to frame the explanation of these trips outside into palatable, "creative" soundbites.  However, the Governor's office has to "frame" the narrative in order to get Alaskans to ignore the realities of Alaska Law.  

According to the Alaska Constitution, "The governor shall not hold any other office or position of profit under the United States, the State, or its political subdivisions."  The basic interpretation here has been that the Governor cannot hold two jobs at once.  This can have a rather broad interpretation (ex:  book deal) and the Governor's Department of Law has speculated that the writers of the Constitution must have meant that to have a strict, and limited, interpretation.  However, this has never been put to the legal test.  

As a result, events have been framed in such a way to detract (distract?) from any potential conflict.

For example, Bill McAllister has been repeating the mantra since September that Palin is not the only sitting governor to campaign for national office and that the most recent two presidents did it -- George W. Bush of Texas and Bill Clinton from Arkansas.  However, they recently re-framed that narrative when the Palin running the state from the campaign trail brought up questions of "duel-employment."  McAllister claimed that both of those Governors continued to run their states while campaigning.

Not so, according to former Alaska Lt. Governor and Constitutional author, Jack Coghill:

(much more below the fold)

I stopped by the Governor's Office Monday and submitted some requests for records

by: Celtic Diva

Wed Dec 24, 2008 at 05:00:00 AM AKST

The first letter is in regards to Meghan Stapleton's alleged "volunteer" employment with the McCain/Palin Campaign and now with the Governor herself:

Linda Perez
Administrative Director
Office of the Governor
Third Floor - State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0001                

December 22, 2008

Re: Public Records Request

Dear Ms. Perez:

Pursuant to Alaska Statute 40.25.110, I request the Office of the Governor to duplicate and provide me with a copy of every contract and/or agreement the State of Alaska or any entity or agency of the State of Alaska awarded to Meghan Stapleton and family members and/or any company related to Meghan Stapleton and family.  

If there are public records that are described in this public records request that the Office of the Governor does not maintain, please let me know the name of the public agency that maintains those records and the name and address of each State of Alaska employee who is a custodian of the records.

If there is any public record, or portion thereof, described in this public records request that the Office of the Governor determines is exempt from disclosure, in whole or part, pursuant Alaska Statute 40.25.120, for each such record or portion thereof, please provide a written explanation that identifies the specific exemption in Alaska Statute 40.25.120 on which the Office of the Governor relies to withhold or redact the record, and sets out the legal rationale that the Office of the Governor believes supports its determination so that the determination may be the subject of judicial review.

Pursuant to Alaska Statute 40.25.110(d), the Office of the Governor may waive the fee associated with its processing of a public records request if it determines that a waiver would be in the public interest. Because I am submitting this public records request in order to make the public records that are described in the request available to all members of the general public so that they can gain a greater understanding of the operation of their state government, I request that the fee involved to process this request be waived.

And finally, pursuant to Alaska Public Records statutes, copies of these public records may be supplied electronically.

Sincerely,

Linda Kellen Biegel

Let's just say I'm rather dubious about her volunteerism.

The second request is in regards to the racist emails that were sent 'round the state government.  Alaskans need to know if these folks inappropriately using the email system also hold jobs that require direct contact with the public and/or hold positions that influence which members of the public may benefit from state resources.

Governor Sarah Palin
c/o Linda Perez
Administrative Director
Office of the Governor
Third Floor - State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0001

December 22, 2008

Re: Public Records Request

Dear Governor Palin:

Pursuant to Alaska Statute 40.25.110, I request your office to duplicate and provide me with a copy of every email communication document of a "racist" nature that Department of Administration Commissioner Annette Kreitzer has in her possession so far. These would be the inappropriate emails that, according to media reports and an Associated Press article, have been circulated by state employees on state servers recently. The article is attached. http://www.adn.com/news/alaska...  

The State Policy Regarding Personal Use of State Office Technologies states that contents of state employees' computers are subject to public records requests. While I am not requesting the names of the individuals, I am requesting the employment title, department and division of each state employee involved in the circulation of these offensive emails.  

If there are public records that are described in this public records request that the Office of the Governor does not maintain, please let me know the name of the public agency that maintains those records and the name and address of each State of Alaska employee who is a custodian of the records.  

If there is any public record, or portion thereof, described in this public records request that the Office of the Governor determines is exempt from disclosure, in whole or part, pursuant Alaska Statute 40.25.120, for each such record or portion thereof, please provide a written explanation that identifies the specific exemption in Alaska Statute 40.25.120 on which the Office of the Governor relies to withhold or redact the record, and sets out the legal rationale that the Office of the Governor believes supports its determination so that the determination may be the subject of judicial review.

Pursuant to Alaska Statute 40.25.110(d), the Office of the Governor may waive the fee associated with its processing of a public records request if it determines that a waiver would be in the public interest. Because I am submitting this public records request in order to make the public records that are described in the request available to all members of the general public so that they can gain a greater understanding of the operation of their state government, I request that the fee involved to process this request be waived.

And finally, pursuant to Alaska Public Records statutes, copies of these public records may be supplied electronically.

Sincerely,

Linda Kellen Biegel

I don't trust that the same person whose judgment is so poor that they share their racial biases with their coworkers on State time using government equipment has the ability to put aside those biases when making important decisions affecting the lives of individual Alaskans.

As the Governor has a recent history of using every means possible to avoid turning over emails, I hope for the best but expect the worst.

This has been a hot topic nationally and while there have not been definitive rulings by high courts on some of the issues (i.e. should state employee emails from private addresses dealing with public issues be considered part of the public domain?)  Other states HAVE set precedents considering private emails sent on state email accounts to be public information (on a case-by-case basis).

Think I'll start getting that same "special treatment" that she gave Andree McLeod?

Alaskans who are "Holding our Leaders Accountable" (with audio)

by: Celtic Diva

Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 01:19:45 AM AKST

Today was the much-anticipated speech of Walt Monegan's at the Democratic Bartlett Club Luncheon, which happens once a week on Thursdays at the Denny's on Debarr.  I have never seen the room as packed to the rafters as it was this week.  (I was surprised not to see media but I did get his speech plus the question/answer session afterwards on a .wav file.)

I attended Walt's speech at UAA last week and this one carried some of the same themes, especially that of the responsibility of leaders earning the public's trust. However, the phrase he seemed to drum home a bit harder was that of the public's responsibility to "hold our leaders accountable."  As a Deputy Treasurer with Alaskan's for Truth, you can imagine that had my attention and I wonder if Mr. Monegan is directing his speech in the public forum partially to our Legislature.  I didn't get a chance to ask him that but I truly hope so.

Walt didn't make any announcements but it sounded like we might hear something after the holidays.  I PRAY he won't be running for Anchorage Mayor...don't get me wrong, he'd make a great one but there are already 3 non-Conservative candidates going for the job:

Eric Croft (listening hear as Walt Monegan was speaking,

Recently retired Anchorage Police Lietenant Paul Honeman (in the black shirt),

and Sheila Seilkregg, seen here at her fundraiser last week talking to my daughter.

I encourage Walt to think more "state-wide"...like possibly in 2010?

Another Alaskan encouraging us all to hold our leaders accountable, and being specific about it when it comes to our Legislators and the Branchflower Report, is our own CC from KUDO.  She spoke at the Bartlett luncheon last weeks and got rave reviews on her talk about "Alaskans for Truth."

Of course sometimes opportunity is thrust upon us and that was certainly the case with Syrin the first week of December.

(more below the fold)