Sullygate: If there is a contractual agreement, Mayor Sullivan, show us the contract

by: yksin

Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 02:51:14 AM AKST

by Mel Green

The original of this post can be found at Henkimaa.com.

Damn, I hate when I want to do my own writing, but along comes some political situation poking its thumb in my eye so hard I have no choice but to remove it.  Well, nothing for it but to roll up my sleeves & go at it.

It's a long story.  But it is kind of interesting.  Please read on.

At issue is a putative insurance payout of $193,000 from the Anchorage municipal treasury to a trust -- the George M. Sullivan Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust -- led by George M. Sullivan's son, Anchorage Mayor Dan Sullivan, which was approved by the Anchorage Assembly by a 9-1 vote on February 16.  The thing is fishy enough that over the past two it's been the subject of a story apiece in the Anchorage Daily Planet [Ref #1] & the Anchorage Press [Ref #2] & no less than three stories in the Anchorage Daily News (two by Sean Cockerham [Ref #3, 4], one from the Associated Press [Ref #5]).  There's also been commentary in the blogs Progressive Alaska [Ref #6], The Mudflats [Ref #7], & Immoral Minority [Ref #8].  I'm sure we'll see more -- the one I'm writing right now, f'r instance.  Haven't read 'em? -- there's a complete list of references with links at the bottom of this post.  As is my habit when writing posts like these.

The most comprehensive reporting on the putative insurance payout comes from Sean Cockerham, who in my book continues to rank at the top of the Anchorage Daily News' dwindling reporting staff -- at the top statewide, for that matter.  As mentioned, he wrote two stories on the putative insurance payout, a brief one called "Benefits for a former official" [Ref #3] and a longer, more comprehensive one called "City life insurance payout for former mayor raises questions -- $193,000: Assembly honors '82 deal that puts city money into George Sullivan's trust" [Ref #4].  The latter is especially essential reading if you're at all interested in this matter.

I'll use some of its opening paragraphs to set the stage:

The Anchorage Assembly has agreed to pay $193,000 to meet the obligation for a one-of-a-kind life insurance deal the city made 28 years ago after Mayor George Sullivan left office.

Sullivan died last year at the age of 87. The assembly voted Feb. 16 to pay the money to his life insurance trust. The trustee is Sullivan's son, Dan Sullivan, the current mayor of Anchorage.

He told The Anchorage Daily News it's an odd coincidence he's dealing with this both as mayor and trustee. He's not saying who will get the money as beneficiary of the trust.

In 1982, the assembly agreed the city would continue life insurance to George Sullivan for the rest of his life at the same rate he had been paying as mayor. Until his death, George Sullivan had paid the city $19,663 in premiums, which were deposited into a city account.

The current Sullivan administration recommended to the assembly that the insurance be paid, with City Attorney Dennis Wheeler describing it in a Feb. 2 memo as a contractual obligation.

Several Assembly members said they felt they had no choice but to pay it.

"I don't believe it was an appropriate thing to do when it was done ... But what do you do? You've got to honor your commitments," said Assemblyman Dan Coffey.

The one Assembly member to vote against it, Harriet Drummond, said the payment, and the arrangement that led to it, made no sense. "The municipality is not an insurance company," she said. "This whole situation is incredibly bizarre to me." [Ref #4]

No kidding.

Now, three times so far I've called this a putative insurance payout.  That's because, like Harriet Drummond, I don't buy that the Municipality of Anchorage is an insurance company.  And as I've read through the over 230 comments left at the ADN website on that story, I've gotten pretty weary of those repeating the meme that Dan Coffey used in that passage above: the $193,000 payout honors a "commitment".  Or an "obligation."  Or, as Mayor Sullivan himself told Sean Cockerham, repeating City Attorney Dennis Wheeler's claim,

It was simply honoring a contractual agreement. [Ref #4]

Really?  Then show us the contract.

But they can't. Because, as Cockerham reported,

there's no evidence a written contract was ever drawn up spelling out the terms of the arrangement. [Ref #4]

Now here's where I get geeky.  The Anchorage Daily News was kind enough to provide PDFs of Muni documents that are pretty darn helpful in understanding this story.  But for some reason they didn't put them in chronological order, or give them a table of contents, or anything.  And, well, I find chronological order & tables of contents to be kinda helpful.  So, being the publication speicalisty geek that I am, I spent some time this evening downloading the PDFs & rearranging them. And adding bookmarks as tables of contents so they're easier to navigate.  I'll be referring to them frequently from here on out, so here they are:

• Ref #9: Sullygate 1: 1982 Municipality of Anchorage documents relating to former Mayor George M. Sullivan's life insurance
  
• Ref #10: Sullygate 2: 2002 Wuerch administration emails relating to former Mayor George M. Sullivan's life insurance
  
• Ref #11: Sullygate 3: 2010 Assembly Resolution & memorandum relating to a payout of $193,000 to a trust in the name of former Mayor George M. Sullivan
  

Let's start at the beginning.  Mayor George Sullivan ended his last term in 1981.  Assembly Resolution AR-30, dated January 19, 1982, resolved

That the Commission on Salaries and Emoluments be requested to consider directing that life insurance coverage be provided to former Mayor George M. Sullivan for the remainder of his life at the same rate and with the same coverage as in existence on January 1, 1982. [Ref #9, page 1]

But what was the same rate and the same coverage? In a memorandum dated February 18, 1982, Susan Lindemuth, Manager of Records and Benefits, wrote in a memo,

When he left office, Mr. Sullivan's life was insured for $193,000. The figures I am quoting are based on a continuation of that level of insurance.

If the Municipality continues Mr. Sullivan's coverage as a member of the group, it will cost the Municipality $86.85 per month or $1,042.20 per year…. This premium could be paid either by the Municipality or Mr. Sullivan.

Mr. Sullivan is eligible to convert his insurance to an individual policy.  At his age, continued coverage would cost Mr. Sullivan $961.00 per month…. [Ref #9, page 2]

But big question: would the insurance company go with the plan? Minutes for the February 24, 1982 meeting of the Commission on Salaries & Emoluments state,

There was still concern by the Commission whether the insurance company would allow someone who was no longer employed by the Municipality to remain part of the group plan and pay the month premiums out-of-pocket. [Ref #9, page 6 (page 2 of minutes)]

After a short recess, Susan Lindemuth, Manager of Records and Benefits, responded to those concerns:

In response to questions by Mr. Lounsbury, Ms. Lindemuth stated there is no problem as far as the insurance company is concerned in continuing George Sullivan in the insurance program after his completion of service with the Municipality and has drawn his last paycheck.  She further stated that the Municipality would just add an amendment to the policy saying George Sullivan is eligible to continue participation. [Ref #9, page 6 (page 2 of minutes)]

The Commission ultimately passed its Resolution 82-1, which provided life insurance coverage to Sullivan at the the same rate -- presumably the "$86.85 per month or $1,042.20 per year" cited in Susan Lindemuth's February 18 memo -- and the same coverage as on January 1, 1982 ($193,000). Sullivan would bear the full cost of providing the insurance coverage -- i.e., he'd pay the premiums. [Ref #9, page 9)

Several months later, on November 10, 1982, minutes of the Salary & Emoluments Commission show that there were already problems with the resolution as passed:

Chairman Millsap stated that attached to the Agenda was a status report on the life insurance coverage for Mr. Sullivan. [included in Ref #9 on page 14]  He stated the letter was very self-explanatory and that everything had been taken care of.

Ms. [sic] Lounsbury stated he was questioning the last sentence -- "to the extent that the premium amount exceeds that paid by Mr. Sullivan, the mayor's office benefits account will be charged for the difference."

Ms. Gotham stated that is not what this commission said.

Mr. Lounsbury continued by saying that Mr. Sullivan is to pay what the premium is.  The commission didn't set any certain amount, they just said you pay the premium.

Chairman Millsap requested the Recording Secretary obtain clarification from Susan Lindemuth. [Ref #9, page 12; emphasis in original]

Susan Lindemuth replied with a memorandum on November 17, 1982:

Judy Flitter has asked that I clarify the last sentence in paragraph two of my November 10 memo.

When planning for the implementation of Resolution 82-1, the meaning of "at the rate in effect as of January 1, 1982" was questioned.  Municipal Attorney Jerry Wertzbaugher interpreted it to mean that Mr. Sullivan would not be required to pay for increases in life insurance premium payments subsequent to January 1, 1982.  To the extent that those rates will increase… the Municipality will have to pick up the difference. [Ref $9, page 15]

This, of course, went contrary to Section 2 of Resolution 82-1, which established that Sullivan would bear the full cost of the premiums -- as Judy Flitter, who provided staff support to the Commission, subsequently pointed out in a memorandum on November 22, 1982 --

The decision from the Salary and Emoluments Commission was to allow former Mayor George Sullivan to retain the policy but to pay any premiums himself.  They did not intent [sic] for any monies to be taken from the current Mayor's budget.  The statement from the commission is: The bill is to be sent to Mr. Sullivan for the difference per thousand per month.  [Ref #9, page 16]

So problem solved: in spite of the "at the same rate" provision of Section 1 of the resolution, Sullivan had to pay the full premiums himself.

But turns out that wasn't the biggest problem with resolution.  In fact, it appears that Susan Lindemuth's reassurances to the Commission on February 24 that "there is no problem as far as the insurance company is concerned in continuing George Sullivan in the insurance program after his completion of service with the Municipality" was incorrect. Though nothing in the record we have so far tells us exactly when this problem was discovered.

But wait, you might ask. Didn't Sean Cockerham's ADN story tell us when it was discovered?  Here's the relevant passage:

Twenty years later, in 2002, Deputy Employee Relations director Karen Moore was baffled when Dan Sullivan, who was on the Assembly at the time, came to the city to make that year's premium payment, according to e-mails from the time. She asked the city's insurance carrier about a policy for Sullivan. The company didn't know about it either. The premiums paid by Sullivan and his family had been deposited into a city account, not given to Aetna.

Top officials in the administration of George Wuerch, who was mayor in 2002, spent months trying to figure out the history of the deal and what to do about it, according to the e-mails, released to the Daily News this week.

The city's life insurance carrier, Aetna, told the city in 2002 that it had no policy on Sullivan and wouldn't cover him anyway because its agreement was only for active city employees, according to the e-mails. Aetna made clear it wasn't liable for Sullivan, who was 78 years old by that time. The insurance company's legal department recommended the city just return the premiums to the Sullivan family. [Ref #4]

But here's the thing: the real point of discovery that Aetna wouldn't cover Sullivan wasn't 2002, when the Wuerth administration came up against the problem.  The real point of discovery was sometime between 1982 and 2002.  Someone -- we don't yet know who -- made a decision to place the premiums in a city account, presumably because the insurance company would not take them, because Sullivan was not on their rolls.

As of January 30, 2002, Susan Lindemuth was apparently under the impression that Sullivan was still covered by Aetna under the Municipality's group plan, or at least so she said. In an email to Karen Moore, she wrote,

He was covered as part of the MOA group and therefore, part of that "risk". There was no separate policy with Aetna or any other insurance carrier for him…and no separate "premium" was paid to any outside party .[Ref #10, page 4]

As the life insurance rates changed over the years, he was informed and paid the appropriate premium amount…or the kids paid on his behalf.

We had a split funded agreement with Aetna…so we paid the "retention" monthly and funded the life insurance claims when incurred. His coverage amount ($93,000 [sic]) was included in the volume reported to Aetna. [Ref #10, page 4]

But Lynda Gable of Aetna -- identified in one email by Karen Moore as "long time account executive for Aetna's MOA coverage" [Ref #10, p. 9] -- who received a copy of Susan Lindemuth's email, informed Karen Moore --

This means Muni kept those dollars on hand in the claims funds. I don't know if intent was to have them handle a death claim directly, but Aetna never received any premiums. The insurance fund was the reserves that Muni held and those funds were never submitted to Aetna nor included in any of our premiums from a risk standpoint to the best of my knowledge. How much insurance is he supposed to have??? [Ref #10, page 4]

Later that day (January 30), Karen Moore told David Otto --

Lynda [Gable] tells me they [Aetna] would have denied payment when it became evident that he [George Sullivan] was not an active employee. Susan [Lindemuth] indicated that premiums received from Mayor Sullivan were deposited into the insurance fund. I suspect she intended to have the MOA pay any death claim from the 603 account, rather than have Aetna pay the claim and then reimbursing Aetna. [Ref #10, p. 9]

-- implying that she believed Susan Lindemuth knew Sullivan wasn't covered by Aetna & that someone, perhaps Lindemuth, had already decided on an alternate way to pay Sullivan's eventual death claim: from MOA funds.

Here's the thing: no one had authority to find alternative methods to provide Sullivan with life insurance except the Assembly and and Salaries & Emoluments Commission. As soon as anyone learned -- Susan Lindemuth? somebody else? -- that Aetna wouldn't cover him, that person should have informed the Commission & the Assembly so that they could decide what to do, because they were the only people who were legally empowered.

Remember: it was an Assembly decision to ask the Commission if it would provide Sullivan with life insurance in the first place; & it was the Commission's decision to actually provide it. But the Commission based its decision on the understanding that Sullivan could be included in the group insurance plan. It did not contemplate having the Municipality itself act as an insurance provider.  It did not contemplate having the the Municipality itself pay a death claim. Whoever decided between 1982 and 2002 during the Knowles, Fink, or Mystrom administrations to take that route -- without apparently telling passing the word along to the relevant people in the Wuerch adminstration  -- took upon themselves authority that did not belong to them -- that belonged only to the Assembly & the Commission. It was not legal.

At least, that's my best guess. I'd like to know what an attorney independent of the Mayor's office would say.

If I'm right, the Wuerch administration, by formalizing the "MOA is now an insurance company" arrangement -- assuming one could call the flurry of emails in early 2002 "formal" -- also took upon itself authority that it did not have: it did not inform the Assembly. It did not inform the Commission. It was not legal.

At least that's my best guess, once again.

But guess I'm right. By February 4, 2002, several high-level people in Wuerch's administration were coming to an agreement that an option Karen Moore had presented -- to set up a sub-fund for the premiums and pay out the difference upon Sullivan's death "and with Assembly approval" [Ref #4, page 9] -- was the best option. One member of that group, Kate Giard, the city finance director, wrote to the others:

Folks,

We had better get together on this issue. We just can't make payments of this nature from the self insurance or any fund without assembly approval. Mr. Sullivan had an insurance policy, apparently, for the last several years for which he paid premiums. The policy in effect was an illegal commitment unless the Assembly approves it…. [Ref #9, page 12; emphasis added]

An illegal commitment unless the Assembly approves it. But the Assembly in 2002 did not approve it. Sean Cockerham:

It didn't go to the 2002 Assembly for approval, and there's no evidence a written contract was ever drawn up spelling out the terms of the arrangement. [Ref #4]

To the best of my knowledge, based upon the record that has been disclosed so far, the Assembly was not even made aware that there was an issue.

But there was at least one Assembly member who had to have known there was a problem: the former mayor's son, Dan Sullivan -- who was the guy, after all, who brought the whole deal to the Wuerch administration's attention in the first place when he came in to pay the life insurance premium in January 2002. [Ref #4]

Now, I'm not supposing that Dan Sullivan was privy to all the emails going on back & forth between the various members of the Wuerch administration about the situation, but I find it difficult to believe that he, an Assembly member, was entirely ignorant of what was going on next door in the executive branch on an issue that was of vital interest to him & his politically connected father. Surely Karen Moore didn't keep him in the blind that they were trying to work out a problem regarding the insurance, or about what their solution was. At the very latest, he would have learned in 2009, when he became mayor, & his father died shortly thereafter. At that point he & his administration had access to all the relevant documents -- & would certainly have been looking at them after his father's death. He had to have known that the solution Wuerch staffers had come up 8 years before wasn't -- y'know -- a legal commitment. At least not yet.

Okay, so jump ahead to just a couple of weeks ago, February 16, 2010: the Assembly approved it. Making it, finally at last -- eight years after Kate Giard wrote that bolded sentence -- a legal commitment.

But recall why they did so:

Assembly Chairman Patrick Flynn said he believes the Sullivan estate could have sued the city for breach of contract if it did not pay, although Flynn said he doesn't think that anyone on the Assembly requested a legal analysis before appropriating the money. [Ref #4]

Why would they think there was a contract when there wasn't one?

Perhaps it could be because of the memorandum of February 2, 2010 prepared by the MOA Department of Law, approved by Municipal Attorney Dennis Wheeler, and submitted by Mayor Dan Sullivan to accompany the resolution asking for the payout:

This resolution requests appropriation of One Hundred Ninety Three Thousand Dollars ($193,000.00) from the Areawide General Fund (Fund 101) to the Employee Relations Department 2009 Operating Budget Fund (Fund 101) for disbursement under a life insurance contract to the George M. Sullivan Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust. [Ref #11, page 1; emphasis added]

Again: what contract? As I think I've clearly established by now, there wasn't one. Not only was there not a contract, but the entire deal was, as Kate Giard wrote in 2002, an illegal commitment unless the Assembly approved it.

The strategy was, clearly, mislead the Assembly into believing there was a contract in order to push them towards voting in favor of the disbursement.  By voting yes, they made the commitment legal.  And simultaneously -- conveniently for the Mayor-Slash-Trustee -- authorizing the payout.  Had they known the full story, they may well have voted differently.

Or maybe they wouldn't have. But they should have been told.

There's some other misdirection in the memorandum, too. For example,

In March 2002, Aetna informed the Municipality that Mayor George M. Sullivan was not eligible for group life insurance plan because he was no longer an employee…. [Ref #11, page 1]

Technically true: early 2002 was when the Wuerch administration was "informed" by Aetna. But the phrasing is ambigous, making it easy for readers (that is, the Assembly) to believe that up until then, Aetna had him covered.  Or that Aetna wasn't completely flabbergasted when they were asked about him.

Besides, as I think I've established, there are clear signs that someone at the Muni knew before 2002 that Aetna wouldn't cover George Sullivan; and the 2002 email correspondents knew it. Remember what Lynda Gable of Aetna wrote to Karen Moore --

The insurance fund was the reserves that Muni held and those funds were never submitted to Aetna… [Ref #10, page 4]

Remember what Karen Moore wrote to David Otto --

Lynda [Gable] tells me they [Aetna] would have denied payment when it became evident that he [George Sullivan] was not an active employee. Susan [Lindemuth] indicated that premiums received from Mayor Sullivan were deposited into the insurance fund. I suspect she intended to have the MOA pay any death claim from the 603 account, rather than have Aetna pay the claim and then reimbursing Aetna. [Ref #10, p. 9]

Then remember that Dennis Wheeler and the Department of Law had access to this email record when they wrote the memorandum. In fact, they had to have it, because it was the email record that instructed them what the Wuerch administration had decided about how to handle the death payment after George Sullivan's death.

So why were they so cagey in making it sound as if Aetna simply changed its coverage in March 2002?  Well, one would hardly want to bring the truth to the Assembly's attention, because otherwise its members might question this --

To meet the directive from the Salaries & Emoluments Commission, the Municipality added Mayor George M. Sullivan to the MOA group life insurance plan with Aetna. The amount of insurance purchased by Mayor George M. Sullivan was $193,000; the annual premium has varied, from a high of $1,042.20 in 1982 to $555.84 since November 1995. [Ref #10, p. 9]

But since Aetna didn't cover Sullivan since some unknown date prior to 2002 -- who set those premiums? And why were those premiums so much lower than what they were in 1982? Remember that the Salaries & Emoluments Commission originally charged that Sullivan's coverage would be at the same rate and the same coverage as it was on January 1, 1982; and that Susan Lindemuth had informed the Commission that the rate was "$86.85 per month or $1,042.20 per year". Who decided in November 1995 (that would be during the Mystrom administration) to "vary" the annual premium by subtracting $486.36 from the 1982 rate? I can guarantee you it wasn't Aetna.

A total of $19,662.84 in premiums was received by the Municipality and deposited into Fund 603 prior to 2002, and then into the 735 Fund thereafter. [Ref #10, p. 9]

One wonders how much higher that total would have been had someone-who-is-not-Aetna not "varied" the annual premium to such a low amount.

Clearly something rather shady was going on for quite awhile with this life insurance policy, spanning the administrations of three Anchorage mayors -- Tony Knowles, Tom Fink, Rick Mystrom -- even before it got to Wuerch's.

This was done by somebody. It'd would be nice to know by whom. But it's easy to know for whom. As recorded in the minutes of the Commission on Salaries & Emoluments on February 24, 1982,

Ms. Gotham said she felt this was not a benefit to George Sullivan but was rather a benefit to the Sullivan family upon his death. She did not feel this was a responsibility of the Municipality. Therefore she was opposed. [Ref #9, p. 3]

Cheers for Ms. Gotham.

And cheers for Harriet Drummond, who, alone among the 10 Assembly members voting on the putative insurance payout on February 16, voted no.

"If there were enough (Assembly members) who realized this was stupidity and voted no, then Anchorage's taxpayers would still have $200,000 in the bank," Drummond said later. "And the Sullivan estate could have gotten the $20,000 in premiums back. Maybe that was the appropriate thing to do. But it was certainly not appropriate for the city to be acting as an insurance company, which it is not." [Ref #4]

References

1. 3/2/2010. "City to pay life insurance claim for former mayor" by Kirsten Adams (Anchorage Daily Planet).
2. 3/3/2010. "An insurance anomaly" by Brendan Joel Kelley (Anchorage Press).
3. 3/3/2010. "Benefits for a former official" by Sean Cockerham (Anchorage Daily News).
4. 3/3/2010. "City life insurance payout for former mayor raises questions -- $193,000: Assembly honors '82 deal that puts city money into George Sullivan's trust" by Sean Cockerham (Anchorage Daily News).
5. 3/4/2010. "Anchorage pays $193,000 for late mayor's insurance" by the Associated Press (Anchorage Daily News).
6. 3/4/2010. "Two Banally Retentive Grifters Again Make the News" by Phil Munger (Progressive Alaska).
7. 3/4/2010. "Payday for Mayor/Trustee Hybrid Dan Sullivan" by AK Muckraker (The Mudflats).
8. 3/4/2010. "Anchorage Mayor Dan Sullivan learned much from his idol Sarah Palin" by Gryphen (Immoral Minority).
9. Sullygate 1: 1982 Municipality of Anchorage documents relating to former Mayor George M. Sullivan's life insurance. Contains the same documents provided in a PDF by the Anchorage Daily News, except that I've placed them in chronological order & provided bookmarks (table of contents).
10. Sullygate 2: 2002 Wuerch administration emails relating to former Mayor George M. Sullivan's life insurance. Contains the same documents provided in a PDF by the Anchorage Daily News, except that I've placed them in chronological order (as best I could) & provided bookmarks (table of contents).
11. Sullygate 3: 2010 Assembly Resolution & memorandum relating to a payout of $193,000 to a trust in the name of former Mayor George M. Sullivan. Contains the same documents provided in a PDF by the Anchorage Daily News, except slightly reordered & provided with bookmarks (table of contents).

So much stuff, so little time to post

by: Celtic Diva

Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 01:09:28 AM AKST

I posted about this at Facebook:

St. Baldrick's Day--Linda Kellen Biegel is shaving her head for a cure!

Date: Saturday, March 6, 2010
Time: 10:00am - 3:00pm
Location: 645 G Street, Suite 101 , Anchorage, AK  

Saturday morning, I will be losing ALL of my hair (yes, the Celtic red grey locks will be gone just in time for St. Patrick's Day) to help bring attention (and donations) to find a cure for children's cancer and in turn, all cancers.

I jumped into this (and started advertising it) very late, so I only have a few days to raise about $500.00 worth of donations, which go straight to the St. Baldrick's Day Foundation at this website:

http://www.stbaldricks.org/participants/LKB

Please donate to St. Baldrick's Foundation if you can!

Coincidentally enough (and not something I knew before I agreed to do this) the event is being held at McGinley's Pub, of which our darling, possibly newly-flush Mayor Sullivan is part owner.  

Newly flush, you ask?  That story ran in the ADN today courtesy of Sean Cockerham (It was previously broken by Harriet Drummond and Shannyn Moore on her show):

With no questions and little discussion, the Assembly voted 9-1 on Feb. 16 to pay the money to the George M. Sullivan Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust.

Sullivan, who served 14 years as mayor before leaving office in 1982, died Sept. 23 last year at age 87.

In interviews in recent days, Assembly members called the $193,000 payment a questionable use of public money, especially at a time when the city has cut millions of dollars in spending for services and personnel to balance its books.

Interesting to note:  in the article, everyone affiliated with Sullivan claims that the identities of the beneficiaries of the trust the Insurance payout went into are top secret.  However, I verified with Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) today that Mayor Sullivan is subject to the same financial disclosure laws as all public officials.  This means he will be required to list the trusts of which he is a beneficiary at the end of the year on the disclosure form.  So if he's a beneficiary...not so top secret.

Perhaps he could toss some of that into the pot for finding a cancer cure for the kids on Saturday?

(**holding breath now...**)

I actually plan to ask him if he's there!

Yesterday's activities--including Sen. Begich's statement and overdue update on records request

by: Celtic Diva

Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 09:59:40 AM AKST

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.

Two answers to the Sullivan issue open up another question

by: Celtic Diva

Sat May 02, 2009 at 22:40:44 PM AKDT

It's amazing that, since the audio testimony identifying Dan Sullivan as the boss who poured his employees drinks after hours then let her drive right into a DUI accident, suddenly people are actually interested.

(Mudflats actually transcribed most of it...DANG!!!!)

From the ADN Politics Blog today:

Shirley Gifford, executive director of the ABC Board, said it's not illegal for bar employees to drink on duty, but they shouldn't get intoxicated. Once a bar is closed, no one can be served, she said. Gifford checked the agency's files and said it had received no complaints connected to the 2006 incident.

First answer:  YES -- Dan Sullivan broke the law.

Second answer:  NO -- it has not been investigated because no one filed a complaint.

So...new question...what about now?

Saturday wrap-up--Heading to Seward for the weekend!

by: Celtic Diva

Sat May 02, 2009 at 00:36:24 AM AKDT

Unfortunately, stories have been left unfinished (APOC--yes, it REALLY IS COMING...it just keeps getting bigger...and I will finish the piece on Senator Begich) or had to be skipped (Hey, I WANTED to talk more about events at Drift River, Rural Alaska issues and the Governor's "Tweeting"...OK, maybe not the Governor's "Tweeting").

However, I wanted to grab some of the stories that seem to interest you guys most in the comments:

Wrap-up story #1: Gryphen is Our Leader!!!!!

The wannabe-marmots over at C4P have determined that, much like playing a Beatles album backwards in the 60's gave us an accurate portrait of Satanism in the rock community or the state of Paul McCartney's health, reading between the lines over at Immoral Minority is supposed to provide insight into the "secret world" of Alaska's Progressive blogging community.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Got that out of my system!!!

I love how C4P is trying to turn a blogger's attempt to gain accurate information for a story through a simple investigation (i.e. phone calls, interviews) into a tinfoil hat conspiracy!  The real irony is that misperception of a lack of that very investigative work, phone calls, etc...is what brought us scorn from the "journalistic" folks.  So I guess we're damned either way!

As Gryphen said when I spoke to him earlier, "A number of these groups are making false assumptions.  I'm like any other Alaskan blog, trying to get at the truth and then present that same truth to my readers."

As all of C4P's information is spoonfed from the Administration's minions, I'm sure suspicion of asking questions of the parties involved in a story is encouraged.  It's much simpler to make it up as they go along if the truth doesn't fit Queen Narcissist's talking points.  

It also helps that none of the blogmeisters live in Alaska!

Wrap-up story #2: The Dan Sullivan story is gaining momentum

I wrote about this twice.  The original story is HERE and the follow up story with the audio link is HERE. The last two days I wondered if the MSM was going to care.  Heck, the ADN wouldn't even link to a blog about it.  Now, it seems that those audio tapes released this evening with the testimony regarding Dan Sullivan may be turning the tide.

Matthew Simon on KTVA:

Thursday court documents only showed paraphrased testimony where a "Dan" was identified. That day, Sullivan would not answer if this was him.

Friday morning he told CBS 11 News he did not remember the incident, and would not dignify Tesche's demand, calling it a "last minute campaign smear tactic."

Friday night, after the case's audio testimony surfaced, the Sullivan Campaign told CBS 11 News they are sticking with their original statement.

Are you kidding me, Dan?  You don't remember the night that your employee left the bar under her own steam after drinking for hours with you, then got in a car accident and was arrested, charged and convicted with a DUI??  YOU DON'T REMEMBER THAT????

Wrap-up story #3: Weeeeeeeeeeeeeee're off to see the Woody!  The wonderful Woody of SeaLife!

Like every Alaska kid, my daughter thinks of Woody the sea lion as her special friend

So my husband's contract work is taking him out-of-town to Seward for the weekend and we're going with him!  We plan to go to the SeaLife Center (I hear they have a sea lion "harem" in Woody's tank so he gets the special "mating" experience...ewwwww...) and we're getting a glacier tour!  While I love riding on the family boat, it's also nice sightseeing on a heated boat with lunch service, comfy booths and bathrooms!

Beautiful view from the same glacier tour we'll be taking (from 2006)

While I'm there, I plan on walking around and talking to the various tourist-dependent places to find out how nervous they are about their prospects this summer.  I also want to get information on the special discounts for Alaskans I've been hearing so much about!

BREAKING: Audio testimony--Sullivan didn't put employee in a cab after drinking

by: Celtic Diva

Fri May 01, 2009 at 20:05:02 PM AKDT

Dan Sullivan, candidate for mayor, was supposed to be at a debate with his run-off rival, Eric Croft tonight at KFQD.  On Dan's own website, he had a large ad touting his appearance on Dan Fagan's Show at 4:00 PM.

News folks were waiting to ask him questions.

He didn't show up.  WHY?

After all, the story we've all been reporting on the blogs is a non-story, right?  Even though I called and got corroboration that Dan Sullivan was the only "Dan" who was a boss at McGinley's Pub, that still leaves doubt, correct?  

We can't even get the Anchorage Daily News to link to any of the blogs much less write on it.  All they can do, it seems, is endorse him for mayor.

A little while ago, I received this email with an attached mp3 ofthe testimony found at this link:

Jacqueline LaFrance testimony in District Court of the State of Alaska at Anchorage.

Case No: 3AN-06-10675CR

Trial Day Four, Friday Jan 11 2008.  Defense attorney is (I believe) Jim Gould, GL & G

I've transcribed a little below:

Defense Attorney:  Did you know someone named Dan Sullivan?

Jacqueline LaFrance:  Yes

Defense Attorney:  What was your understanding of his role?

La France:  Dan was the person who interviewed me for the position there.  I understood him to be pretty much the main owner and "brainchild" of the Pub.  It was his idea and he really wanted that location and all of those things.  So, I considered him to be my boss.

She clocked out at 1:00 AM and then hung around while she "chatted with Dan" who was there "until she left."

It gets interesting when she starts talking about the party they were getting ready for the next day which was involving a bunch of Dan's "political friends" at which Dan would be wearing a tuxedo.  Also, she talks about not being sure if someone was "freshening up" her beer.

My questions are still:  

-- Why didn't "boss" Dan Sullivan make the employee take a cab?  Did the rest of them drive themselves as well?

-- Why was this kept so quiet?  If there was nothing wrong or untoward, why won't the Sullivan campaign return phone calls?  (I'm still waiting.)

-- Since there was an accident involved, why did the liquor board not look into this?  Would it have been ignored if anyone non-political were involved?

We'll see if he shows up for the rest of his scheduled events.  

Oh, Danny Boy...the beers, the hugs are calling...**UPDATE**

by: Celtic Diva

Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 19:10:20 PM AKDT

In recent "letters to the editor" on the ADN, we saw some folks waxing poetic about the attributes of their candidate, Dan Sullivan:

During my tenure on the Anchorage Assembly, I had the good fortune to serve with Dan Sullivan. Dan impressed me with his vast knowledge of the city, and with his sound judgment...

-- Ken Stout former Anchorage Assemblyman

Others did so on blogs:

He has not thrown mud, lowered the discussion, or done anything to indicate he's anything but connected to the needs of Anchorage.  His track record, intangibles, and plan for Anchorage make him a clear choice for our future...

-- Dave Stieren, The Alaska Standard

Today, I received an email with three attached PDF documents.  

I don't have Acrobat so I can't edit down the PDF document which contains the pertinent testimony.  Hopefully, one of the media outlets will do it this evening.

***********************UPDATE*****************************
Dennis Zaki to the rescue!

The pertinent information is on pages five to seven.

Here is the summary from the email which contained the court documents:

On a night in early October of 2006, a waitress at McGinley's Pub by the name of Jacqueline LaFrance ended her shift and proceeded to share a pitcher (or pitchers?) of Guinness with someone named Jennifer, and her boss, someone named Dan.  She is 23 years old at the time.  She testifies that she, Dan, and Jennifer leave the bar together at 4am, hug each other, and part ways.

Sometime shortly thereafter, Jacqueline proceeds to drunkenly drive the wrong way down the Minnesota corridor around Westchester Lagoon (which seems pretty hard to do...), and eventually causes a head on accident with a man, who thank goodness was not injured.  She flees the scene, and is arrested at her apartment 2 hours later by the APD, who later testified that she smelled of alcohol and was visibly drunk.

She is found guilty of this crime 14 months later, on January 11th, 2008 (which is a few weeks after Sullivan declared his candidacy, oddly enough).

There are a number of questions here.  Why did she drive?  Why didn't her "boss" make her take a cab?  Did her boss and the other employee drive?  Why wasn't the bar or the manager cited for this?

However, the big question:  Was the "Dan" mentioned in these legal documents managing part-owner Dan Sullivan?

For the answer, I decided to first try and call McGinleys Pub, where I talked to someone named "Jen" -- I made her repeat her name twice so I was sure.  When I asked if there had been any other "Dans" who had been supervisors to her knowledge other than Dan Sullivan, she stated "No."  I asked if she was sure and she said "Yes."

It wasn't until much, much later that I realized the other person who had been drinking with the defendent, Jacqueline LaFrance and "Dan" the boss was another employee named "Jennifer".  

So, I called the campaign office and asked a very nice lady if I could speak to Dan or his campaign manager.  I explained that I'd already called the Pub and was told that Dan Sullivan was the only manager named "Dan" now or in the past, but that I had a couple of questions for them.  She, being a very good screener for her boss, asked me a number of questions including the name of my blog, etc...  She came back to the phone after I'd been on hold for awhile and spoke very hesitantly when she said, "Tim's on the cell phone, can he call you back?"  (Tim Sullivan--Dan's brother nephew and campaign manager.)

I told her "Sure, anytime!" I also realized fully that I'd get a call back when pigs flew.

I got a phone call later from a media friend who was also on the case.  When he tried to call Tim Sullivan, the nice lady told him that everyone was in a closed-door meeting that had been going on for awhile.

HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE...I'll bet!

Even later, I got another email containing this letter from Alan Tesche (the one that Phil got up lightning-fast at Progressive Alaska.)  Here is what I feel to be the most pertinent section:

Dan Sullivan is a part owner and managing partner of McGinleys. He is probably the "Dan" identified in court records who allowed McGinleys' employees to enjoy "shift beverages" and even shared a pitcher of beer with her before she drove away.

As a part owner of McGinleys, Sullivan is responsible for the management practices of his bar and the actions of his employees, I call on Dan Sullivan to explain the management practices of his bar that apparently enabled one of his employees to leave work unable to drive safely,
endangering her life and those of other drivers on the road. Can he justify this management practice? Can McGinleys reward good employees without serving them alcohol before they leave the bar and get into their cars? Has the ABC Board investigated this incident, and if not, why not?

Just as we outlawed happy hours and "2 Xl" drinks, do we need to ban the practice of so called "shift beverages" to prevent this same conduct in the future. I'd ask the Assembly's Public Safety Committee to look into to these management practices and consider remedial legislation.

My wife and I live on G Street, approximately 200 yards from McGinleys.

Allan E. Tesche

Right now, Sullivan is in the last mayoral debate with Eric Croft before the run-off election.  It's being sponsored by the AARP and a few of our intrepid bloggers are there on the scene, on the story and prepared to ask questions.  However, we believe ther are probably a number of other media folks there wanting to do the same thing.

Stay tuned!!!!!

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

Watch the blogs for updates!

And the Anchorage mayoral runoff candidates are...

by: Celtic Diva

Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 08:22:15 AM AKDT

The results of yesterday's election were interesting.  However, I just couldn't get excited about this race knowing there would probably be a runoff.  Plus, I was crabby at some of the candidates.

1)  Matt Claman--Anchorage Assembly:  He told several Assembly members that if they made him Assembly chair (in-line to become acting-mayor if/when Mark Begich won the Senate) he wouldn't run for mayor.  Obviously, that didn't pan out.  Then, once he got in, he made bizarre decisions like cutting police and fire.  He made his decision to run for mayor during his first year as an Assemblyman.

2)  Sheila Selkregg--Anchorage Assembly:  Also made her decision to run during her first year on the Assembly.  Undercurrents from her campaign were that Ms. Selkregg wouldn't listen to the politics-savvy people she hired.  Sheila went through 3 campaign managers and a number of campaign staff.  If I learned anything from the 2008 election, it's to watch how the candidate runs his/her campaign to determine their managerial skills.  As much as I like Sheila and some of her ideas for Anchorage, I believe she fell short.

Plus, with both Matt and Sheila, I couldn't shake the crabbiness I felt over their obvious ability to so easily toss aside their Assembly seats.  Flipping the Assembly "blue" was a hard-fought long-term project that took Anchorage Progressives YEARS as well as a lot of sweat and tears!!  Don't take it lightly if you want my support.

There were two candidates who shared my beliefs/values and were the best qualified/had demonstrated the best management skills either through their campaigns or past experience...those were Walt Monegan and Eric Croft.

I'm sharing this now because I made a conscious decision not to express my opinion until there was going to be a runoff.  I'm glad that one of the candidates I believe-in made it.

Now, I'll state unequivacably that I completely support Eric Croft for Mayor!  I'll also state unequivacably that I DON'T support Dan Sullivan!  

I've watched Dan Sullivan allow his big business donors to make his decisions for him while on the Assembly.  I've also watched him orbit some of the people I most distrust/detest on the Assembly (like Dan Coffey--remember Sullivan's name came up in the "butt dialing" incident?)  I watched while he misused the power of the Assembly Chair seat to push forth his own agenda.  I also watched as he verbally mistreated waitresses, bartenders, cancer survivors and folks who had lost loved-ones when they testified as to the effects of second-hand smoke in bars and restaurants and how hard it was to find other employment.  

I'll never forget that, Mr. Sullivan.    

The Anchorage Mayoral race becomes the next season of "Survivor"

by: Celtic Diva

Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 00:13:33 AM AKST

Yes!!!!  I was so excited to hear that Walt Monegan had announced he was running...

...for Mayor of Anchorage?

Nooooooooooooooooooooo...!!!!!

Don't get me wrong, I'm one of the people who believes that Walt should run for office...just not THAT office THIS year!!!!  The list of candidates for the office of mayor is getting longer by the minute.  

The good news:  We have some great Progressive and Moderate candidates running!  

The bad news:  We have TOO MANY great Progressive and Moderate candidates running!

The truly ugly news:  Only one candidate is a hardcore Conservative. Therefore Progressive and Moderate vote are in danger of splitting enough that Dan Sullivan ends up as king of the island.

In the name of all that is holy, don't make me live through Dan Sullivan as mayor!!!!!

In order to do this, folks are going to have to think about the good of Anchorage and vote themselves off of the Island ahead of time...or not get on the Island at all. (BIG HINT Matt Claman!)  There are other offices open for a run in the not-too-distant future...like in 2010? I can see several of the mayoral candidates who have the experience to make it a great campaign for Governor!

For now, we can only sit back and watch.  I expect the emails and phone calls will be flying fast and furious.  I only hope that everyone treats each other with respect...

...and that everyone can swim...