A couple of busy days and Michelle Obama classes-up Larry King Live

by: Celtic Diva

Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 02:59:54 AM AKST

--Naturally, I'm reading the MSNBC emails.  

--I was not able to testify about the Executive Branch Ethics Act yesterday at the Anchorage LIO because public testimony happened while I had to pick up my daughter, so I wrote and submitted my testimony to the members of the Administrative Regulation Review Joint Committee and also submitted it to the Juneau Legislative Office. I had a chuckle when I heard the 4 members of the public to testify via teleconference were 1) Juliet (@julietinalaska on Twitter--a Palin/Eddie Burke fanatic) who was focused (surprise!) on having  complaints thrown out if anyone revealed they had filed them, 2) Andree McLeod, 3) Zane Henning, and 4) Valerie Henning--none of the three wanted any proposed changes to take effect.

My testimony was a mostly pulled from blog posts on the subject.

**NOTE** This was testimony on the overall regulations themselves. If the proposed bills move through the committees, there will eventually be oppportunities to testify on each of them as well.

--I answered several emails from folks who wanted my input on the processes and procedures involved in getting information from the State.

--Got involved in a lengthy discussion on a friend's blog that may result in an offshoot post later.

--Started sorting a year's worth of bills and financial papers in preparation for taxes.

--Searched for our 2010 medical cards from the new, downgraded (and more expensive) AETNA coverage from my husbands work.  It doesn't look like we got them yet so I'm not sure how I'm going to go to the doctor tomorrow.  Ooops...I slipped some health care bitching in here...

Since I didn't have a chance to write a real post, here's a nice video of the First Lady exhibiting true class, even though Larry King tried every way possible to get her to say something negative about Sarah Palin.  (He's such a troll, sometimes!)

Enjoy!

AK Legislature-- Public Testimony today regarding changes to Executive Branch Ethics Act

by: Celtic Diva

Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 04:56:54 AM AKST

I share a list of reasons why those bills are a bad idea:

1)  In Alaska, the general public is not permitted to ask the Attorney General/the Department of Law for an official "decision" on an ethics issue.  It can only be done by certain Government Employees, a public officer or their legal representative.  The only way the general public can get a LEGAL RULING from the State of Alaska on an issue of ethics is to file a complaint.

2)  Ethics complaints from the general public against public officers are based on public information, not employment records, etc...to which the general public does not have access.  As there is no airing of information made confidential by Alaska Statute, there is NO REASON for the process not to be completely public.

3) During my experience with the complaint process, I constantly heard the meme from the Palin camp that "If these were ethics complaints against a legislator, mentioning them to the media would have them thrown out."

According to an amendment to the Legislative Code of Ethics, yes that is true...for now...(covered in number 4)  

However, there is a really big difference in how the Legislative Ethics Committee is selected:  

The ethics committee has nine members: two senators, two representatives and five public members. The committee is divided into a House Subcommittee and a Senate Subcommittee for the purpose of considering most complaints. Elected officials, who serve two-year terms, are appointed by the leadership of the appropriate body with the concurrence of two-thirds of the full membership of that house. The public members, who serve a three-year term, are selected by the Chief Justice of the Alaska Supreme Court and ratified by two thirds of the full membership of the legislature.

...as opposed to the appointing/firing authority of the Governor over the Personnel Board.  

The current Board has repeatedly demonstrated unprofessional behavior towards the public, has stalled on holding Palin accountable for The Alaska Fund Trust, and there is a tendency of their hired guns to obfuscate and ignore legal precedent in their decisions.

4)  As I read the Attorney General's conclusion, the two House Bills in the Legislature right now could actually violate free speech rights if taken to court.  This could even indicate that the Legislative Ethics provision for complaint dismissal could possibly be thrown out if a case ever makes it to court.  

5) I mentioned The Alaska Fund Trust earlier.  I have checked into it and STILL nothing has happened with the case or it would have been made public.  Did anyone notice that if the report had not been leaked to the public, we would never know that THE ALASKA FUND TRUST IS A POTENTIAL ETHICS VIOLATION (if she spends it)?  

What's the Personnel Board waiting for, the two-year statute of limitations to be up on ethics violations so Palin can spend the money?

To me, this is the single-largest piece of evidence that there are MORE PRESSING problems that need fixing with the Executive Branch Ethics process than a lack of confidentiality.  

Perhaps...maybe...a lack of accountability?

Today, there is Public Testimony regarding the proposed changes to the Executive Branch Ethics Act:

(H)ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION REVIEW JOINT COMMITTEE *

Feb 08 Monday 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17  

+  (9 AAC 52) Proposed Regulations Relating  
 to Executive Branch Ethics (TELECONFERENCED)

 -- Public Testimony --    

+  (15 AAC 55.280 - 15AAC 55.811) Proposed  
 Regulations Relating to Oil and Gas Tax  
 Credit and Heating Value of Gas (TELECONFERENCED)

 -- Public Testimony --  

 Executive Session  

Anyone can participate in the teleconference at one of the Legislative Information Offices (LIOs) across the state.  Click on the link to find one near you, if you don't live in Anchorage or Fairbanks:

Anchorage Legislative Information Office
716 W 4th Avenue, Suite 200
Anchorage, AK 99501-2133

Main (907) 269-0111
Fax: (907) 269-0229
TDD: (907) 269-0260
Anchorage_LIO@legis.state.ak.us

Fairbanks Legislative Information Office
1292 Sadler Way, Suite 308
Fairbanks, AK 99701

Main(907) 452-4448
Fax: (907) 456-3346
TDD: (907) 456-5076
Fairbanks_LIO@legis.state.ak.us

If you cannot participate in the teleconference, here are the members of the Administrative Regulation Review Joint Committee.  Please send your comments to each of them (click the links for their email addresses).

CHAIR:  Representative Keller  
VICE-CHAIR:  Senator Olson  
MEMBER: Representative Gatto
MEMBER: Senator Kookesh  
MEMBER: Representative Guttenberg  
MEMBER: Senator Meyer  

What is the Alaska Legislature doing about ethics (in the Palin aftermath)?

by: Celtic Diva

Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 03:06:07 AM AKST

Recently, I posted a culinary tribute to Elvis courtesy of my good friend and musician extraordinaire, Patti Greene.  Patti may not know it, but she is one of my primary survival tools during the Alaska winters.  Over the 20(?) years I've known her, she frequently shares her philosophy of how to make the best of that long, cold stretch between the New Year and spring:

"Don't make any major decisions and NO BITING!"

I find her wisdom to be inarguable so I try to live by it, as difficult as that can sometimes be.

The last several weeks, it's been extremely difficult because quite frankly, ALL I WANT TO DO IS BITE!

Don't get me started on: Fox News for subjecting us to a steady diet of Palin's special brand of salad-shooter-chopped-stomped-on-then-stray-dog-chewed word salad, or the entire MSM for most of their insipid Palin discussions, or the authors of "Game Changer" for focusing on the shallow foibles of Palin while ignoring her lies, deceit and questionable ethics.  Many of my Alaskan blogger friends have covered those issues well and I've surely ranted enough around the house about them.

However, I'm EXTREMELY irritated by a few members of the Alaska Legislature.  Why?  It's a reaction to the bills being proposed that are touted to "fix the problems" with ethics complaint process.  What they really do is ignore the actual problems and aim to make the whole process even MORE secretive and MORE inaccessible when it comes to Alaska's Public Officers!

Let's examine the bills filed so far having to do with the ethics process.  There are three:

1)  Max Gruenberg filed HB 289:

Authorizing state agencies to pay private legal fees and costs incurred by persons exonerated of alleged Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act violations; allowing certain public officers and former public officers to accept state payments to offset private legal fees and costs related to defending against an Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act complaint; and creating certain exceptions to Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act limitations on the use of state resources to provide or pay for transportation of spouses and children of the governor and the lieutenant governor.

I am actually NOT crabby at Mr. Gruenberg (I'm sure he's relieved)! Looking at this bill and even when AG Sullivan proposed reimbursement for legal fees as a "fix," I didn't have a problem with it for a couple of reasons:

-- The Dept. of Law has previously stated that Thomas Van Flein (Palin's attorney) was already eligible to have some of his bills paid in relation to the Troopergate investigation.  So, there is already precedent.  (The last I read about it, he never attempted to get reimbursed.  The reasons why are up for speculation, but I digress...)

-- If an attorney submits that paperwork for reimbursement by the State, it would then be considered public records accessible by records requests.  Thus, we have accountability.

My primary issue regarding elected and appointed officials is in keeping things transparent.

However, not everyone agrees:

2)  According to Republican Representative Bob Lynn's House Bill 254:

07    * Sec. 2. AS 39.52.340 is amended by adding a new subsection to read:                                              
08            (d)  Except as required by law or permitted by this section, a person filing a                              
09       complaint under this chapter shall keep confidential the filing of the complaint and the                          
10       contents of the complaint. If the attorney general determines that a complainant has                              
11       violated a confidentiality provision of this chapter, the attorney general shall                                  
12       immediately dismiss the complaint. Dismissal of a complaint under this subsection                                
13       does not affect the right of any person other than the complainant to initiate a                                  
14       complaint based on the same factual allegations.  

So...no fix for the fact that the most powerful Governor of all 50 states appoints and fires those who decide the ethics complaints.  But it's very important to Mr. Lynn to make the process MORE secretive as this bill will establish that the complaint be dismissed if confidentiality is violated.

3) Then we have Democratic Representative Mike Doogan, who proposed a mostly-similar bill in HB 263:

12            Sec. 39.52.320. Dismissal if confidentiality violated by complainant. If the                              
13       attorney general determines that a complainant has violated a confidentiality provision                          
14       of this chapter, the attorney general shall immediately dismiss the complaint. The                                
01       attorney general shall communicate disposition of the matter promptly to the                                      
02       complainant under AS 39.52.335(c) and to the subject of the complaint. Dismissal of a                            
03       complaint under this section does not affect the right of any person other than the                              
04       complainant to initiate a complaint based on the same factual allegations.

Again...no "fix" for the Personnel Board, but a guarantee that a tainted board would get to operate in absolute secrecy.  This secrecy applies to a complaint against "any current or former public officer" covered by the Executive Branch Ethics Act.

However, the most interesting part of this is that there is a big contradiction...from Alaska's Attorney General Daniel Sullivan. He addresses confidentiality in his response to inquiries in the wake of the Palin Administration.  It seems fairly clear that he believes attempts to "sanction" a complainant for talking about a complaint would be viewed by the courts as a violation of free speech:

Creating safeguards to keep Ethics Act investigations confidential is categorically different than restricting citizens from speaking out about government conduct. Because public dialogue about government actions is speech at the core of the First Amendment, we do not recommend imposing sanctions on a citizen for disclosing information about an ethics complaint he or she has filed. Speech by a citizen charging government officials with breach of a code of official conduct is political speech accorded First Amendment protection. The United States Supreme Court has adhered to the bedrock principle that expression on public issues rests "on the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values,"19 and thus that "debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open."20 The Supreme Court has also made clear that protected political speech goes far beyond intellectual argument about political theory; it includes vigorous debate about the qualifications and official conduct of public officials.21 Open discussion of official conduct is accorded the broadest protection available in our political system despite the fact "that it may well include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials."22

Alaska's Ethics Act does not inhibit this type of debate, because it does not impose penalties on individuals who are not engaged in the investigative or decision-making process. As we have considered ways to protect the confidentiality of the ethics investigations, we have been mindful that penalizing public discourse about the actions of government officials might threaten First Amendment rights. Courts have consistently found that confidentiality provisions applicable to ethics complaints restrict the content of speech.23 Because they govern the content of speech, these restrictions will survive scrutiny only if narrowly drawn and necessary to serve a compelling state interest.24 Courts generally have rejected states' interests in ethics code confidentiality provisions as insufficient to justify restrictions on citizens' speech.25

So, to summarize, there are a list of reasons why these amendments as written should be rejected:

1)  In Alaska, the general public is not permitted to ask the Attorney General/the Department of Law for an official "decision" on an ethics issue.  It can only be done by certain Government Employees, a public officer or their legal representative.  The only way the general public can get a LEGAL RULING from the State of Alaska on an issue of ethics is to file a complaint.

2)  Ethics complaints from the general public against public officers are based on public information, not employment records, etc...to which the general public does not have access.  As there is no airing of information made confidential by Alaska Statute, there is NO REASON for the process not to be completely public.

3) During my experience with the complaint process, I constantly heard the meme from the Palin camp that "If these were ethics complaints against a legislator, mentioning them to the media would have them thrown out."

According to an amendment to the Legislative Code of Ethics, yes that is true...for now...(covered in number 4)  

However, there is a really big difference in how the Legislative Ethics Committee is selected:  

The ethics committee has nine members: two senators, two representatives and five public members. The committee is divided into a House Subcommittee and a Senate Subcommittee for the purpose of considering most complaints. Elected officials, who serve two-year terms, are appointed by the leadership of the appropriate body with the concurrence of two-thirds of the full membership of that house. The public members, who serve a three-year term, are selected by the Chief Justice of the Alaska Supreme Court and ratified by two thirds of the full membership of the legislature.

...as opposed to the appointing/firing authority of the Governor over the Personnel Board.  

The current Board has repeatedly demonstrated unprofessional behavior towards the public, has stalled on holding Palin accountable for The Alaska Fund Trust, and there is a tendency of their hired guns to obfuscate and ignore legal precendent in their decisions.

4)  As I read the Attorney General's conclusion, the two House Bills in the Legislature right now could actually violate free speech rights if taken to court.  This could even indicate that the Legislative Ethics provision for complaint dismissal could possibly be thrown out if a case ever makes it to court.  

5) I mentioned The Alaska Fund Trust earlier.  I have checked into it and STILL nothing has happened with the case or it would have been made public.  Did anyone notice that if the report had not been leaked to the public, we would never know that THE ALASKA FUND TRUST IS A POTENTIAL ETHICS VIOLATION (if she spends it)?  

What's the Personnel Board waiting for, the two-year statute of limitations to be up on ethics violations so Palin can spend the money?

To me, this is the single-largest piece of evidence that there are MORE PRESSING problems that need fixing with the Executive Branch Ethics process than a lack of confidentiality.  

Perhaps...maybe...a lack of accountability?

 

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.

Palin, Van Flein and their unethical spin about ethics Part II--explaining the report

by: Celtic Diva

Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 11:22:42 AM AKDT

AKGovSarahPalinLegal Fees Fund trustee's press conf yest set record straight w/facts/truth re:recent complaint;read transcript in case press chooses not to
(about 4 hours ago from Twitterberry)

  AKGovSarahPalinjudge investigation,destroy integrity of process&strip rights;Abuse WILL cont til leaks/friv filers r held accntble&press reports accurately
(about 5 hours ago from TwitterBerry)

  AKGovSarahPalinThis wk saw add'l violation of law:filer of friv ethics complaint leaks confidential documents out of context 2 create false headlines, pre-
(about 5 hours ago from TwitterBerry)

I could not pick a better lead-in to demonstrate the title of this post!

In Part I, I discussed the Executive Branch Ethics Act (EBEA) and the process that an ethics complaint goes through.  I focused mostly on the points in the process when a complaint can be dismissed.  Here, I want to explain Tom Daniel's leaked report regarding the Governor's defense fund (AK Fund Trust) and where in the process they REALLY are, not where the Governor wishes.

The EBEA is extremely poorly written and it bounces all over the place.  The Act seems to jump around in its explanation of the process.  As I've also touched on in Part I, there are several ethics processes:  one where an employee or their supervisor asks if something is a violation, one complaint process for most of the Executive Branch employees and then a second complaint process if the subject of the complaint happens to be the Governor, the Lt. Governor or the Attorney General. The main difference between a complaint against the Governor, Lt. Gov. or AG and a complaint against a regular Exec. Branch employee is that the Attorney General cannot get involved. The Personnel Board hires an independent investigator to fill his role.

The problem is that the EBEA does not seperately explain each process, probably because they are mostly the same.  However, they leave it up to the reader to fill in those blanks or, more accurately, make the mental substitutions in the areas where they follow the same path. So, when reading the process, one must mentally substitute "independent investigator" for "Attorney General" or "designated ethics supervisor." Understandably, most people not intimately familiar with the Act find it difficult to do so.

After that rather lengthy explanation, here is where that report from Tom Daniel fell in the process (emphasis mine):

Sec. 39.52.335. Summary of disposition of complaints and review by personnel board.

(c) If a complaint is dismissed under AS 39.52.320 or resolved under AS 39.52.330, the attorney general shall promptly prepare a summary of the matter and provide a copy of the summary to the personnel board and the complainant.

Investigator Tom Daniel was acting as the Attorney General.  According to the EBEA above, he was the one attempting to "resolve" the complaint.  His almost fearful insistence in the report that the Personnel Board "has the final say" is technically correct, but they already knew he was attempting this resolution and according to this part of the Act, it is already considered "resolved" once it's sent to the Personnel Board.

He was attempting this resolution through this part of the Act:

Sec. 39.52.330. Corrective or preventive action.

After determining that the conduct of the subject of a complaint does not warrant a hearing under AS 39.52.360, the attorney general shall recommend action to correct or prevent a violation of this chapter. The attorney general shall communicate the recommended action to the
complainant and the subject of the complaint. The subject of the complaint shall comply with the attorney general's recommendation.

Investigator Daniel was EXTREMELY lenient, just like Petumenos regarding the "remedy" he offered the Gov. to reimburse the State for some of her children's travel. His findings would allow her to avoid a Personnel Board hearing, thus keeping her meme that she was not found to have done any "wrongdoing."

Where Tom Daniel came up with the "remedy" is found in another section of the EBEA (emphasis mine):

Sec. 39.52.210. Declaration of potential violations by public employees.

(b) A public employee's designated supervisor shall make a written determination whether an employee's involvement violates AS 39.52.110 - 39.52.190 and shall provide a copy of the written determination to the public employee and to the attorney general. If the supervisor determines that a violation could exist or will occur, the supervisor shall,
(1) reassign duties to cure the employee's potential violation, if feasible; or
(2) direct the divestiture or removal by the employee of the personal or financial interests that give rise to the potential violation.

Again, here we have to substitute "designated ethics supervisor," which applies to the other Exective Branch employees, with "independent investigator."  Sending the very final report (per Investigator Daniel) was an offer of a "remedy" that required her simple acceptance of the terms (think "settlement") to avoid further action.  Tom Daniel was once again trying to give the Governor an "out," passing over the fact that she had actually collected the money under the conditions he found in violation of the Ethics Act and giving her the opportunity to walk away scott free if she would NOT SPEND THE MONEY.  Tom Daniel was acting with the full powers of the Attorney General, with the full knowledge of the Personnel Board and was allowing the Governor to avoid a hearing.

Her response?  She sat on it...and sat on it...and sat on it...for a week.  I believe she had every intention to continue to sit on it until after Sunday.  And then, I STILL believe she has EVERY INTENTION to start spending that money AS SOON AS she steps down, even though it will be considered a violation for up to two years, according to the Act.

Finally, let's put that "ethical Sarah" fantasy to bed right now.  They (Palin, Van Flein, Cole, Stapleton) are claiming that of THEIR OWN ACCORD, they decided not to spend a dime of that money.

Bullshit...

Sec. 39.52.210. Declaration of potential violations by public employees.
(a) A public employee who is involved in a matter that may result in a violation of AS
39.52.110 - 39.52.190...

This includes a public employee...a Governor...who has had a complaint filed against him/her.

...shall
(1) refrain from taking any official action relating to the matter until a determination is
made under this section

SHE WAS TOLD NOT TO SPEND THAT MONEY or the consequences would be that she WOULD be found to have done wrongdoing if the complaint went against her.  She probably was ALSO TOLD to stop collecting money...probably around the time that SOMEONE had C4P do the dirtywork for her!

The reason I'm so sure of this is I have the emails between my investigator and Van Flein for my own (Arctic Cat) complaint, as well as the emails my investigator sent me.  There is a constant dialogue that goes on, giving the Governor every opportunity to protect herself. I know this because of my experience with my investigator who, by the way, was Tom Daniel.

It's the same reason that I believe that she knew what was coming.  Her glaring self-interest made her resignation far from altruistic; she resigned because SHE WANTS THAT MONEY.  She resigned because little Sarah doesn't feel she should HAVE to spend her hard-earned book deal cash for the hours and hours Van Flein spent being her spokesperson on Eddie Burke, MSNBC, and for the time he was doing work she could have done but didn't want to do.  

It's amazing! The more we see behind the curtain, the more we find that Sarah Palin isn't a mystery at all!

 

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!