Update on Records Requests and Emails...nothing has changed under Gov. Parnell

by: Celtic Diva

Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 12:06:54 PM AKDT

This week, Sean Cockerham and Alaska AP both wrote pieces on the Alaska Democratic Party's long and continued wait for their records request...Per AP:

Public records requested more than a year ago for Palin's e-mails still haven't been provided by the state, and Alaska Democratic Party Chairwoman Patti Higgins said she thinks officials are trying to hide something.

"I think this is a travesty of justice," Higgins told the Anchorage Daily News.

Public records in Alaska are supposed to be provided within 10 days, but the state can extend the deadline for complicated requests. State officials said it's taking a lot of time to process the request for e-mails because so many were sought.

According to both articles, the request includes emails to and from the governor with various keywords, including "Monegan" and "Wooten".  This betrays the date of the request which was September 2008, in the thick of the Troopergate investigation.

However, in Cockerham's article he adds this:

Democratic Party Chairwoman Higgins said she'll meet with the Alaska Civil Liberties Union to see if the ACLU would be willing to file a lawsuit seeking to force the state to produce the records, which she requested on Sept. 22, 2008. State officials said her request involves reviewing about 21,000 documents.

Higgins said she also worries the state will black out much of the information and charge large fees. "The other threat that the state is giving us is that this may cost us up to half a million dollars," she said, promising to sue if that turns out to be the case.

You wonderful folks whose money paid for our yet undelivered record's request have been incredibly patient, especially considering the conflicting issues between advocacy and reporting/blogging:  I can't always write about "behind the scenes" activities.  I have had conversations and email traffic with advisors over the months regarding this and I'm unable as yet to talk about things still in the works.  However, there is some news.

As a reminder, this is where we stood as of July 2nd, the last contact I had with the Department of Administration regarding this records request (click the letter for a larger, easier-to-read copy):

After the Cockerham/AP articles, it was suggested that I write a letter to Mr. David Jones, the lawyer from the Attorney General's office quoted in both articles.  

(Disclaimer:  I do not believe FOR ONE SECOND that the Democratic Party should pay a single cent for their records request.  I just used the information to highlight the differences.)

Mr. Jones:

I saw the quotes from you in the Associated Press story on the Democratic Party emails and was struck by several things:

a)  The Democratic Party has not paid you anything for their emails, and

b)  You send them regular notification that extensions have been granted.  

My public records request has not been in the works for as long as the one they submitted.  However:

1)  I sent a money order (receipt acknowledged in the attached July 2nd letter) for $5,552.64 to the Department of Administration for my records request to be completed.

2)  Only parts 3 and 4 were sent (see letter) which was only two pages and was a record request itself, which made it unnecessary to search for it.  The previous emails describing what the money would pay for makes that fact very clear.

3)  The money was to search for parts 1 and 2 (again, see letter).  I have heard nothing about it.

4)  I have also received nothing from your office or the Department of Administration stating that any extension has been granted.

5)  My request only covers a five employees' email accounts and about 10 months of time.

It seems to me that the Department of Administration is in violation of AS 40.25, which requires the agency to provide the information within 10 days of receiving the requested fees.  As it is now October and the money was received before July 2nd, I wonder if this also may qualify as a breech of contract, since I have not received the product for which I've already paid?

This email is to request a response from your office.

Thank you for your attention.

Linda Kellen
aka:  Linda Kellen Biegel

Note:  I purposely did not send any letters or "reminders" to the Department of Administration over the last several months regarding the records request because I wanted to see how long it took them to request an extension...THEY NEVER DID.  (I didn't want to tell you guys either because, yes, they still monitor this website.)

Yesterday, I received this letter from Michelle Fabrello of the Department of Administration in response to my communication to the Attorney General's office:

First off, these are emails between the Governor's Office and two members of the media...a gossip columnist and a buffoon.  I have searched and searched the list of exempted records from AS 40.25.140 and found not ONE SINGLE CATEGORY where those emails could fit WITHIN REASON even if they used petroleum jelly and a shoehorn.

Secondly, I like how THEY lay out my options.  They say that I "could treat the failure to respond" to the request as "a denial" and appeal "to Governor Parnell or to superior court."

Actually, I am much more likely to view the entire process THIS WAY:

AS 40.25.125. Enforcement: Injunctive Relief.

A person having custody or control of a public record who denies, obstructs, or attempts to obstruct, or a person not having custody or control who aids or abets another person in denying, obstructing, or attempting to obstruct, the inspection of a public record subject to inspection under AS 40.25.110 or 40.25.120 may be enjoined by the superior court from denying, obstructing, or attempting to obstruct, the inspection of public records subject to inspection under AS 40.25.110 or 40.25.120. A person may seek injunctive relief under this section without exhausting the person's remedies under AS 40.25.123 - 40.25.124.

I have some serious work ahead of me before I respond to this letter.

I look forward to your comments, suggestions, advice and rantings!

Look what you did!!!! Plus, responding to more obfuscation from the Office of the Gov.

by: Celtic Diva

Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 01:37:54 AM AKDT

First, let's gaze upon the fruits of ALL of your labor!!!!  On one hand, it made me feel REALLY good to see those numbers in writing!  I felt so proud of YOU FOLKS for doing this...it sure wasn't me!  

And I admit it, I felt a tad bit grateful to C4P and especially the Stapletongue for opening that gargantuan mouth and shortening our fundraiser probably by days!

However, all of that is replaced by the anger I feel over the games the Palin Administration plays on every level to keep their activities secret.  

Let's go back to several weeks ago, before icons and desecrations and pageant pictures in running magazines...back to trying to get over the initial shock of how much an "open and transparent Governor" actually costs a private citizen.

Let's go back to when we DARED to ask for a fee waiver and see the response!!!

UNDER $5.00??  Really???  So if Father Fiorelli at Our Lady of Perpetual Guilt made a records request of all emails dealing with charitable work, you guys would charge him if it was over $5.00???

Wow, that I'd like to see!!!!  Oh...but wait...it will cost me an arm and a leg to prove it, won't it?

Nice little racket you guys have going here!

Now comes the responses to my computer guru's questions:

Oh, yeah, that's much clearer and in layman's terms...except that it doesn't even make sense to the computer guys!

And I loved the part about "I don't have a breakdown of time for each task nor can I produce it.  We are not tracking our time to that level of detail..."

I see...so that's the story you give to the State budget people when one Department feels they are being overcharged for your services?  You are saying that you cannot provide them proof to the contrary?  Or is it that you just don't WANT to give them to us so that we cannot point out the amount of time you are charging us for overnight functions when no one is working...those labor-free calculations?  But that's covered in the next questions...

So the answer to #2 is "yes" and not-so-amazingly, so is the answer to #3!!!!!

"Reasonable processing time is chargeable..."  Realize, pretty much EVERY AGENCY does its "processing" overnight, while the IT department is at home in bed and if there is a night worker, he/she is reading a book or catching up on his/her email.  So exactly how is it "reasonable" to charge me $54.84/hr FOR UNMANNED COMPUTER CALCULATIONS??

Here's a direct response to this letter from a System Administrator at a government agency:

Getting someone's current email mailbox from the exchange email server should not be that lengthy of a task.  Even with a large mailbox, it is something that can be started and left to run.  Multiple mailboxes can be done at the same time.

Converting the e-mail to a .pst file would be part of pulling a user's email from teh exchange server.  There would be no need to convert it as a separate process.  Again, if it is going to take a while, it can be started and left alone until completed.  Multiple email accounts can be handled this way.

The SSO team uses this Paraben search tool to look for email.  It will only search "reasonable sized blocks" of data at a time.  This is really bizarre as using something like Microsoft Office Outlook will search the entire .pst at a time and you only have to start it once.  If you combined all the various .pst files into a single file, you could perform one search and be done with it.

Here are comments from a computer expert in the private sector regarding explanations given by the State's computer geniuses, Enterprise Technology Services:

They need the .PST files from Outlook for the individuals requested for that period of time, then run those files through Electronic Discovery software to put into a text searchable format. IPro EDD for example. This I know since I do it for a living every day. We do it all the time for attorneys.

Since it is unknown how many pages these collections will be, the onus is on THEM to meet the strictures of the narrowed request. That means they don't hand you a stack of 200,000 email and say "here you go", they just give you the ones responsive to the request. All the extra charges for winnowing through them should be born by the state and it's obviously outdated and ill equipped IT department. It is not your responsibility to pay for their inefficiency nor do you need an explaination of "boo-hoo our job is so hard". They're paid much better than I am and have state benefits. They should do their jobs before the F.B.I. marches in there, seizes it all and brings it to me to do their jobs for them.

Even with all the technical jargon, it's more than obvious that something stinks.

By the way, if you read this and YOU have any questions about the Office of the Governor's email and records request process, the Director of ETS (Information Technology) is:

Anand Dubey
anand.dubey@alaska.gov
(907)269-5744

Records Request--Quickie Update

by: Celtic Diva

Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 23:43:58 PM AKDT

I know you've all been waiting patiently for a number of things to happen:

--me to march down to the Governor's Office, check in hand

--your avatars to show up on your emails

--a post talking about all of the above.

However, here's the most pertinent information:

***THE MONEY IS IN THE BANK!!! It made it over from Paypal, WOOO HOOO!!!***

What I can tell you is that, after a three-week break, I'm now watching my friend's daughter again during the week.  As I don't want the kids' brains to rot while I'm constantly on the computer, I'm actually taking them places, doing things with them and working in the yard with them.

I'm also still waiting for the rest of the information to come in so I can do a complete post on all of this, including my response to their last letter and their "answers" to the computer questions.  (Still waiting for one of the "computer guys" to send me their response to ETS.)

Another thing I needed:  whose name is on the check?

I called Linda Perez yesterday then sent her an email today asking who I should make the check out to.  Here was her response this afternoon:

Hello Ms. Kellen,

I didn't receive a message yesterday, so my apology for not responding.  The check should be made payable to the State of Alaska and mailed to my attention at Office of the Governor, Division of Administrative Services, P.O. Box 110001, Juneau, AK 99811-0001.

Please call me at 465-3876 if you need any further information.

Thank you,

Linda Perez

So, they were quite clear about wanting the check sent to Juneau instead of bringing it to the Governor's Office here in Anchorage.

I talked to several people who are quite knowledgeable of records request issues.  While I was hesitant to put the check in the mail out of fear that it may be lost, they encouraged me to do that instead of taking it to the Governor's Office in Anchorage.  So, I'll be getting a cashier's check and mailing it certified, receipt requested.  That way, someone has to sign for it.

When I get the rest of the information I need (hopefully sometime late tonight) I can finish the letter I'll be sending with the check, get the check ready, take pictures of it, send it to Juneau and post all about it tomorrow!!!!

And regarding your avatars...they are coming along VERY slowly...the list is HUGE!  However, you should see some with more frequency very soon.  (Again, if you want a different one, email me with a screen name and let me know!)

 

The price tag of Palin's transparency: What that money is paying for...

by: Celtic Diva

Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 10:40:30 AM AKDT

So we know the final cost of:

-- doing a search on two names

-- in six email accounts

-- through 10 months worth of emails.

In this post, I've provided the third page that I requested from the Palin Administration--the explanation for those costs from Enterprise Technology Services (ETS).  

I know what you are thinking.  You are thinking EXACTLY the same thing I thought when first reading this page...

HUH???????

Luckily, not being a computer expert, I happen to know a number of them who could wade through this gobbildy-gook and either a) explain it or b) ask the right questions to get a better explanation.  One of them, a government System Administrator, provided questions for me to ask ETS about their processes.

From: Linda Kellen
Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 1:42 AM
To: 'Perez, Linda J (GOV)'
Cc: 'Nizich, Michael A (GOV)'; 'Perry, Kristina Y (GOV)'; 'Fabrello, Michelle A (GOV)'; 'Jones, David T (LAW)'; 'Leighow, Sharon W (GOV)'
Subject: RE: Records Requests

Thank you for the reply.

I gave the 3rd page of the letter to a Network Operations Manager at a federal government agency so he could explain it to me.  He had some questions:

1)  Please break down the parts of the job and the amount of time required for each part.  Please describe each step in layman's terms.

2)  At any of those steps, are you performing a batch process that requires no intervention until it's complete?  That is, is it something you start by defining parameters, and then wait until it's finished for the output?

3)  Agencies generally do their batch outputs overnight and off the clock. Are you billing the time for someone to sit and wait for that batch output?

4)  Since all email is "combined," why can you not search on multiple users/mailboxes at the same time?  Are you actually having a technician search on multiple users/mailboxes at the same time but just multiplying those same hours by the number of individual users for billing purposes?

5)  You indicated that the duration of time for which to search does not change the time required to perform the searches.  This seems to indicate that some process will automatically pull files for a set duration from the retrieval location.  Is this correct?

6)  Why do the e-mails need to be converted?  Shouldn't e-mails be in a text format already, even if it's an e-mail coded in HTML that adds tags but doesn't interfere with searching it for text?

7)  It sounds like you are doing a text-based search, meaning that you search for several text terms or phrases, correct?

8)  Why does the e-mail need to be converted twice?  From your statement before, it sounds like the e-mails have to be converted once when they are retrieved, then again when they get to the State Security Office for parsing.  Why is that?

I would like to know, what criteria do you use when you determine who gets a fee waiver and who does not?

Also, could I please have a list of the records requests you have filled in the last 6 months where fee waivers were granted?

Thank you for your help!

Linda

Though these questions are also somewhat technical in nature, one can glean from them a pattern.  In order for ETS to come up with the number of hours/charges per email account, they may be:

1)  Charging labor for services (batch output) that do not require labor (are generally overnight processes),

2)  Charging for a single search of all files, then multiplying those hours per email account to come up with the cost,

3)  Charging for processes (multiple conversions) that may be unneccessary.

So now, we eagerly await Ms. Perez's response, as well as her explanation for who is eligible for the fee waiver available for information in the "public interest" that is provided in the Alaska Statutes.

However, I'm not going to wait until then to start collecting money to pay the bill because I have a limited time frame in which to do that before they make me start the process all over again.  I've come up with an idea where you guys can truly help support this process but I'm still working out some of the details. Since I must get on the road in the next 1 1/2 hours to get back to Anchorage, I'll post more on this after the Assembly Meeting tonight.

Records Request Update

by: Celtic Diva

Tue May 26, 2009 at 11:01:42 AM AKDT

I've heard from quite a few people since publishing the "records request" post and had lots of support and many wonderful suggestions.  Thanks to all of you for responding!

As of this morning, I have not heard anything today from Linda Perez.  However, I didn't expect to because everyone is coming off of a long weekend.  I did shoot off another email to her, as I forgot one Office of the Governor employee, Mike Nizich.

I summarized the request, adding and subtracting the things I discussed in the previous email:

My amended records request reads as follows:

1) any and all email contact to/from Governor Palin, Office of the Governor employees Linda Perez, Mike Nizich, Bill McAllister, Kris Perry, Sharon Leighow that are to/from Alaska residents Eddie Burke and/or Sheila Toomey,  

2) any and all emails to/from the Governor and those same Office of the Governor employees that discuss Eddie Burke or Sheila Toomey,

3) all records requests submitted which target emails to or from Alaska resident Andree McLeod, and

4) all fee breakdowns, invoices or any other documents which assesses the cost of retrieving the McLeod emails and whether or not those fees have been/will be charged to the requester.

The date range for the request is July 1, 2008 to May 11, 2009.

I've also seen that Conservatives4Palin weighed in on this...very weakly which (of course) included ripping on my weight, my disability status (I am officially disabled but I DO NOT receive any Government funding), my lack-of-employment status (My husband is the provider...I'm a stay-at-home mom, I get some donations off of the blog [thank you!]I occasionally sell free-lance writing and I'm also doing childcare during the summer.  However, I'm doing the childcare for a good friend of mine for expenses only.  She's a working mom who can't afford $700.00/month for summer care for one child.)

It's amazing how the insults change with the circumstances.  Because I posted my financial situation (which can be verified) to the Office of the Governor, I'm getting the insults mentioned above.  However, in past posts, it was stated as if it was fact that I was getting paid by Obama?  (Those missed checks are sure piling up since last summer's Convention!)

This reminds me of the last gasp of a dying animal.

Palin's transparency-for-sale: At what cost? For this Alaska resident, about $65,000...**UPDATE**

by: Celtic Diva

Fri May 22, 2009 at 12:33:06 PM AKDT

Recently, I've done several posts on "backlash" attempts by the Administration.  Several of those posts expose how the Administration uses members of the media like Eddie Burke and ADN's Sheila Toomey as tools of their backlash.  These posts have directly led to several records requests which I have filed with the Palin Administration.

Pursuant to Alaska Statute 40.25.110, I request the Office of the Governor to duplicate and provide me with a copy of:

1) any and all email contact between you or any employee of the Office of the Governor (statewide) and Alaska resident Eddie Burke,  

2) any and all emails to/from you or any employee of the Office of the Governor (statewide) that discuss Eddie Burke in any way,

3) any and all records requests submitted which target emails to or from Alaska resident Andree McLeod, and

4) a fee breakdown, invoice or any other document which assesses the cost of retrieving the McLeod emails and whether those fees have been/will be charged to the requester.

(This was basically the same records request I used for Sheila Toomey as well.)

This week, I finally received a response to those requests.  They also provided me with the "costs" I would have to provide before they would be able to do this records request for me:

To provide complete responses to the email portions of your request, we will need to electronically search the email accounts of the 71 current and former employees who have worked in the Governor's Executive Offices since December 2006.  For that electronic search, we will need the assistance of the State Security Office in the Department of Administration, Division of Enterprise Technology Services (ETS).  ETS estimates that each email account retrieval, search, and record production will require 16 hours to complete.  The ETS hourly rate is $54.84, so ETS estimates its costs per email account will be $925.44.  Based on that estimate, ETS's estimated costs for obtaining records from 71 employee email accounts total $65,706.

Division of Enterprise Technology Services (ETS) is the State of Alaska version of any company's IT department.  ETS employees are public employees, paid with public funds.

In other words...ETS employees work for the people of the State of Alaska.

Yet, as an Alaskan citizen, I am being charged money...an EXORBITANT, UNREASONABLE amount of money...for a records search which is my statutory right as an Alaskan citizen.  

I'm being charged directly for something that's ALREADY PART OF THEIR JOB!

Plus, if it takes as long as they claim to do a simple email search on two names, then ETS should lose the "technology" part of their name...they have none.

Of course, just like with any "deal," now starts the negotiation. I sent these questions back to Linda Perez.

1) Am I correct in understanding your claim that it costs $925.44 to search and copy emails from one email account?  

2) Is this the standard rate and is everyone charged this fee who makes a request of this nature?

I received a reply, where Ms. Perez states:

1. Yes, the Division of Enterprise Technology Services charges $925.44 to conduct an electronic search of a state e-mail account and make electronic copies of the search results. I have attached a breakdown of the ETS process and resulting fee estimate.

2. Yes, these ETS costs are a standard rate that we charge whenever ETS conducts an electronic search of a state e-mail account to respond to a public records request.  Of course, these rates could change based on, e.g., changes in personnel costs or changes in the amount of time needed to complete the work.

I guess the ONLY way to find out if that's true with Sheila Toomey and Eddie Burke is to do my records request, right?  See the catch?

Of course, Governor Palin's penchant for secrecy is...well...no secret anymore.  Many who have filed records requests with the state have had to look into their pocketbooks first to determine how much honesty they can afford.  This was well documented by the New York Times during the campaign:

The governor and her top officials sometimes use personal e-mail accounts for state business; dozens of e-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that her staff members studied whether that could allow them to circumvent subpoenas seeking public records.

Rick Steiner, a University of Alaska professor, sought the e-mail messages of state scientists who had examined the effect of global warming on polar bears. (Ms. Palin said the scientists had found no ill effects, and she has sued the federal government to block the listing of the bears as endangered.) An administration official told Mr. Steiner that his request would cost $468,784 to process.

I'll be sending my request modification to them sometime today.  While I will be significantly shrinking the parameters, which should significantly reduce the price, it's still going to cost several thousand. (I'll have to figure out the money end when I know the final tally.  I jokingly asked my husband if we could sell the house.  He didn't laugh.)

I'll update you when I know the final cost of this "open and transparent" government.

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

My reply to Linda Perez:

Ms. Perez:

Thank you for your prompt reply.

Several points:

-- I want to make sure that I have a clear understanding of the situation so, in summary:

1)     The ETS charges $925.44 per individual email account if they find it necessary to electronically search it.

2)     The ETS per/hour charge is $57.84

3)     This means that per individual email account, it takes an ETS employee 16 hours to do an electronic search.

Is this correct??  

If so, what type of "electronic search" on one email account for two names takes 16 hours?  Is that in anticipation that there will be a great many emails that will fit the "Eddie Burke" and "Sheila Toomey" search parameters?  If I shorten the date range to, say, one year or maybe six months...will it take less than 16 hours?

-- Your original response to my request (pdf file "Linda Kellen fee letter") also stated:

"Once you pay the fees and the record compilation is completed, we intend to review the records to determine whether they are truly responsive to your requests and whether they include any confidential or privileged information that should not be disclosed."

Since the letter was unclear, I wanted to ensure that some of the "16 hours" for the electronic search time was NOT actually taking into consideration the time required to "review" the documents to determine "privilege."  My understanding is that any estimate of anticipated costs for search and copying cannot include time likely to be spent reviewing the documents to see if they can or should be withheld due to a claim of privilege. (5902 S-11105 Fuller v. City of Homer, 113 P.3d. 659, 666)

-- I would also like to make these modifications to my records request:

1)  Change the "start date" to July 1, 2008.

2)  Limit the Governor's Office employee email accounts to be searched to Governor Sarah Palin, Linda Perez, Bill McAllister, Kris Perry and Sharon Leighow

3)  I would like all other parameters of my request(s) to remain the same.

-- Finally, per Section 40.25.110 of the Alaska Statutes, I would like to request a reduction or waiver of the final fees, once we have come to an agreement upon the modified request.  As we live on my husband's income because I do not have regular employment due to disability, my family would be unable to afford the extra expense.  Also, my request and use of these records more than qualifies as an exercise benefiting the public interest.  The results of my records request(s) will be published on my blog, Celtic Diva's Blue Oasis, which is specifically geared to Alaska issues.  I'm also using this as an opportunity to educate my readers not only on the workings of state government in general but specifically on the process surrounding the State of Alaska Public Records Act.  

Thank you and I await your response,

Linda Kellen Biegel

Thanks to your comments here and on Mudflats, as well as some of the private emails, I was able to craft that response!  Thank you for all of your help and support!

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

by: Celtic Diva

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

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

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

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

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

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

Per the APOC:

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

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

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

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

Per the APOC:

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

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

Or would you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The second question surprised me:

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

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

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

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

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

*All information for this piece was obtained:

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

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

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

3) - via emails from the participants.  

End-of-Week clean-up crew Part I--all the Palin news I hadn't covered yet

by: Celtic Diva

Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 00:45:30 AM AKST

Oh-so-much-activity in the land of Palin...

Rachal D'Oro, one of the AP Alaska writers, did a story on Kris Perry's VP campaign travel with Governor Palin being listed as "gifts" from the McCain Campaign.

An aide to Sarah Palin is disclosing as gifts more than $13,000 in airfare and lodging from the John McCain campaign, logged while helping the Alaska governor with state business during her bid as the Republican vice presidential candidate.

The Anchorage Daily News posted the results of a records request filed by Kyle Hopkins.  These covered travel for Bill McAllister (Press Secty), Robert Cochrell (security) and Kris Perry (Aide).  It provided Perry's itinerary for September through November and broke down the lodging and air travel "estimated costs" for each stop, as they were flying in a chartered aircraft.

Much like Palin's budget, these weren't "estimates" as much as they were "fantasy prices."

Oct. 3, 2008 by plane depart St. Louis to Dallas, TX to San Antonio, TX to Denver, CO (overnight in Denver)

Airfare:  $96.50

Hotel:  $125.00

ARE YOU FREAKIN' KIDDING ME???????????????? Linda Perez, the person whose supposed to be monitoring the ethics of the Executive Branch is trying to pass this off as fact?

Ms. Perez, that trip is as likely to have cost $96.50 as the average oil price for Alaska turns out to be $75.00 a barrel in 2009!!

Not...bloody...likely!!!!!!

Obviously, there will be a great deal more on my weekend posting!

Next, let's move to something a bit more WWF--David Schuster's interview of John Zeigler, the "documentarian" (and I use that title loosely) whom you may have noticed started a firestorm with his interview of Governor Palin.

A little from the transcript:

Shuster: Wait as second, wait a second. You think it's accurate to use the word 'assassinate'? Regardless of the heavy criticism, doesn't it diminish real assignations when you throw out the word 'assassinate' because Sarah Palin didn't like some of the questions she got in an interview?

Ziegler: I believe her character was assassinated, David, and I believe this network played an enormous role in that process and you took the clip of the Katie Couric out of context.[..]

Shuster: But John, even in the documentary, at least in the clips that you've released, she still can't answer, at least it takes her several opportunities, she still really can't say what she reads. Does Sarah Palin take any responsibility....

Ziegler: David, that's ridiculous. Apparently you didn't watch the clip.

Shuster: I did, She talked about news articles that are widely circulated in Alaska

Ziegler: You're a joke.

By the end, I was waiting for the cage match!

So, now that we've descended to this level...

**start the track of banjo music**

...let's talk about Sherry Johnston selling (?) her story to People Magazine!

No...I'm not kidding!  In the grand tradition of Levi and Bristol and Gov. Sarah herself, Sherry has chosen to bare her soul to those cutting-edge professionals at People.  Of greatest interest to me was the fact she claimed to be addicted to OxyContin, something with which I can surely empathize.  Also, she discussed her disabilities were back related...an ailment that commonly drives people to abuse painkillers.  The other issue that will be of some interest to several bloggers I know is that she seems to be the only one who has actually talked publicly about seeing her new grandchild, Tripp:

Lately, Johnston's spirits have been lifted by the birth of Levi and Bristol's son, Tripp Easton Mitchell Johnston, who arrived Dec. 27. When she saw the baby the day he was born, "I started bawling," she says. "I think he looks just like Levi."

As for being a grandmother, she says, "I'm very excited. Absolutely."

Yeeeeee Haw!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!