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?

 

Undisclosed--What Palin's Financial Disclosure left out--Pt. 2 Arctic Cat & Iron Dog sponsors

by: Celtic Diva

Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 18:58:09 PM AKDT

Sarah Palin filed her final POFD (Public Officer  Financial Disclosure) on time according to APOC (Alaska Public Offices  Commission) rules.

However, the document was less than thorough.

In Part One, we talked about how Palin failed to disclose a trust worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.  In Part Two, we'll look at the evidence that proves Sarah Palin is being less-than-truthful about Arctic Cat and Todd's other Iron Dog sponsors.  

The whole "Arctic Cat" issue began with:

--the ethics complaint I filed against Sarah Palin with the Personnel Board,
--its subsequent dismissal and
--my attempt at an appeal.

This all led to a simple question asked by Andree McLeod during public testimony at an APOC meeting:

You (Sarah Palin) 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?

Ms. McLeod was referring to Palin's Financial Disclosure for calendar year 2008.  The only thing disclosed as coming from the Arctic Cat sponsorship was a "50% discount" on a snowmachine and no actual monetary figure was included.  This violates APOC's requirement that anything over $1,000.00 needs to include the value if it was higher than $1,000.00.

As a result, APOC sent that question in the form of a "letter of inquiry" to Sarah Palin and received a response back claiming the amount of the snowmachine discount was "50% of the factory cost" and was therefore a "trade secret."

APOC rejected that claim and gave Palin a deadline to report the information.

Palin/Van Flein responded, now claiming ignorance as to the details of the contract, even though some of the details were revealed in the previous letter and even more of the contract details were shared in this one.  For example:

-The racers receive their Arctic wear for free while for others (through them) it was 50% discount and,

-Todd Palin receives a "sponsorship fee."

The APOC Staff made a recommendation, somehow coming to the conclusion that Palin had "revealed enough."

The Commission rather soundly rejected the staff recommendation during their September meeting and instead tasked them with finding out even more information from the Palins, including the amount of the "sponsorship fee" described in the last letter from Van Flein/Palin to the APOC.

This is where the investigation of last year's Financial Disclosure form stands at this moment.  

This brings us back to Monday's "Final" Financial Disclosure.

Regarding the Iron Dog and sponsorship benefits for the Palins--according to the paperwork, the only mention of ANYTHING Iron Dog (other than listing Todd's "winnings" as $3,500.00) is identifying Arctic Cat as a sponsor.  The only monetary value: "Arctic Cat discount on snowmachines is $3,252.00". So, the Palin's are claiming that the extent of Arctic Cat sponsorship value to Todd Palin is $3,252.

That's an interesting figure for a few reasons:

1)  On Palin's Financial Disclosure for calendar year 2007, she lists the total value of the Arctic Cat sponsorship as $7,500.00.  That was the year that Davis/Palin won the Iron Dog and the rewards for that win should have been reaped during the 2008 race...the year that Palin failed to attach ANY monetary value to the Arctic Cat sponsorship.  2008 was also the year that Sarah was the Republican VP candidate.  The Palins are asking us to believe that the value of the Arctic Cat sponsorship has GONE DOWN by over $4,000.00 AFTER their latest win and the former-Gov's new national stature?

2)  They have still dodged listing that pesky "sponsorship fee" that already has them under investigation for last year's POFD.  During the September APOC meeting, the other Commissioners were enlightened by Commissioner Frederick, a lawyer from Wasilla who also happens to be a musher savvy about sponsorships:

When discussion ensued, Commissioner Frederick asked a list of salient questions based on the the most recent letter:

--The second paragraph states that:  "In addition, the company pays a sponsorship fee and gives Team Arctic Wear to the Racing Team."  Frederick explained that she had not really noticed that line before and in the discussion, proceeded to explain that sponsorship fees as high as $40,000 and $50,000 are not unheard of, especially considering the winning record and the high-profile of the Davis/Palin team.  When asked if Palin/Van Flein had ever revealed that amount, Jerry Anderson admitted they had not.

I believe that this non-disclosure may turn out to be by far the most significant.

3)  As low-ball as the disclosed Arctic Cat figure may be, it is still higher than the $1,000.00 requirement for APOC disclosure.  Remember, Palin did not disclose a monetary figure for Arctic Cat for Calendar Year 2008, giving the impression that their monetary value was under $1,000.00.  In other words, we would have to believe that the snowmachine Todd Palin used last year in 2008, the year after his Iron Dog win, would have been much lower quality than the one they used in 2009.  

4)  The Palin's are attempting to pass-off their sponsorship discounts as the actual "value" of the item.  This is not correct.  In the instructions on filling out the POFD form, Section #6 is for listing "other income" and Section #7 is for "gifts."  The instructions for "other income" state:  "Report the source and amount of any other income over $1,000 not reported elsewhere."  However, the section on "gifts" states:  "Type, source & value of gifts worth over $250. Include multiple gifts from one source if they exceed $250."

Sponsorship actually combines the two.  A sponsorship deal includes a substantially discounted price for merchandise in exchange for the high-profile advertising of the successful race team. The actual retail value of the mechandise is THE INCOME BEING EXCHANGED.  In other words, they should be listing the "value" of the snowmachine as income, not the 50% they didn't have to pay after the price was already lowered TO THE FACTORY COST per the contract (that Sarah has never seen)!

The extremely low monetary value listed for the Arctic Cat sponsorship AND the absence of any other sponsorship names defies logic in comparison to the past two POFD's and for the other reasons listed above.  It also flies in the face of all evidence pointing to Davis/Palin having recently hit sponsorship gold...or maybe platinum according to their sponsorship levels on their website. Per Sports Illustrated:

Some Iron Doggers have spent upwards of $30,000 to finance a once-in-a-lifetime run into the wild heart of Alaska. Tapping their credit cards, they've shelled out $10,000 each for a 2009 snow machine, $10,000 more for an identical training sled, $2,500 for the race entry fee and a few thousand more for trailing airplane support. Palin and Davis, in contrast, have spent almost nothing. They are prodigiously sponsored, with their names monogrammed in script on their matching Arctic Cat jackets. (Palin even has the names of his five kids and his wife, SARAH, THE GOV, appliquéd on his snow machine hood.) They give inspirational speeches at trade shows. They are both adored and reviled. They are the New York Yankees of snow machining.

That one paragraph says so much, but I'd like to call your attention to the comment about the training sled.  Again, per Sports Illustrated:

Behold Todd Palin's snow machine, dangling from a truck's winch in the icy gray murk of an Alaskan winter morning. The machine is gleaming, new, scarcely ridden.

Scarcely ridden...which would indicate he either a) doesn't train much or b) he has another machine to train on.  We know the former isn't true, per People:

During each of the past 14 years, Todd has spent nearly two months training up to five hours a day for the 2,000-mile Iron Dog marathon. "He wouldn't do it if the family wasn't behind him," says Davis.

...and...

"Todd has been training a couple of hundred miles a day to get ready," Todd's racing partner, Scott Davis, a seven-time winner of the Iron Dog told PEOPLE. "We're ready."

Additionally, we have this picture from the Davis-Palin website. In a photo gallery titled "2009" I found this picture of these three identical Arctic Cat snowmachines (the ones they used during the Iron Dog 2009) at Scott Davis's place in Soldotna.

That's two for the race and one...errrr...extra?  I suspect there are four but the fourth one is not in the picture. Luckily, Men's Journal can explain it to us:

Davis owns a major construction company with lucrative state contracts, and this building - a kind of gearhead paradise, Alaska Rich Guy Version - is the reward, with a 40-foot mobile home parked along one wall, a shiny four-wheel ATV, and room for Davis's dozen snowmobiles, or, as the locals call them, "snowmachines." Four new ones - identical Arctic Cat F6s - take up the main work area, two for Davis, a seven-time Iron Dog winner himself, and two for Palin.

Did anyone see a "training sled" listed on the POFD?

Other benefits caught by the media:

Here is this winch and a really nice trailer, per Sports Illustrated:

And then there's the Arctic Cat mechanic, also per Sports Illustrated:

And then, a few hours later, Alaska's First Couple flies home to Wasilla, to resume normal life. Todd goes to his daughter Willow's basketball game. He tinkers with the boiler down in the basement, changes a water filter, and then gets together with Calvin Nolan, the Arctic Cat mechanic, to nail down what, exactly, went wrong.

There is also nothing mentioned on the POFD about transportation to speaking engagements or even the air and ground support costs on the Iron Dog Trail...hmmmm...

Remember..."Palin and Davis, in contrast, have spent almost nothing.  They are prodigiously sponsored..."

And while we've been rightly questioning the true extent of the Arctic Cat sponsorship, let's not neglect to mention that Davis/Palin has MANY sponsors who reach the Silver, Gold or Platinum levels on their website.  Of course,  all financial information is devoid from the site.  However you can tell who is at least at the "Silver" level by whose logo is actually at the top of the site.

Esquire Magazine, however, may have provided us with another sponsorship clue during their description of Davis/Palin getting the sleds ready for the 2009 race:

They've fitted them with additional gas tanks, sawed off pounds of extraneous metal and plastic, swapped in new Öhlins shocks, and made hundreds of other tiny tweaks and adjustments. The Öhlins cost about $2,500 a set, but they're worth it. You do this long enough and you learn where to scrimp and where to splurge.

I doubt there was any serious "splurging" going on since, if you check their website, Ohlins is at least a Silver sponsor.  More interestingly, even if their sponsorship agreement is the same as Arctic Cat, 50% off, that still puts those shocks OVER THE $1,000.00 REQUIREMENT TO DISCLOSE!  Where are they on the POFD form?  How many of the rest of those Silver, Gold and Platinum sponsors should be listed in the disclosure?

I think these two posts have made it extremely clear that what Sarah Palin tries to pass off as "disclosure" is simply a slap in the face to Alaskans.  She may have attempted to follow the laws before her VP Candidacy but shows no sign of it anymore.  She could potentially believe that no one can/will hold her accountable or maybe she just doesn't care as she has no intention of paying any fines even if they were to be levied against her.

On either count, I guess we'll have to see.

 

Latest complaint dismissal highlights Palin/Van Flein unethical spin about ethics...Part 1

by: Celtic Diva

Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 04:15:21 AM AKDT

In Mel Green's piece "The 2 million dollar meme" where she discusses the Palin Administration's faulty budget numbers regarding the "cost of the complaints," she also addresses some very important points about the ethics complaints themselves:

1) What qualifies as a "frivolous complaint"?

2) Why would it cost thousands of dollars for the Personnel Board to "dismiss" an ethics complaint?  

She goes further into discussing the fable of the "frivolous" ethics complaints and questions how one could even determine if a complaint was "frivolous."

Ray Ward's July 6th complaint filing and dismissal today gives us an opportunity to more clearly explore that question and gives the Governor another opportunity to misrepresent the process.

Until the State of Alaska has better checks and balances (i.e. a Legislative Branch that will do its duty and actually hold the Executive Branch accountable) I am unwilling to call ANY ethics complaint "frivolous." However, I can present the EBEA (Executive Branch Ethics Act) process, as I became aquainted with it through my filing and continuing experience with the Arctic Cat complaint.  

There are multiple levels that a complaint travels through during the process and actions can be taken at each level.  Looking at those can help determine whether or not the Personnel Board actually viewed a complaint as having potential.

--First, to file a complaint:

(b) A person may file a complaint with the attorney general regarding the conduct of a current or former public officer. A complaint must be in writing, be signed under oath, and contain a clear statement of the details of the alleged violation.
(c) If a complaint alleges a violation of AS 39.52.110 - 39.52.190 by the governor,
lieutenant governor, or the attorney general, the matter shall be referred to the personnel board...

To summarize, the complaint must:

a) quote the portion of the EBEA that the charges address,

b) do a thorough write-up, explanation and provide evidence on what the charges are and

c) be notarized and signed "under oath" before the document is turned in to the Department of Law, it's first stop.

--If it is a complaint against the Governor, the Lt. Gov. or the AG, it is reviewed by Julia Bockman or someone in her office at the Dept. of Law for the a,b and c requirements listed in the above paragraph.  If it lacks any one of those things, generally the filer is contacted and is told they have X number of days to comply before the complaint will be tossed...yes, that happened to me as I did not understand the "under oath" was part of the notarization process.  (They have a special stamp for it.)

Note:  ALL OF THIS is SUPPOSED to be done in the Department of Law, before it goes to the Personnel Board.

Interestingly enough, Mr. Ward was clearly not given the same time frame (or ANY time frame) to correct his error like I was.  Perhaps it was because THE DEPARTMENT OF LAW determined that the rest of the complaint did not fit the requirements it needed to pass it on to the Personnel Board.  As I said before, those determinations are made BEFORE the complaint goes to the Board.

I don't think that the vagueness of the Governor's statement on this dismissal is that surprising in light of that. Why?  Because it shines a light on the fact that the rest of the complaints DID fit the requirements and DID get passed to the Personnel Board.

(By the way, this also emphasizes one of the Palin Adminstration's "big lies"...the alleged "Edna Burch" complaint.  If her name was fake, she would never have been able to have it legally notarized...it would not have passed the "sniff test."  If "Edna's" complaint DID make it to the Personnel Board, then Julia Bockman or someone in her Dept. of Law office seriously fell down on the job.)

So, now we know one way that a complaint can be rejected...by the Department of Law itself.  It should take no more than an hour of Julia Bockman's time to do so.  

--Moving right along...

...The personnel board shall retain independent counsel who shall act in the place of the attorney general under (d) - (i) of this section, AS 39.52.320 - 39.52.350, and 39.52.360(c) and (d). Notwithstanding AS 36.30.015(d), the personnel board may contract for or hire independent counsel under this subsection without notifying or securing the approval of the Department of Law.

Summarizing:  if the complaint fulfills the requirements (and if the complaint is against the Gov, Lt. Gov or the AG), it is sent to the Chair of the Personnel Board (Debra English) who then hires an independent investigator.  This investigator DOES NOT use the resources of the Department of Law...a conflict of interest in the case of the AG, the Governor and the Lt. Governor.  That's why he/she is an "independent investigator" as required by statute.

--From now on, substitute "independent investigator" for "Attorney General" as we are talking about complaints against the Governor:

(d) The attorney general shall review each complaint filed, to determine whether it is properly completed and contains allegations which, if true, would constitute conduct in violation of this chapter. The attorney general may require the complainant to provide additional
information before accepting the complaint. If the attorney general determines that the
allegations in the complaint do not warrant an investigation, the attorney general shall dismiss
the complaint with notice to the complainant and the subject of the complaint.

The next level:  once the "independent investigator" gets the complaint that has previously been determined to fit the requirements, he/she can then determine whether or not the complaint warrants an investigation.  

According to investigator Thomas Daniel, that was his determination with the SarahPAC complaint because he said it came under Federal jurisdiction.  I am unaware of any other ethics complaint that was dismissed at that point of the process.

--So then, the investigation proceeds:

(f) If the attorney general accepts a complaint for investigation, the attorney general shall serve a copy of the complaint upon the subject of the complaint, for a response. The attorney general may require the subject to provide, within 20 days after service, full and fair disclosure in writing of all facts and circumstances pertaining to the alleged violation. Misrepresentation of a material fact in a response to the attorney general is a violation of this chapter. Failure to answer within the prescribed time, or within any additional time period that may be granted in writing by the attorney general, may be considered an admission of the allegations in the complaint.
(g) If a complaint is accepted under (f) of this section, the attorney general shall investigate to determine whether a violation of this chapter has occurred. At any stage of an investigation or review, the attorney general may issue a subpoena under AS 39.52.380.

According to the Arctic Cat dismissal report from investigator Thomas Daniel, he gave Governor Palin the 20 days and then an extension to get back to him regading the questions he asked.

The Governor's attorney Thomas Van Flein did not respond until after the deadlines had passed.

--Dismissal:

Sec. 39.52.320. Dismissal before formal proceedings.
If, after investigation, it appears that there is no probable cause to believe that a violation of this chapter has occurred, the attorney general shall dismiss the complaint. The attorney general shall communicate disposition of the matter promptly to the complainant under AS 39.52.335(c) and to the subject of the complaint.

Arctic Cat was filed in March and not dismissed until June 3rd.  It was investigated as were (to my knowledge) the rest of the complaints.  There were ample opportunities to dismiss them prior to an investigation but the investigator determined that EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE COMPLAINTS warranted those investigations before it could be determined WHETHER THERE WAS A VIOLATION.  I disagree with the dismissal of Arctic Cat and took the action available to me as I'll discuss in the next post...contining the explanation of the ethics complaint process. However, I believe this post has shown this complaints had merit in the eyes of the investigators, thus putting the question of whether the complaints were "frivolous" to rest.  

I get mail, part DEUX... mail from trolls!

by: lazarhat

Sat Jun 27, 2009 at 08:03:22 AM AKDT

I'll be out for the rest of the day.  Sadly, with the worsening climate (and I'm not talking about weather) I don't feel comfortable publicly stating where I'm going ahead of time anymore.  I'll be back with a post this evening.   - promoted by Celtic Diva)

Oil Well Willie writes:

"well, you know what they say...   (0.00 / 1)
in politics, if you have to keep explaining your
stupidity you are losing losing.

speaking of losing, you and your tribe are 0-15
on the ethics complaint boondoggle.

tut tut"

Well see Willie it's like this:

    By whose scorecard? Yours and my friend Navylcc19's? Oh that's right -- it's that chatty little blog Sarah runs (or designates someone to run FOR her at her behest):

http://www.gov.state.ak.us/arc...

    The game is fixed and run by employees of the executive branch if you're talking about the personnel board! With lawyers bought and paid for by either Sarah (defending her) or the state -- which, oh wait! -- is ALSO Sarah since the executive branch has hired several local lawyers to act as 'investigators' on behalf of the board... and Sarah IS the 'CEO' of this entire circus. Who is wasting money on lawyers? For most of these cases 'investigators' have been retained by the board. This is open and transparent? A process in a representative democracy where the people have no say, no oversight? These are NOT independent counsels under ANY traditional meaning of the term.

    I am not impugning any of these people or the jobs they have done, I'm asking for a little checks and balances here, is all. The personnel board is absolutely, positively, 100% the WRONG venue for investigations into executive branch ethics complaints. Time to hit the reset button for Alaska and go back to the rational, open, honest and BI-PARTISAN days of the ORIGINAL 'Troopergate' investigation by our state legislature. The one that had started BEFORE the McCain campaign! The one that Sarah, Meg and the rest of the bunch (allegedly paid for by the McCain campaign) would later work so hard to discredit and derail as being "partisan" and "politically motivated".

    Again, the people of Alaska didn't start this fight, Sarah did when she went on television, while on the campaign trail with McCain and 'Troopergate' was just starting to be investigated in Alaska by the legislature's independent counsel as agreed upon by a bi-partisan vote. She uttered the words "hold me accountable". (We're trying dear, but you must stop squirming. Admit your sins, fess up, move along. You did with the travel expense problems, so keep up the good work! Go Sarah! Go you!)

    So we didn't start it but we will damn sure finish it AND in the appropriate LEGAL venue instead the big red "NO" stamp from what appear to be her rubber-stamping cronies on the personnel board. And while we do it, peacefully, with humor and grace, we will NOT make personal threats against the opposition. Nor shall we publish personal information including phone numbers for them on the internet. Nor will we use our radio programs as bully pulpit to suggest that listeners harass the opposition or do crazy stuff like threaten them with violence. Lastly we promise that we will NOT unleash our Chief of Staff to suggest that, and I quote from the ADN article (from a press release put up on the state of Alaska website), "I hope that the publicity-seekers will face a backlash from Alaskans who have a sense of fair play and proportion...". What does that mean, Mr. Nizch? Wasilla justice? Should I be worried about getting kneecapped by Tonya Harding's thugs, sir?

So in summation Mr. Oil Well Willie, when Governor Palin is driving this bus of state we Alaskans like to call "Alaska" we just want to make sure she's keeping her eyes on the road, doing her job and NOT issuing chatty TWEETS to the rest of the cheerleader squad.

-Laz

A simple, obvious solution...

by: lazarhat

Fri May 29, 2009 at 08:43:07 AM AKDT

    I have an idea that the bulk of the charges are perhaps from overpriced lawyers acting as 'investigators' in lieu of an actual attorney general or independent counsel -- remember Sarah hired these personnel board investigators so they are NOT independent -- at $400 an hour, defending Sarah from any 'complaints'. Just sayin'. Ahem. Cough cough.

-Laz

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

by: Celtic Diva

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

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

Examples:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

photo courtesy of Shannyn Moore

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

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

During the meeting, English:

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

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

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

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

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

Personnel Board Meetings fall under AS 44.62.310 which states that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other signs of unprofessionalism:

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

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

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

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

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

by: Celtic Diva

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

VERY quick update:

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

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

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

Ethics complaint dismissal:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sec. 39.52.320. Dismissal before formal proceedings.

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

He didn't do his job.

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

Alaskans for Truth announces a "Call to Action"

by: Celtic Diva

Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 06:00:00 AM AKST

Also, the Legislators emails and any further information can be found (you guessed it) at http://alaskansfortruth.blogsp... -- please go there to email our Senators and Representatives so that they know that possible purjury (Petumenous Report), illegal access to privacy information (Branchflower Report...Todd Palin), misuse of government office (Branchflower Report), etc...are not acceptable codes of behavior according to the Alaskan people!  

Alaskans for Truth, a non-partisan group organized to hold Alaska's leaders accountable, has issued a Call to Action to all concerned citizens to join them in insisting that the Alaska State Legislature respond to the findings of its own Legislative Council's Investigation, known as "Troopergate", as conducted by Special Counsel Stephen E. Branchflower and take the following actions:

- Censure Governor Sarah Palin, who the Branchflower Report found to have "abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act" which provides "The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust.

- Seek contempt charges against the Governor's husband, Todd Palin, and the state officials who willingly ignored the Legislative Council's subpoenas during the investigation.

- Hold hearings on whether Gov. Palin and her husband, Todd Palin, committed perjury in their sworn statements to Timothy Petumenos, in his function as independent counsel to the Alaska State Personnel Board.

- Call for an independent investigation to determine if Alaska Attorney General Talis Colberg or others, engaged in criminal witness tampering in advance of the Branchflower investigation.

The Legislative Council's investigation cannot be illegitimized. Though the Personnel Board tried to do so with their own report, the findings in the Legislative Council's investigation stand. Now it's up to the Legislature as a whole to follow up on the ethics violation and the other serious matters, let alone potential crimes that may exist.

Gov. Palin campaigned on the promise of an open, honest and transparent administration. It's our responsibility as citizens of this state to stand together and uphold the ethics in which Governor Palin believes.

The Personnel Board and Investigator Petumenos's Report

by: Celtic Diva

Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 23:37:11 PM AKST

1) He cleared Sarah Palin of ALL ethics violations in not only Troopergate but Andre McLeod's complaint;

2) He cleared ALL of her state-employed cronies;

3) He denied Walt Monegan a hearing and, while he was at it;

4) "These findings differ from those of the Branchflower Report because Independent Counsel has concluded the wrong statute was used as a basis for the conclusions contained in the Branchflower Report, the Branchflower report misconstrued the available evidence and did not consider or obtain all of the material evidence that is required to properly reach findings."

I was floored, depressed, furious but should not be horribly surprised.  The McCain Campaign has been acting like they had this in the bag from the beginning.  The date of the meeting has always been suspcious.  Palin's willingness to be under oath with Petumenos was questionable.

And to top it off...one of the reasons he used to reject the Branchflower Report was because it was "incomplete" because it didn't have testimony from all of the subpeonaed witnesses.

You know, those witnesses who chose to ignore their subpeonas.

I talked to someone who reminded me that I can deal with this AFTER the election...that tomorrow is the most important thing we have to do right now.  She was right.

It ain't over 'til it's over, Sarah...**UPDATE** Videos of Alaska Independence Party

by: Celtic Diva

Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:47:42 PM AKDT

The state Personnel Board investigation of Gov. Sarah Palin's firing of Walt Monegan has broadened to include other ethics complaints against the governor and examination of actions by other state employees, according to the independent counsel handling the case.

The investigator, Tim Petumenos, did not say who else is under scrutiny. But in two recent letters describing his inquiry, he cited the consolidation of complaints and the involvement of other officials as a reason for not going along with Palin's request to make the examination of her activities more public.

Two other ethics complaints involving Palin are known. One, by activist Andree McLeod, alleges that state hiring practices were circumvented for a Palin supporter. The case is not related to Monegan's firing. The other, by the Public Safety Employees Association, alleges that trooper Mike Wooten's personnel file was illegally breached by state officials.

It also seems that Walt Monegan is fighting back in a really big way:

Gov. Sarah Palin's former public safety commissioner says the governor smeared him and he wants a hearing to clear his name.

Walt Monegan on Monday asked the state personnel board to allow him a chance to disprove the vice presidential nominee's assertion he was a "rogue" and insubordinate commissioner. The board is investigating Palin's July dismissal of Monegan.

"Governor Palin's public statements accusing Mr. Monegan of serious misconduct were untrue and they have stigmatized his good name, severely damaged -- and continue to damage -- his reputation, and impaired his ability to pursue future professional employment in law enforcement and related fields," said the hearing request filed by Monegan's lawyer, Jeff Feldman.

At Andrew Halcro's blog he has the link to Monegan's hearing request.  Andrew also promises to reveal more information on his 1:00 PM radio show on KENI today.

Of course, let's not forget the interesting revealations on the building of the Palin house, which seemed to (coincidentally) coincide with the building of the Wasilla Sports Complex right down the road:  

What an unusual situation. Giant construction contracts are being awarded to campaign contributors at the same time that "buddies" who just happen to be contractors are "helping" Todd build their two-story house. At the same time Sarah ensures there will be no public record of building permits. WTF? How is this different from the Stevens situation?

We need to know:  

Who Built Sarah Palin's House?

Then we have the great investigative work being done by Max Blumenthal and David Neiwert over at Salon.com regarding Sarah Palin's "right-wing pals"--connections like former Alaska Independence Party Chairman Mark Cryson, who most Alaskans didn't realize had such an influence over Sarah's career:

Though Chryson belongs to a fringe political party, one that advocates the secession of Alaska from the Union, and that organizes with other like-minded secessionist movements from Canada to the Deep South, he is not without peculiar influence in state politics, especially the rise of Sarah Palin. An obscure figure outside of Alaska, Chryson has been a political fixture in the hometown of the Republican vice-presidential nominee for over a decade. During the 1990s, when Chryson directed the AIP, he and another radical right-winger, Steve Stoll, played a quiet but pivotal role in electing Palin as mayor of Wasilla and shaping her political agenda afterward. Both Stoll and Chryson not only contributed to Palin's campaign financially, they played major behind-the-scenes roles in the Palin camp before, during and after her victory.

Palin backed Chryson as he successfully advanced a host of anti-tax, pro-gun initiatives, including one that altered the state Constitution's language to better facilitate the formation of anti-government militias. She joined in their vendetta against several local officials they disliked, and listened to their advice about hiring. She attempted to name Stoll, a John Birch Society activist known in the Mat-Su Valley as "Black Helicopter Steve," to an empty Wasilla City Council seat. "Every time I showed up her door was open," said Chryson. "And that policy continued when she became governor."

***UPDATE***

Daily Kos has a diary with a number of videos linking Palin to the Alaska Independence Party.  This one is of a CNN interview today with Max Blumenthal, the Salon.com writer who was up here doing extensive research on Sarah Palin's right-wing influences:

Here is an interview that Max David did with former Alaska Independence Party Chair, Mark Chryson while Max was in Alaska:

No, Sarah, it ain't over 'til it's over.  Alaska is not the same state that you left.