September meetings regarding Palin's legal fate--Personnel Board **UPDATE from the trenches**

by: Celtic Diva

Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 21:35:05 PM AKDT

Arctic Cat

Several weeks ago, I received this certified letter (after the post office lost-then-found-it...a drama all by itself):

"In accordance with AS 39.52.335(e), the Personnel Board will review the following documents at their next meeting scheduled to begin at 12:00 p.m. on September 9, 2009 at 3601 C Street, Suite 880, Anchorage, Alaska:

--report dated June 2, 2009 prepared by Thomas M. Daninels, Esq., RE: Analysis of Kellen Ethics Complaint; and

--written comments you submitted in response to Mr. Daniels' report dated June 17, 2009.

Although the board is not compelling you to attend, an opportunity for you to address the board will be provided if you choose to do so.

I sent the "written comments" they are talking about to the Personnel Board after the Arctic Cat complaint was dismissed.  This is the Executive Branch Ethics Act (EBEA) version of an "appeal" by the complainant.

My "appeal" was based on these points:

1) The Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act does not require proof of direct compensation to determine an ethics violation, only that the subject of the complaint "attempt to use his/her position for "benefit" or "personal gain."

My argument used the actual definitions of the words, plus brought in a number of examples, including a NASCAR study, proving the lucrative use of logos.  Sarah Palin knew that when she wore the outfit.

2)  The investigator ignored Alaska Executive Branch Ethic's Act's (EBEA's) definitions of personal "gain," "benefit" and "personal interest" and the relevance of these definitions in determining a conflict of interest by the Governor, claiming instead  that any "anticipated benefit" was all "conjectural."  

Again, I used the definitions of the words, and a past AG decision which cautioned people not to confuse the word "conjectural" with "potential."  A "potential" conflict is still a violation.

3)  The investigator ignored the importance of public officers avoiding a "conflict of interest" as stated in the EBEA's Declaration of Policy.

I pointed out that Palin had never worn logos to the Iron Dog before while Governor and there was NO NEED for her to do so this time...it was avoidable.  It was also awfully coincidental that she chose that moment when so much national attention would be turned her way.

4) The investigator stated to a reporter that the value of the Palins' 2008 sponsorship is "not yet available" per their Financial Disclosure Statement, a statement that was due to APOC in March of 2009, yet declared it irrelevant.

This was based on an interview with Rachel D'Oro:

The Arctic Cat sponsorship was valued at $7,500 in 2007, according to Palin's financial disclosure for that year. Daniel said the value of the 2008 sponsorship is not yet available, but added it's irrelevant because Palin had no agreement with Arctic Cat to wear the clothing.  ("Another ethics complaint against Palin dismissed," by Rachel D'Oro, Associated Press, http://www.adn.com/news/alaska... )

The point...by law that information was supposed to be available via her Financial Disclosure Statement due March 16th. Also,

"...since "benefit" includes as its definition "advantage or advancement," the 2008 Arctic Cat sponsorship figures from Palin's Alaska Public Offices Commission 2009 Financial Disclosure Statement are very relevant.  They could help verify whether a connection can be seen between the Palin's rise in the national spotlight and the increase in sponsorship dollars and opportunities for the Davis/Palin Iron Dog Team."

In a little over an hour, I'll be at today's Personnel Board Meeting defending my comments against Tom Daniel, the Investigator, in Executive Session...meaning I'll be all alone.  I'll update this post with the results tonight, after I decompress in the garden.

P.S.  Thanks to all of you for your support :D

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

Yup, it was a crazy meeting, as revealed by Sean Cockerham :

Tamagni said the board has represented the general public, followed the law and that "we spent a lot of taxpayer money, probably a little over a third of a million dollars or more. So I think we also have a responsibility to the taxpayers of this state."

He told McLeod she doesn't represent the majority of the people in the state and needs to think about what she's doing to the public. McLeod said she's keeping government accountable and common sense shows that Palin's personal interests were being kept above the state's interests. "And it's still going on by you guys defending it. That's a culture of corruption. Do not impugn my motive, Al, you know me better than that."

Tamagni: "Don't you impugn, infer, that I'm a corrupt individual. Because that's exactly what you've just done."

McLeod: "As a body."

Tamagni: "No, you referred to me personally...you'd better retract that because there's complaints that could be filed against you too."

McLeod: "For what?"

Tamagni: "Civil...civil cases. You just said I was corrupt."

They went back and forth for a bit.

"A board member has now threatened me," McLeod said.

Tamagni said it was not a threat, and he was simply advising her that "when you call me corrupt, for the record, that is defamation of character."

What Sean may have missed because it couldn't have been overheard on the tape (he was taping, my batteries died after five minutes...Murphy's Law...) is that Al Tagmani leaned over to Nikki Neal (Director of Personnel) and asked for a transcript of the meeting starting with Andree's testimony...he wanted it for potential legal action.

This exchange happened during the "public testimony" where, at one point, Mr. Tagmani also waxed poetic about how grateful we-the-public should be that we have an opportunity to speak at the meeting and that we are provided such a nice meeting space with (as he looked at the only visibly disabled person in the room...me) handicapped access.

When I testified (I wasn't planning to at the public testimony, just at the review of my "appeal" but I had to after the way they treated Andree) I reminded the Board that their entire purpose was to serve the public.  I also reminded them that there was a little thing called "The Open Meetings Act" and that the things Mr. Tagmani thought we should be grateful for were actually required by law and statute.   I talked about how I worked for a Federal agency for 15 years that had public meetings dealing with regulations about people's property, adjoining properties, schools and parks, etc...  I mentioned how frequently those meetings would hear testimony from angry people who used less-than-civil language...much more raucous than anything the Personnel Board had seen.  I also mentioned how I NEVER heard of any of MY co-workers accusing these people of "bitching" or threatened them with civil suits.    

It's called "public testimony" for a reason and may be the only time members of the public get to address issues that are important to them.  It's THE BOARD MEMBER'S RESPONSIBILITY to be professional and accept angry testimony from the public...whether they like it or not.  This Personnel Board is NOT up to the task of this job...not by a long shot.

By the way...I also explained to Mr. Tagmani that when he used the term "frivolous complaints" a few months ago, it was irresponsible.  "Frivolous" complaints do not take months to investigate.

There is much more to tell...I haven't even touched on the whole part of the meeting about Arctic Cat...they refused to reopen the case.  (I am still trying to get the MSWord file of my "comments" as a link on here...it's not working.)  I'll do an additional post tomorrow morning.

Complaint Dismissal...yep, this is the post...**UPDATE 2**

by: Celtic Diva

Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 17:51:46 PM AKDT

Yes, it happened and after the last two weeks, it's no great surprise.  Once again, we have a lawyer/investigator who based the determination VERY narrowly.  This time, Mr. Daniels claims that there needs to be direct proof of financial benefit.  (i.e. can I prove that someone put cash in their hand and said "now wear the jacket.")

However, according to the Executive Branch Ethics Law, I don't have to prove that.  In its definitions:

"benefit" means anything that is to a person's advantage or self-interest, or from which a person profits, regardless of the financial gain, including any dividend, pension, salary, acquisition, agreement to purchase, transfer of money, deposit, loan or loan guarantee, promise to pay, grant, contract, lease, money, goods, service, privilege, exemption, patronage, advantage, advancement, or anything of value

Advantage, advancement or anything of value -- The Davis/Palin Team already has an advantage over most of the other competitors and that includes others who have won before:

"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.)

In my complaint, the point was never about who gave her the jacket or how she got the jacket at all.  The point was that the Palins DERIVED BENEFIT from her WEARING that jacket based on the influence it had on Arctic Cat ALONE!  Sarah Palin wearing that jacket WHILE ACTING AS GOVERNOR through international media coverage gave Arctic Cat free exposure to hundreds of thousands if not millions of people.

The proof of that "benefit" is how the Arctic Cat reps the Palins on their website anytime the Palins give them exposure.

If you didn't get a chance to see SNL, be sure to check out the great National coverage we received here. You'll find this clip alone has been seen by more than 2.3 million people! We hope that you share in our excitement over the publicity we've received in the last week. We're proud of our brand and even more proud of you, and your commitment to sharing the Arctic Cat passion.

I find that to be pretty solid evidence that Arctic Cat has been influenced enough to effect decisions in the future (whether overtly or subliminally) regarding Todd Palin.  If Sarah Palin was a private citizen, that would be great.  However, she's not and at this event she was acting as the Governor of Alaska.

According to the Ethics Act definition of "benefit," that's enough.

In this report, I found one issue glaringly absent from Mr. Daniel's interpretation of the ethics law:

(A) A public officer may not use, or attempt to use, an official position for personal gain

So, Mr. Daniel's acknowledges that it's conceivable that the Governor wore the jacket because she believed doing so might result in financial gain in the future...doesn't that qualify as "an attempt to use?"  If that doesn't, what does?  Wouldn't this have been reason ehough to require a hearing and call witnesses or do we now only accuse someone of a violation if they confess to it?

Well, folks, the issues around Arctic Cat are not over.  

-- I await breathlessly the answer to APOC's questions regarding her Financial Disclosure form.  

-- I'm also still waiting for the final tally on how much the revised records request will cost

As soon as I decide on my next step, you guys will be the first to know!

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

Here's the AP story by Rachel D'Oro, where Thomas Daniel says something very interesting:

The Arctic Cat sponsorship was valued at $7,500 in 2007, according to Palin's financial disclosure for that year. Daniel said the value of the 2008 sponsorship is not yet available...

It's not available?  Palin's Financial Disclosure form for year 2008 was LONG AGO available:

Arctic Cat-----Discount on Snowmachines

That's all they wrote. Because there was no amount written down next to the name, that means the worth must be UNDER $1,000.00!!!!

Does that make any logical sense the year AFTER he won the race?

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

Again, my complaint WAS NOT about where the clothing came from...that's a completely different issue.  However, I did want to pass on Lawyer Tom Daniel's reply to my email question about the embroidery on the jacket -- the claim is that Scott Davis's wife did the embroidery on both of them.

She is on the right and you can see that her jacket is monogrammed as well.

I have a mother-in-law who is an amazing quilter and seamstress.  She does NOT have equipment that could sew through material that thick. Either Davis's wife does that stuff all of the time and has professional equipment or she did them by hand.

Of course, no one is talking about where Piper got her outfit.

Or where Sarah's matching pants came from: