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?

 

A study in thievery and copyright violation...**UPDATE** New version...accusing me of crimes at end

by: Celtic Diva

Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 12:44:00 PM AKDT

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

Wow, everyone thinks they are an Alaska lawyer!!!!

****************************************************************************************************

This video has been circling the internet.  Other than being hysterically funny in many ways, my first reaction was blatant rage...the same with the other "witches" involved in this situation.  In order to make this video, they couldn't come do anything other than ROB US of our photos and other materials...without permission OR EVEN ATTRIBUTION.

Here's the letter I've been sending around.

To whom it may concern,

I am the owner of the copyrighted material, and am acting on my own behalf with this claim.

The Ning video "Ethicsgate" uses photographs which I took, and were used without permission or attribution. The images appear at 5:52, 6:26, 6:37, 6:46, 6:56, 7:02, 7:06, 7:11 in the video.

The video is located here - http://fairmediaforum.ning.com...

The party who made the video has already had their account suspended at YouTube, TwitVid and other video sharing services for copyright violations relating to this video.  

The links to the sites where the video has already been removed for copyright violations are:

http://en.sevenload.com/videos...

http://rattube.com/2009/07/24/...

http://www.youtube.com/index?y...

http://twitvid.io/ac70

I state UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY that:

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

I have a good faith belief that the use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law; and

This notification is accurate.

Authorized Signature: Linda S. Kellen (aka:  Linda Kellen Biegel)

Ning did remove it.  Everyone that either Jean, Shannyn or I have sent this email to have done so (with different locations of our photographs, of course.)  I even sent Kyle Hopkins the information because they used HIS video at 4:08.

However, policing this has turned into a full-time job for three people and quite frankly, we don't have that kind of time.  Soooo...rather than try to make these folks adhere to the law, the "three witches" decided to put their "Alaska Witch Trials" on our blogs for your perusal.

Setting the record straight regarding the content of the film:  it is clear that these folks have NO IDEA what a small town Anchorage is.  It is true that, NOW, many of us who entered the fight against Palin have met each other.  However, Palin has only herself and her followers to blame for that:

--The entire reasoning behind calling this some kind of "Democratic Conspiracy" is a fallacy.  The person who wrote the first complaint...well, after Palin herself...was Andree McLeod (whom I met for the first time at a mid-session Anchorage Legislative meeting at the Library).  Anyone who knows ANYTHING about Andree the Republican is that she wouldn't be in a "cabal" with Democrats for anything.

-- I met Sondra Tompkins at the first rally against Palin.  She gave me her number and told me to let her know about any other rallies because she wanted to speak out against Palin's claim of being a "representative" of mothers of children with disabilities...Sondrea herself being the mother of an autistic child.  Regarding ethics complaints...Sondra contacted me after I filed mine and told me there was one she wanted to do but didn't know how to do it (there is no clear explanation in the Ethics Act on what a complaint should look like).  I sent her my template. SONDRA IS NOT A DEMOCRAT and was a Republican her whole life.

-- Kim Chatman called me because she wanted to know what to expect from the Palinistas after getting involved with the Juneteenth lawsuit.  I had several phone calls with her about that.  I found out that she did an ethics complaint on the AK Fund Trust the day I got the press release...from someone else. Kim does not get involved with ANY CANDIDATES because she volunteers every year for the Division of Elections.

--I met Valerie and Zane Henning for the first time in the hallway when the Personnel Board had their infamous snotty meeting.  They ARE NOT DEMOCRATS.

Basically, all of us ended up meeting or contacting each other in some way AS A RESULT OF THE VITRIOL we were receiving from the Palinistas.  Mike Method's radio program they had towards the end of the video that included me with CC was the 4th of July...just THE DAY AFTER PALIN ANNOUNCED HER RESIGNATION.  Gee, what a SHOCK that everyone was listening to/wanting to talk on one of the only two local Progressive radio talk shows!!!!!

Anyway, feel free to watch the video.  If you have any questions for me, leave them in the comments.  I'll be on the iPhone for the rest of the day and will update as I can!

A Considered Response

by: JustMe

Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 06:02:46 AM AKDT

Here is my rant!!!!

Anchorage Daily News:
EDITORIAL
Our view: Ethics: take it seriously
It's too easy to file frivolous complaints under current law
Published: July 24th, 2009 11:33 PM
Last Modified: July 24th, 2009 11:34 PM

Gov. Palin's critics have finally hit upon an ethics complaint that is getting some traction. Until now, she has repeatedly complained that many complaints filed against her were bogus and clearly politically motivated. Those bogus complaints are a disservice to her and to Alaskans.

I am offended that the editors of the Anchorage Daily News are so willing to buy into and perpetuate the "bogus complaint" argument that Governor Palin has made.  It does a disservice to all who file those complaints, as not one single person filed these complaints did so with the knowledge and intent that they were "bogus" or "frivolous".    The previously dismissed complaints did have merit.

They have been "dismissed" for a variety of reasons, many of which people have disagreed with, yet still they are all worthy of consideration.  To suggest that these complaints are politically motivated is disingenuous at best considering that we know for a fact that not all of those who have filed these complaints are of an opposing political party to the Governor, in fact the person who has filed the most complaints against the Governor, who used to have the complete and total support of the Governor for her "attack dog" status in going after government abuse & waste is of the same political party as the Governor is.

What is a disservice is to have people like you, who are supposed to be fair and impartial, become for lack of a better phrasing, a cheerleader for the Governor.   You bring down your own credibility by maintaining this cry of "bogus" and "frivolous" when it comes to describing the actions of citizens using the tool given them by law to hold their elected official answerable for their actions.  

I would also point out that these complaints must be properly notarized and involve an Alaskan citizen, so this claim that some character from a television show or movie was a filer of a complaint is a lie, and I suspect deliberately done to heighten the idea that this is all done as a political agenda to smear the Governor.    

The state needs a strong ethics law that enjoys public confidence and doesn't needlessly alienate politicians who would gladly move to weaken it.

You are correct that the state needs strong ethics laws, yet that isn't the only factor at play.  The state needs strong laws that are actually enforced, consistently, with fair and impartial accountability for those who don't follow those laws.  

Isn't Governor Palin the one who championed herself the ethics reformer?  Is she not the one who charged headstrong into the arena claiming that she was a champion of these tougher standards?  She claimed the state needed ethics reform and then went on to tour the United States of America during her bid for the Vice Presidency claiming she had reformed the ethics structure within her state.

Is she not the one who is responsible for the laws that are now on the books in the state of which she is Governor of?  Or was?  Did she not quit her job on the Oil & Gas Commission claiming that her inability to bring attention to the public the ethical problems she encountered?  She bellowed the lack of transparency in the ethics statutes, and decried the 'behind closed doors' way of doing things.  She has changed her tune dramatically now that those complaints are directed at her, and apparently now that the shoe is on the other foot, she wants things to go back to the way they were.

So, is she simply a hypocrite, or is like so many who use claims such as "ethics reform" as a talking point in speeches,  simply good at picking up on what people want to hear, with no real thought behind what it actually means to have to  do more than "talk the talk"?

Frivolous complaints against Palin have diverted attention from a case with substance, like the current one involving her legal defense fund. They make it easy for politicians to claim they're victims, being harassed by unfounded complaints, as Gov. Palin has done. They also sometimes require a legal defense, and can cause a public official to rack up debt, as Palin has also done.

Again, calling the complaints "frivolous" makes it seem that as if you have any idea of what you are talking about, and gives rise to the assumptiong that they are indeed just as you and the Governor suggest, when I can think of only 1 that might be considered "frivolous" and really it had to have been dismissed out of hand due to the requirements for filing not being met, nor even close to being met, and I stated previously, I think that this case in particular is being used to make a point without providing the facts of the situation, so that is deliberate and underhanded way to try and gain sympathy.  

One complaint was apparently not notarized correctly and not only not filed due to that but also it had no supporting evidence for the allegation made, so again it was dismissed before it made it past the doorway.   All the other complaints were submitted with clear viewpoints as to why they were thought to have merit, and with corresponding evidence as well as statute information provided to support the complaint.

 How can that be considered frivolous?  Because the Governor and her administration said so?  

Simply because an investigator decided to dismiss the complaint it is now considered frivolous?   Should we then consider every complaint against someone who later has the charges dismissed as frivolous and  deemed as unworthy of being considered?  No that is not the way it works.   While many may disagree with the results of the complaints, and equally many are unhappy that the complaints were even brought to light, this is how our system of holding politicians and elected officials accountable for actions they take, is meant to work.  

A claim is made, an investigation takes place, and then if it has merit it goes forward and if not it is dismissed.  
Governor Palin's debt is her own doing.   Based on the laws and statutes, the Governor has the right to submit her bills, for complaints that are dismissed, to the state for payment, and has not done so for her own reasons, which I believe is based on a fear of those bills becoming part of the public record. There is only one reason for her to acquire debt in the case of a complaint and that is if it has merit enough to be investigated.   If it is merit-less, and without justification, what possible cause is there for her to need extensive legal counsel for the matter?

The debt that the Governor has found herself in is entirely due to the complaints that were found to have enough merit to investigate and need clarification from her legal counsel, and therefore those costs should be born by the Governor herself, and not the state, nor the constituents she is supposed to be representing.

This current case, regarding the Legal Fund that Governor Palin authorized on her behalf, is justified as were other cases, in my opinion, and no other case should detract from this one, just as this case should not detract from any other.   These are individual cases and each should be judged on it's own merits and not whether or not others before it have had merit or not.

Politicians have made a fortune and a lifestyle in portraying themselves as "victims" of one thing or another and Palin is not any different in that respect.   She has just taken the victim status to a new level in my opinion, crying over every comment made that she doesn't like, arguing over every perceived slight and negative comment, even while claiming to have thicker skin, and telling other politicians to suck it up and prove themselves worthy.  She is a walking case of "do as I say, not as I do" if there ever was one.

The Legislature should amend the executive ethics act so as to discourage people from filing frivolous complaints.

Perhaps it would be wise instead of claiming that we need to discourage people from filing frivolous ethics complaints, the editors should classify what they consider to be "frivolous" complaints.   As explained previously, this argument that people are filing complaints that they know to be frivolous doesn't hold water, since the majority of the complaints have had merit, have had supporting arguments and information of the statutes and how they are believed to have been violated attached to these complaints.

The obvious way to do that is to take away people's incentive to publicize the filing of a complaint and to make political hay out of it.

Perhaps it is better to ensure that the people have faith that the system is going to work the way it should, and not worry that the system in place is going to simply overlook or dismiss a valid and reasonable complaint that is made.  When people lose faith that the system in place is going to work , or feel that the system is rigged or designed in an inherently unfair manner, what are they left with?  No one to hear their complaints in a fair and impartial arena.  

If, as in the case in Alaska, the citizen feels that the system is not working the way it is supposed to, and that there is no "next level" to take their concerns that is fair and unbiased, what are they supposed to do?  Ignore what they consider to be illegal or unethical behavior until such time as they can get the laws and or statutes changed?  

Right now, it's easy to blab about an accusation and make it seem like a public official is guilty of something, whether that's true or not.

Would this be the same as saying a complaint had no merit and was dismissed such as the case with the Governor working out a deal to repay  the money she charged to the state for her children's travel, and then later claiming it was without merit and was dismissed?
And does this type of thing happen every day, citizens make complaints about their elected officials, and if worthy of investigation ,it is, and if not, it is dismissed, or no investigation need take place.  

If you are someone who cannot seem to get your concerns taken seriously what recourse is there?   Don't we have the whistleblowers act for this reason?  To protect those who bring misconduct to light and to prevent them from being punished for it?  

I would also point out that having a Governor & his/her administration  address his/her constituents as serial complainers, or claiming harassment, or calling these complaints, "malicious attacks" demanding a "backlash" among other things, while gleefully offering such comments as "we won"  or "How much will this bloggers asinine political grandstanding cost all of us in time and money?" all on the states website, makes him/her look childish and immature at best, and vindictive and retaliatory at worst, considering these ethics laws are those championed by the current Governor as her own brand of "reform" over previous ethics laws which she felt needed to be improved.

When a complaint is filed, the filing should be kept confidential until an investigator determines whether it has substance.

In a perfect world, yes, but this is not a perfect world, nor a perfect system. The system is broken, and until it is fixed people are going to continue to ensure that abuses they feel worthy of notice are going to be made public, if not to get action taken in or by the system, then to attempt to hold the person filed against, accountable in a public manner, in the hopes that once made public the abuse or unethical behavior might be curtailed.

And once again when people have lost confidence in the system, it's just not surprising that they would ensure that people know what they believe to be an abuse.   Governor Palin did not like the fact that ethics complaints were confidential previously but has now changed her mind since they have been aimed at her rather than someone else.

At that point, whether the ethics law was violated or not, the complaint should be public, along with the investigator's report. To make sure people don't publicize a complaint prematurely, their complaints should be dismissed if they talk about them before they have been investigated.

These points have already been covered previously, so see above!

Also, each person should be limited to one complaint per year. And if we really want to weed out silly complaints, those complaining could be required to file a bond of, say, $100, refundable if the complaint has merit.

I cannot for one second believe that anyone would suggest that we charge people to hold their elected officials accountable for their actions or limit the number of times a person can speak out on abuse by an elected official!  This is simply outrageous, and not worthy of consideration let alone a rebuttal.

The complaint over the legal fund for the governor brings to light another problem: The veil of secrecy surrounding a complaint stays in place too long. The public learns what's going on only if the investigation finds probable cause and the matter is sent to hearing.
A probable violation can be settled in secret, short of a hearing, with corrective action.

I believe it is stated that only the Governor (or whomever the case is brought against) can authorize the release of  the results  in any case being brought against her.  We will only hear about these matters if she waives confidentiality on these matters and from what we have seen she will only do so if the results are in her favor.

That is another inherent abuse of the system as if there are findings of guilt then it can be kept secret, and away from the public viewpoint and goes against everything we as a country should stand for.  Allowing corruption, abuse of trust, illegal and unethical behavior to be maintained in secrecy is abhorrent to any decent  and honest person.

At least for politically appointed officials, lieutenant governor and governor, the case should be opened to the public once it has been vetted by an independent investigation.

This then brings rise again to the perception that the public has over whether or not these cases are truly being handled by an "independent" investigation or not, and as the cases with Palin have proven, many do not feel that the handling of these cases has been fair and impartial or done by an "independent" investigator.

Whether the case is dismissed or moves forward, the public has a right to know at this point. For high-ranking political officials, here is little harm in saying a charge was filed but found to be unfounded.

I agree that regardless of the outcome the public has a right to know.  Dismissed or not, the public has a right to know what their elected officials are doing, and why people believe that they are violating the trusts put in place by our laws and statutes.

With civil service employees, keeping confidentiality for unfounded claims might be justified.

I am curious as to the wording of this and it's inclusion in this rant against all those who have made the choice to stand up for what is right against the Governor who claimed ethical superiority over past behaviors and demanded better guidelines with which to follow,  since there is no explanation given

If we can get rid of frivolous complaints, and save the publicity until there's been an investigation, the ethics law will be stronger.

Frivolous ethics complaints do not make it before the board.  If they are frivolous they are dismissed out of hand and nothing comes of it.   Using this straw-man argument is just a way to divert attention and side step the real issue at hand.  The system is broken and needs to be fixed, and calling the complaint frivolous or merit-less, all of them that have been dismissed does nothing for your credibility, instead it proves you are no more than championing the idea that citizens who feel they have a valid complaint and want to hold their elected officials accountable are wrong to do so.  

BOTTOM LINE: Some minor changes in ethics laws could discourage frivolous complaints.

BOTTOM LINE: Some major changes are needed but they involve a personnel board who does not answer to the person they are supposed to investigate and rule for or against, perhaps a higher standard for ethics complaints, and a truly open and transparent process that allows the public to have confidence in the system.

Now to offer some of my own suggestions as to what I feel needs to take place, and all due to the Governor and her time in office......

**No governor should be entitled to collect per diem for living in their own home when they are given a place to live in Juneau.  The statutes are clear that the Governor's & Lt. Governor's salary is "in full", and should not include any additional payment.  Making phone calls from your home, or giving interviews should not be cause for charging the state additional monies.  You are on the job 24/7 and part of your job includes those duties, whether from your office or your home.  If you make a long distance call from your home phone pertaining to strictly state business, the cost of the call can be reimbursed, but the call must be recorded as to who and when the call was placed, and should be strictly related to state business.

**If a governor is going to be out of the state for longer than one week then the reins should be handed over to the Lt. Governor until or upon the return of the Governor to the state/job on a full time basis.

**The state should not pay for the first family to travel to any event outside the state. If they are invited somewhere, then those who invite them should cover the cost of the family if they want them to attend an event, if the Governor or Lt. Governor wants their family to go along even if not invited to attend an event, and the event coordinators are unwilling to pay for it then it should be up to the Gov./Lt. Gov. to pay for that themselves.

**Travel by the  family within the state, on the states dime, should be limited to important state functions, where the family is expected to attend and not simply celebratory ones such as the Iron Dog, the Iditarod, Founders day, etc...

**No state employee should be paid to travel with the Governor or Lt. Governor unless the travel is strictly state business, and can be proven to not include any partisan events, or political personal business.  If the employee wishes to accompany the Governor or Lt. Governor, they must use either personalsick or vacation time to do so.

**Spouses are not permitted to attend meetings, or conferences unless the other members in attendance  have their spouses included and it  is not involving state business.

**Spouses' of state employees should not be included in emails that involve state business, nor should they be given state paid for communications (Like Todd Palin's state funded Blackberry)

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

I'll tell you who cares...

by: lazarhat

Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 18:58:09 PM AKDT

"Who cares?

Lets raise more money to donate to hungry lawyers, 1 billion people in this world are hungry and you waste your time on a politician, any politician, You propogate the cycle of liberals and conservatives, they all suck. You are 0 for 16 on wasteing money on Palin, Why bother ? Every politician is crooked, life is short, do something honorable with your time. A health bill that wont be used for politicians or federal employees, kinda strange. Instead of us being food in Soylent Green we are just money to the political world. WAKE UP"

To a diary that was posted half in jest... I had already posted the (what I thought to be) scathing "BULLSHIT!" diary and posted the other as a non-related joke. Here is my (as usual) verbose response:

    Palin set up the game with the layers of lawyers, not us, sir. We are asking her to be held accountable for her actions as a paid public servant of the state. There are certain conditions all citizens must meet when serving their constituency as Governor, some even governed by actual laws and statutes, but in my mind the penultimate one is that of being honest.

    "Why bother, they're all corrupt", you say? Exactly. Because apparently people like you feel it's a waste of time (not to mention money) to hold them accountable and to insist that they conduct governmental business in an open and transparent manner. As Governor Palin, who RAN as an ETHICS candidate, has promised her citizens on not one but several occasions publicly in press conferences.

    Speaking ONLY for myself sir -- openness and transparency SHOULD be the standard to which ALL public servants be held, regardless of party affiliation. Besides, in MY opinion, all and I do mean ALL political parties should be abolished as the tools of serfdom they have become... you have money you get access to power, you don't have the money, tough luck. That is the system we have now. Are you satisfied with the way it presently functions? I certainly am NOT.

    It is the system we are saddled with by our recent corporate overlords and war profiteers. But these circumstances are changing through HONORABLE actions like Linda's! It is a hard struggle. One for which I have an idea that all humans are equipped to tackle. It's not only a right, it is an absolute necessity and a responsibility that citizens take an active role in government. After all, it is allegedly "Of, by and FOR the people...", is it not? You don't get to representative democracy by hitting the "feed sim" button on your Nintendo Wii repeatedly. It's hard work. Hard work that we should be embarrassed about if we ARE NOT ACTIVELY PARTICIPATING IN OUR OWN REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY.

    Corporations have the money so they get the access. In a sense, perhaps by "bringing some of them low" or reintroducing them (and the politicians those corporations "own" through their multimillion dollar "campaign contributions") to accountability, personal ethics and personal responsibility during this time of economic meltdown perhaps they are all receiving a re-education at the hands of the real masters of the purse strings: the American Taxpayer.

    Both politicians and corporate leaders need a wake up and "come to Jeebus" moment to remind them that ultimately we are ALL humans here and we ALL need to chill the fuck out and stop screwing over each other for political, personal monetary or power gains. Since the taxpayer holds the purse strings, we should have all the power, right? Can corporate America finance it's own $700 BILLION bailout? What do you think? It's time for the taxpayer to grow a pair and remind all these idiots for whom it is that they work.

    Without our cooperation and consensus they might as well be selling BIC lighters in Hell or filibustering their own (mostly) dumbass legislation that does nothing other than to declare the ptarmigan as the state bird or the marmot as the state rodent.

    On a more serious note, pushing ideologies for the sake of merely pushing an agenda and ignoring any consequences to your fellow humans is not only criminal, it's a surefire prescription for the extinction of ALL humans. Seriously. The sooner we all learn to get along and stop arguing over the petty bullshit, the better.

    But I'll remind you sir that we didn't start this "fight" with our governor, she did when she said the words "hold me accountable" and that is a direct quote. We may not have started it but I can damn sure assure you we're going to finish it.

-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

Of Sarah and the problems of 21st Century media...

by: lazarhat

Tue May 19, 2009 at 20:40:59 PM AKDT

    There is absolutely NO transparency for investigations of ethics violations by the governor precisely because the APOC AND the Personnel Board are (I believe) staffed by individuals appointed by the person they are supposed to be investigating! They owe their jobs and salaries to her appointment. If your job is on the line with every word you utter, how honest are you going to be -- especially if you absolutely must render a non-biased decision about ethical lapses by your own boss and immediate supervisor? I know very few people altruistic enough who are willing to sacrifice their very livelihood for the sake of truth.

    Frankly, the whole damn shebang needs to be structured differently, with representatives appointed by all three branches of government. Otherwise it's all a waste of time and money, a ruse that only serves to rubber stamp tacit approval of the governor's actions as opposed to actually investigating any alleged ethics violations.

*****

The tragically related second part:

    And here is where the folks at the ADN and all news media outlets in general have failed us as a society -- many of them are culpable for seemingly abandoning their role as the 'Fifth Estate' -- in the absence of any non-partisan investigation by individuals NOT beholden to the subject of any said investigation, journalists are supposed to shine the light of truth and investigate as guardians of the public trust. All news media is supposed to be on that very same page. Don't take my word for it. Thomas Jefferson said it himself.

    In many instances the ADN has acted as governor Palin's head cheerleader, totally abdicating their responsibility as watchdogs against dishonest politicians and defenders of the public trust. The ADN (and they're NOT alone) continues to marginalize itself in the eyes of the news consuming public exactly because they just aren't doing as much investigative journalism as they should. People buy newspapers to read news, not hear about bread and circuses.

    Birthday games? Football picks? Vote on which syndicated comic they will drop or acquire? Celebrity news? I read newspapers for NEWS not entertainment. That's why they're called NEWSPAPERS, not ENTERTAINMENTPAPERS. You want entertainment? There are plenty of alternatives available. Over the past few decades and in the interest of supposedly broadening their subscriber/reader base (and by extension the profits of their corporate masters) newspapers in particular have continued to expand their coverage of things that don't even pass the sniff test for being even remotely related to 'news'.

    Over time, entertainment has continued to nudge real news off the page. There's even a word for it now -- 'infotainment'. Perhaps the most telling thing for me personally is that the dictionary for this blog didn't even highlight that word as misspelled! It treats it as an actual word. Because NOW it is.

    For example, the lines between what constitutes what IS or ISN'T actual news continues to be blurred by outfits such as Fox News who seem to be more news creators and news makers rather than news reporters or journalists. They are more like publicists and paid propagandists for neocons and their talking points and for supposedly grass roots movements like their recent ridiculous episode of promoting and/or sponsoring "Tea Baggers".

    It should be stated that if you know anything about media then you know that Rupert Murdoch already did his best to kill Republicanism (as opposed to the current state of monarchy/parliamentarianism) in Australia and succeeded fabulously. Oz voted to stay with their system rather than move towards becoming an independent Republic as was heavily promoted (with bread and circuses, natch) by Murdoch's media conglomerate 'down-under'.

    Murdoch is on course to do exactly the same here in America, helping to kill off true conservative Republicanism by promoting the substitution of the neoconservative movement in its place (but not before he's added billions of dollars in ad revenue profits from their infotainment lineup, bilked almost willingly from the rubes who swallow Murdoch's bullshit hook, line and sinker). Greed drives the 'infotainment' which in turn pushes real news off the air which then pays for more bread and circuses, etcetera, ad infinitum.

    The only winner in that scenario? The billionaire media mogul Rupert Murdoch. The losers? ALL OF US when someone inspired by Glen Beck and his ilk, with their communist/socialist/fascist/militia fantasy scenarios amping up the paranoia which may cause unbalanced individuals to go on killing sprees because they been told repeatedly and incessantly the lie that Barack Obama, dressed in mufti and turban, waits silently, lurking around every dark corner ready to take your guns away from you.

    There are several documented examples of this having happened already and for anyone to deny the linkage is utter foolishness. This is not news. This is the promotion of violence wrapped in the cloak of hate speech. Scenarios my ass. Glen Beck has advocated violence. Rush Limbaugh hopes our president fails. As much as I disliked Bush and especially Cheney I never hoped they failed because if our leaders fail, so does America. Despite all the unlawful and unconstitutional activities Bush and company seemed (in retrospect) to be involved with, you didn't hear 'left-wing extremists' promoting armed insurrection against them. We are a nation of laws. Promoting violence in the face of unsubstantiated lies ("Barack is a Muslim... he's not an American... he's coming to take away your guns...") is unmitigated, absolute TREASON against this country and it's people. ALL OF ITS PEOPLE.

    For some, watching media outlets like Fox News is like watching a rattlesnake trying to crawl up it's own ass in order to bite YOU. It's funny at first but with enough effort the rattler may be strong enough to puncture it's own skin, thus spraying some poison in your eyes. Continuing the analogy further, the best way to kill this particular rattlesnake may be to cut it's head off. Just say NO to huge media infotainment conglomerate monopolies and back it up with real laws that prevent the incestuous relationship between TV moguls ALSO owning a large chunk of radio stations, cable providers and yes, even newspapers within the same market -- something Bush and company DID NOT do during their embarrassing tenure. In fact the record shows that they acted as enablers, promoting these monopolies in the interest of 'free markets' as it pertains to media companies. Sound familiar? It should because they did much the same with the financial markets and look how well that has turned out. "Wall Street got a little drunk..." -- mostly because the Bush administration supplied the hooch and cheered them on when Wall Street wore the lampshade while attempting to dance under the (mortgage backed derivatives and/or war profiteering) limbo stick. Ditto with media conglomerates though it doesn't hit us directly in the pocketbook, it merely robs us collectively as a nation of intellectual capital.

   In the very near future, I have an idea that more locally focused newspapers (and also blogs), while in some cases suffering almost as much as the dailies, will continue to out-perform daily newspapers in the areas of readers, investigative journalism, subscription rates and ad revenue. It's a no-brainer. Overhead for running an online outfit is much lower than having a brick and mortar newsroom and distribution service. Hire competent journalists, pay them a decent wage with decent benefits then allow them to submit their stories from home, their home office or wherever they happen to be at that moment and the whole industry would witness a renaissance. Blogs in particular are leading the wave of new media because they give individuals the ability to take the power of journalism and media back from these monopolistic media weasels.

    Unfortunately for all of us as media consumers, old world industries such as the traditional 'mainstream media' or the music recording industry (whose current distribution model is also broken) have yet to catch on to the successful model of online ad-sponsored content or ad-free content available by subscription only. Perhaps after a few more of these dinosaurs (or rattle snakes) die, they will collectively pull their heads out of their asses, wake up and go -- "Oh yeah..." before it's too late.

    Those that don't change will continue to marginalize themselves as their readers and subscribers dwindle away to a level that isn't large enough to support their endeavor. Which is sad in some cases because of what they had the potential to be if they just hadn't wasted so much time and effort promoting 'infotainment' and instead promoted actual journalism and reporting. They've wandered too far down the bread and circuses path to realize that there is no going back.

-Laz

Governor Palin hires the biggest gun YET...or not? **UPDATE** Randy under the bus?

by: Celtic Diva

Sat May 16, 2009 at 14:55:45 PM AKDT

This morning at breakfast, state GOP chairman Sue Everhart formally announced the end of Randy Evans'tenure as the party's legal counsel.

Evans was leaving her for Sarah Palin, she said.

Which was an interesting statement. Palin just announced a book contract, if you recall. And Evans' has negotiated many, many contracts for books by prominent Republicans, including Newt Gingrich and J.C. Watts, who just finished addressing the convention. Evans remains legal counsel for both.

During a spare moment, we were able to ask Evans if he had negotiated Palin's book deal. He declined to answer - but acknowledged he is now doing legal work for Palin. "I'm not going to say what I'm doing," he said. "I represent a lot of people."

That may add an entirely new layer to the multi-faceted ethical issues surrounding this deal. However, the question must be asked, why would she need him now?  I mean, the book deal is...well...a "done deal" right?  After all, according to Van Flein, her acting AG cleared the way for it, right?  It's all on the up-and-up and it's all clear sailing, isn't it?

But wait...there's more!!!!!  Sourcewatch has an interesting profile of Mr. Evans and his "specialties" (emphasis mine):

"Randy Evans is probably best known nationally for his representation of former Speaker Newt Gingrich against ethics complaints made with the Committee on Standards in the United States House of Representatives. In 1996, then Speaker Newt Gingrich tapped Mr. Evans to lead his defense against ethics complaints when issues arose concerning a letter prepared by Gingrich's existing counsel.  Subsequently, Mr. Evans negotiated an agreement that permitted Mr. Gingrich to remain as Speaker. In 1997, Mr. Evans crafted the 'Dole loan agreement'" -- (re $300,000 loan from former Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole) -- "for the payment of a portion of the cost assessment made as a part of the ethics agreement. Since then, he has added to Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, former House GOP Chairman J.C. Watts, as well as a number of other United States Senators and Congressmen as client."

"Evans made his first mark in the area of Speaker politics and law in February 1988 when he assisted then Congressman Newt Gingrich with the drafting of the ethics complaint against then Speaker Jim Wright. Eventually, Speaker Wright resigned, leading to Gingrich's elevation to Minority Whip of the House GOP Conference in 1989."

"Evans continued in the area following Mr. Gingrich's resignation. In 1999, newly elected Speaker J. Dennis Hastert kept Mr. Evans on as his counsel. ... Evans announced the negotiation and approval of a book contract for the publication of a book by Speaker Hastert to be published by Regnery Publishing, Inc. In addition, he briefed the Speaker Hastert's position regarding the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act before the United States Supreme Court (which was argued on September 8, 2003)."

I can't even imagine what this guy bills per hour!!!  I'm also curious as to why, if all of the complaints are going to be thrown out and if everything surrounding the book deal is kosher, she needs the equivalent of a legal bazooka?

Feel free to speculate and discuss below!

(hat tip:  Progressive Alaska, and Mudflats commenters UKLady and crystalwolf, who just plain rock!)

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

It's now on the Alaska Politics Blog.

***************UPDATE 2***************

Meg-a-mouth is at it again - see comments!(Thanks for keeping up with this in the comments while I was at the Jefferson-Jackson Democratic Dinner...post coming later on that.)

So, do you think Mr. Evans will appreciate leaving his old job for nothing?

The forgotten point about the trouble with Sarah P.

by: lazarhat

Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 22:42:13 PM AKDT

The issues of a) the exact amount of debt from Palin's legal bills and b) how much of that debt was incurred as a result of the complaint she filed against herself are hotly being pursued by my friend at Progressive Alaska, Phil Munger.  As I'll mention in my later post on the APOC meeting, that issue was also raised there. - promoted by Celtic Diva)

     This point bears repeating by all rational thinking Alaskans to both the MSM and to the blogosphere, no matter what the ideology, either yours or theirs -- the absolute fact that the bulk of Governor Palin's problems are self-inflicted.

    Ultimately she did not accept a bipartisan investigation of what is now known as "Troopergate" (or as she attempted to re-brand it: "Tasergate"), an investigation of allegations of possible abuse of power concerning the alleged repeated harassment of then Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Public Safety, Walt Monhegan, by both her, her husband and senior members of her staff. This as well as the subsequent firing of Monhegan by Governor Palin allegedly for Monehgan's failure to dismiss her ex-brother-in-law, Trooper Wooten, for cause, which eventually resulted in the dismissal of Monhegan instead. By now we all should know the back story.

    This is how the legislative investigation was originally framed and the premise under which it was originally launched. This investigation was legally voted upon by a bi-partisan legislative coalition that contained a majority of republicans as well as their democratic counterparts. They hired a former prosecuting attorney for the state of Alaska, then openly appropriated money to pay for it and the whole process was then approved of by the majority of those same legislators both democratic and republican alike, and agreed to BY THE GOVERNOR. The investigator then issued subpoenas to all necessary parties and announced a date when they would begin the process of deposing those individuals. So far, so good. Prior to the McCain campaign announcement all parties agreed this was the best way to proceed. Again -- the horse left the barn BEFORE she was ever asked to be John McCain's VP running-mate.

    But as we all remember, she was soon asked and then she accepted McCain's offer to run as his VP nominee. After the legislative investigation had already began but only slightly before Branchflower's depositions were scheduled to begin. Then Governor Palin's administration threw a monkey wrench in the works. Her then attorney general, Talis Colberg (who I believe eventually resigned because of personal ethical embarrassment) openly advised those individuals to defy the subpoenas and began deposing them BEFORE independent investigator Stephen Branchflower could begin his depositions. He was hired by the legislature (and remember, accepted by the governor) precisely to keep the process open and transparent. Recall that in a publicly televised news conference, Governor Palin had agreed to this process saying that she "welcomed" it because she "had nothing to hide".

    Not to flog the metaphor further but the action of allowing someone appointed by her (AG Talis Colberg) to depose individuals ALREADY under a separate independent investigative subpoena gave the appearance that her administration had seemingly "jumped the horse" by allowing another executive branch appointee (Colberg, who owed his very job to her appointment) to proceed with his depositions prior to the independent investigator. Both the public AND the legislature cried foul with accusations of possible witness tampering followed by calls for the attorney general to resign which as I recall were seen in local media, mainstream media and amongst political bloggers as well as heard being discussed by many of her constituents in Alaska after the event occurred.

    When it appeared that perhaps it was in fact possibly extra-legal (meaning of course illegal) for a state attorney general to advise public
employees to willfully defy and refuse to cooperate with lawfully issued subpoenas instructing them to submit to public depositions, the governor then stole the horse and rode away with it. Colberg ceased deposing, apparently only having fully deposed her husband Todd, (parts of which it was said would later be included in Todd Palin's written deposition to both Branchflower AND the state personnel board).

    Wait! What? Yes, ANOTHER investigation and here comes the key crux of the problem for Governor Palin. This was not the original, open and transparent investigation headed up by an independent investigator who was hired PRIOR to her agreeing to be the McCain's VP-elect -- the one that all parties including her had agreed upon BEFORE the McCain campaign, but one in which she brought LEGAL ACTION AGAINST HERSELF, hiring an outside attorney to depose and investigate each and every individual that was ALREADY under the original Branchflower subpoena. He even got to do so BEFORE Branchflower. She also hired ANOTHER attorney, Thomas Van Flein, to be her personal attorney during this second investigation. The state paying for Tim Ptumenos and the personnel board investigation and Palin paying for Van Flein's services. IT IS Van Flein's services which make up the bulk of her current legal bills, NOT later ethics complaints.

    In fact Branchflower never got to speak personally to any of those to whom he had issued subpoenas, eventually accepting the depositions proffered by attorney Tim Ptumenos under the auspices of the investigation that he essentially ran FOR the State of Alaska Personnel Board AND which ultimately cost the state of Alaska nearly four times as much as the legislature had paid the independent investigator. Whew. Wheels within wheels within wheels. At this point the damn horse is riding itself. Or maybe they cloned a horse and it is riding the original horse. Or there are two symbiotic horses co-joined at the hip bone... whatever -- it's giving me a headache, as it should you.

    However and perhaps quite shrewdly on her and her lawyers part, this move of hiring yet another outside attorney (Ptumenos) may have helped shield the AG from any further appearance of impropriety by taking the heat off of Colberg and focusing everyone's attention on an investigation that was given an air of legitimacy by the governor herself (and in yet another news conference via a message issued from the self-named (and paid for by the McCain campaign) media flaks the "Truth Squad") because Mr. Ptumenos was in fact, a democrat himself! "What could be more bi-partisan, open and transparent than that?", the flaks reasoned aloud. And often. To anyone who would listen.

    I know this is all quite complicated when in fact it could have been so much easier to let Branchflower complete his investigation and release his findings. The problem is that I see all of this obfuscation, all this interference by the governor, her lawyers and her (paid by McCain) media flacks motivated precisely because when she realized the legislature were serious and were going to proceed deposing her, her husband and her staff over the issue of "Troopergate", she absolutely freaked. You know why? Because she DID have things to hide. Many, many things to hide. Mostly her naked political ambition, her mean spirited vindictiveness towards those she perceived as her political enemies as well as her husband's deep involvement in the case of his long term and seemingly systematic harassment of Walt Monhegan until, when Monhegan would not bend to her will regarding a possible Palin family vendetta against Trooper Wooten, she was left with no choice but to fire Monhegan as punishment for  Monhegan's apparent (at least to the Palin family) disloyalty.

    She successfully re-framed the investigation away from being one about ethics, (perhaps committing several more ethical lapses in the process in my opinion) and transformed it into one of it being a simple personnel dispute! Again I remind everyone at this point that the majority of her current legal bills and legal problems are because of an action which SHE BROUGHT AGAINST HERSELF when she re-framed this action as the only legitimate method of insuring a transparent investigation into something that she claimed was essentially a personnel disagreement (about a "rogue employee", Walt Monhegan) and one for which she had every right to engage in as both governor and head of the executive branch. Her claim was, ex-post-facto that the state personnel board was the more appropriate venue for review of the matter rather than the legislature. Where's that damn horse? I don't know! Do you know? Oh look! (pointing) There it is! (substituting another horse for the original one while attention was seemingly diverted away)... you get the idea. Lots of horses, many of them straw ones and lots of cowboys -- lawyers, legislators, other state employees and Todd and yet remarkably, no one can find a horse NOW because it was actually substituted with a pit bull. In lipstick.

    In the end she essentially won the battle but lost the WAR. Pun intended. Branchflower said ethical lapses happened but it was up to the legislature to decide the consequences and any actions or sanctions. Ptumenos and the state personnel board really don't go deep enough into it by not directly addressing any ethical issues because in their opinion she was within her right to dismiss Moneghan as head of the executive branch. He was an executive branch appointee, so it was within her right to dismiss him for any reason whatsoever. No ethical lapses are addressed in their report other than some vague platitudes of it being "possible" as issued to the local media by Ptumenos after their investigation concluded. Which leaves us where we all are today. Flogging a dead horse. Unfortunately for us and the horse.

    In the interest of full disclosure:

1) I am not nor or have I ever in my entire life been a member of the Democratic Party of Alaska or any other state. Those are public records and they can be verified were I to reveal my real name. Which is Randall Warner, by the way. To head off the possible apoplexy of Representative Mike Doogan that I may be some sort of paid DNC apparchik or just another disgruntled "nameless and faceless blogger" that "needs to get a life". I actually detest blogging for myself as it appears to me to resemble actual work, something for which I am averse especially when I'm not getting paid for said work. In addition I am not, nor have I ever been paid or employed by the RNC or the local republican party, its officers nor any of its members. Period. Full Stop.

2) I am not nor have I ever been paid one thin dime by anyone for any of the above. Not the DNC. Not the local democratic party. Not the RNC. Not the local republican party, nor any other parties. Nobody. Nothing. Nor am I a lawyer with an axe to grind with any of the parties involved. I am by trade a "Litigation Support Technician" and an underpaid one at that. I am sworn to confidentiality and uphold said confidentiality in ALL of the cases I deal with and I can say with 100% certainty that I have never touched, seen nor read any documents or materials pertaining to this or any other case regarding Palin or any other ethical complaints against her. My sources for my opinion are based solely upon information available to all of the public in newspapers, via news reporting on television or on the internet. My motivation is merely because I'm tired of the media circus surrounding both Palin and the State of Alaska, which I personally believe has made us collectively as a people and as a state a laughing stock to most of the rest of America thanks to her performance as a VP candidate and as a governor. Having disclosed my opinion and my real name I am most assuredly taking an enormous personal risk, but I am fed up sick and tired of ALL the horseplay from ALL the clowns in this media circus. Nothing personal but it's time we all start acting as adults and fellow human beings instead of partisan ass-hats. Again, see 1) above if you need to re-read it. Period. Full stop.

3) I am in fact a registered Republican and have been since the year Governor Palin was elected. I voted for her in the primaries. I voted for Andrew Halcro in the general election as he struck me as someone more prepared to run the business that is "The State of Alaska" than did Palin. I have never met, nor talked to Halcro, donated to his campaign nor any campaigns, republican, democratic or otherwise. And again, just in case you are not convinced, allow me to reiterate once again that I have not, nor have I ever received one thin dime nor any amount of money or gifts from Halcro nor ANY politician, party, campaign or private individual for this or any other opinion I choose to express as a private citizen in a public forum. Don't make me insist you re-read BOTH 1) and 2) above. Period. Full Stop.

4) This is not the product of some sort of DNC conspiracy. It ultimately is the product of my personal opinion and is taken directly from reading and viewing a multitude of public information sources, both local and national mainstream media as well as internet blogs and sites of ALL political ideologies, left center and right, progressive to moderate to conservative. Period. Full Stop.

5) My reason for posting this to Linda's blog is because we are old friends from the days when we were both struggling, working musicians. And no -- she's not paying me either. Nobody is paying her so how could she pay me? I merely admire her as a friend and fellow human being and I appreciate her braveness as a blogger and fellow human being. I respect her opinion and feel she is above contempt and without ethical stain. She writes from her gut, as do I, though she is much better at it than I because I KNOW I come off as a pompous ass owing to my formal and stilted writing style as opposed to her more understandable and far less complex style. I do not write for people with a 7th grade or 9th grade reading level as journalism instructors advise (and I am not saying she does), I write for people who aspire to higher thought, people who aren't afraid of education and intelligence. I write for political wonks when I motivate myself enough to write anything political because I AM ONE and were I to write in any other manner would be imprecise on my part. Words can be tricky, most especially in the realm of political opinion, and to be imprecise is to be accused of being "a knuckle dragging, mouth breathing, Cheetos eating, parents basement dwelling hack". Or a "liar". I assure you that I live alone in an apartment in downtown Anchorage that I pay for myself and that I cannot stand Cheetos. The knuckle dragging and mouth breathing part I leave to others to either judge or disavow as it is not my job to form opinions of myself concerning those traits as expressed by some politicians towards political opinion bloggers critical of them or their politics. Hopefully and perhaps in spite of any differences of political opinion or party affiliation or even writing style, the feeling of admiration and respect is reciprocal from Linda. Period. Full Stop.

6) And lastly, these words are the product of several painstaking hours of thought on my part (did I mention that I'M NOT getting paid?) in an attempt to wrap my brain around this whole gigantic political circus. I have not knowingly omitted anything nor have I intentionally made up anything out of whole cloth. This is the truth as I see it. It is my perception, shared on a public forum as opinion. All grammar and spelling errors are my own and I apologize in advance to Representative Doogan (extra apoplexy-proofing) as I am NOT a paid journalist, though I was editor of my high school newspaper. One obviously in need of a good editor. And maybe some more classes in writing, English and journalism. Period. Full Stop.

Randall Warner
aka -Laz

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

New Year's Resolutions, Hopes and Wishes

by: Celtic Diva

Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 21:43:35 PM AKST

I'm not very good at New Year's Resolutions...quite frankly I suck at them.  This is the reason I haven't actually made any for more years than I can count.  (I think it was when I discovered a direct correlation between vowing to lose weight and finding I'd actually gained throughout the year.)

This year, I'm going to try something a little different.  I'm going to list a number of things I resolve to do regarding the blog and the community.  However, I will look at them in the same way I look at my sobriety...one day at a time.  Otherwise, my little brain hits overload.

I would also like to hear from all of you as to your resolutions, hopes and wishes for 2009.  If you'd like to suggest improvements to the blog or directions you'd like to see some of the stories go, include that as well.  Remember, however, that everyone who is registered can post diaries as well as comments, so I may suggest that "you be the change you are looking for!"

This leads me to my first resolution:

RESOLUTION:

I will work harder to make this blog even more of a community

My intention with moving to Soapblox has always been to make this a place where a variety of folks can share their opinions.  I'm grateful for the folks who have written diaries and I know that some (like Elstun) have gone on to do more writing for the ADN and other venues.  If there is anything I can do to help folks either with the mechanics of the blog or with encouragement holding folks back, please let me know either in comments or by email.

Bloggers:  it is PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE to cross-post an article from your blog and put a link back to the original article...I'd just prefer that you post the entire article here along with the link.  BTW, many of you may not realize, but if you have an established blog, I've probably already set you up with "Guest Blogger" status which means you can automatically post to the front page.

RESOLUTION:

I resolve to make advertising available on Blue Oasis starting today!

There are several reasons for this:

1)  I've put more energy into not only the blog, but also research and grass-roots organizing than I had ever planned.  

It's basically become my full-time job.

Realize I'm terribly grateful for the donations I have received; they often could not be better timed.  However, I see the stress the amount of time I spend places on my husband.  In order for it to balance out, I need for this avocation to contribute more to the household.  

2)  The blog has now garnered a fairly regular readership of approx. 400 visitors/600-700 page views daily...give or take depending upon the day, the season, breaking stories, etc...  According to my estimates, Alaskan readership bounces back and forth between 45% and 60%, which would be about 200 visitors a day.  

I've come up with some advertising fees I feel are competitive based on a variety of others I've researched while also taking into consideration the size of the market and the nature of the blog.  

Because of the split in my readership between Alaskans and our friends from the lower-48, the blog is ideal for both Alaska businesses and folks whose businesses are web-based.

(more after the fold)