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

by: Celtic Diva

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

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

However, the document was less than thorough.

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

The whole "Arctic Cat" issue began with:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Todd Palin receives a "sponsorship fee."

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

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

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

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

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

That's an interesting figure for a few reasons:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...and...

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

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

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

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

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

Other benefits caught by the media:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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.

September meetings will decide Palin's legal fate--Personnel Board Pt. 1 **UPDATE**

by: Celtic Diva

Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 23:32:17 PM AKDT

This one should be even more interesting for several reasons:

1)  There are a couple of newer, open ethics complaints out there with serious teeth.  One (Zane Henning) is in regards to the per diem Sarah Palin charged the State of Alaska to live in her own home.  Another (Andree McLeod) is in regards to the gifts Palin has received that have gone unreported.

2) (The main subject of this post) We have heard NOTHING regarding Kim Chatman's complaint over the Alaska Fund Trust since a report unfavorable to Palin from Investigator Tom Daniel was revealed.  (Of course, it barely covered an iota of the violations revealed by other lawyers in the Fund Trust).  While a number of Palinbots claim that there was no violation here, the report very clearly stated that Palin would be in violation of the Ethics Act if she did not accept his remedy.

3)  I was notified through certified letter that the Personnel Board would be dealing with my comments in reponse to the Arctic Cat dismissal and I would have a chance to speak in Executive session. (To be covered in Part II)

An article by AP this weekend made it obvious that there is still much interest in the results of unresolved ethics complaints against Sarah Palin:

Palin resigned as Alaska's governor abruptly in July, and an independent investigator said he found probable cause she had violated ethics laws by trading on her position as she sought money for legal fees.

We are waiting to find out exactly what is going on with Palin and her AK Fund Trust since Investigator Tom Daniel's report was revealed offering a "remedy" to keep Governor Palin from facing a hearing.  The report was revealed by an unknown source and reported by Alaska AP apparantly a week after Palin and her legal team received it as well as the attached request from the Investigator.  The request was for Palin or her representative to either accept or reject the remedy...a response that Alaska Executive Branch Ethics law requires.

The remedy required that Palin:

...the governor should refuse to accept payment of her legal fees and costs from the Alaska Fund Trust and withdraw her authorization for the trust to be recognized as her "official" legal defense fund...

As of today, she is still taking donations on the AK Fund Trust Website which still declares itself the "the official website for the Governor Sarah Palin legal defense fund."

It's safe to say she never accepted the remedy.

According to the Executive Branch Ethics Act, their ONLY response to rejecting a remedy should have been to:

"...initiate formal proceedings by serving a copy of an accusation upon the subject of the accusation. The accusation shall specifically set out the alleged violation."

We haven't heard when this document was sent out--it should have been sent weeks ago and the twenty-day allowance for Palin's response to the "formal accusation" should be over by now.  However, as soon as that formal document is served to Palin, long before her response is due, according to the EBEA:  "...the accusation is a public document open to inspection."

(In other words, we should have heard by now that the document was sent.  Today, I am sending off an email to the State asking for a copy.)

Giving Daniel and the Personnel Board the benefit of the doubt that they obeyed the law, we'll assume the formal accusation was sent and we have passed the 20-day response period. That means one of three things:

1) They admitted the violation, which would mean that we are now heading into the penalty phase;

2) They denied the charges, which means we should soon see preparations for a hearing;

3) They refused to respond, which is treated as if they admitted fault and the Personnel Board must then assign a penalty.

I have a call into Nicki Neal, Director for State of Alaska Personnel, asking for more information on a future hearing for former-Gov. Palin.

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

According to Ms. Neal, she cannot speak about the AK Fund Trust ethics case because CONFIDENTIALITY STILL APPLIES.

That can mean one of two things

1) They have served Palin with the formal accusation but are refusing to talk about the complaint case even though the Executive Branch Ethics Act (EBEA) states that it should now be public information, or...

2) NO ONE is following the Ethics Act in ANY way and Palin has NOT been served her formal accusation document.

September 9th gets curiouser and curiouser...

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

Palin & emails, Arctic Cat, gifts, AK Fund Trust...how many "dropping shoes" does one person need?

by: Celtic Diva

Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 12:27:00 PM AKDT

In a piece by Justin Miller in "The Atlantic" yesterday titled "The Shoe that didn't Drop," Miller claims that there is no "scandal" that has influenced Palin to leave office:

The closest Palin is being examined is by an ethics investigator in Alaska who said it is probable she improperly used her position as a public official to collect donations for a private legal defense fund. However, the investigator suggests Palin simply not take money from the fund, and instead appeal to the state to handle these legal matters.

First off, Shannyn Moore and everyone else who talked about possible attention from the Feds NEVER SAID THE WORD FBI...they said F-E-D-E-R-A-L.  So, when the FBI did it's Van Flein-influenced-denial of any investigation into Palin, that was a clever political ADD distraction.  It worked, enhancing my theory that most journalists have ADD.

Last I checked, the IRS is a federal agency and I can attest to the number of emails I have received from folks telling me they reported the Palins to the IRS.  Having been a Fed for 15 years, I can PROMISE you that those emails will NOT be ignored...mainly because it's no skin off their nose to check into the allegations.

Secondly, the bit about the "closest" Palin has been examined is by the ethics investigator who found that "it is probable she improperly used her position as a public official"...as if it's no big deal.

Huh?  Misusing your position as a public official for financial gain is no big deal?  Where does this guy come from?

As a little explanation to Mr. Miller, and an update to everyone else, allow me to point out some information from the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act (EBEA) I pointed out last week.

1)  The portion that Mr. Miller summarizes from Tom Daniel's report, that "Palin simply not take money from the fund, and instead appeal to the state to handle these legal matters", was the remedy offered to Palin by Investigator Daniel.  As we knew when this report became public, Palin and Van Flein had ignored the report for a week.  Since the AK Fund Trust website is still up and accepting donations, we can safely assume that they have yet to accept that remedy.  Since that remedy was offered on July 14th and today is August 5th, I would think the time for acceptance has passed, so:

2)  Because, per the EBEA, "the subject of a complaint failed to comply with a recommendation for corrective or preventive action," Investigator Daniel SHOULD have sent/be sending a formal copy of the accusations to the Palins, which lays out the specific violation.  We should know as soon as this happens because EVERYTHING FROM THAT POINT FORWARD BECOMES PUBLIC INFORMATION.  

3) There are three possible replies to the formal accusation letter that Palin can make:

- Denial of the violation:  This then results in a hearing which involves a hearing officer (judge) and a formal procedure.  The only way for Palin to be able to claim "no wrongdoing" is if the issue is completely dismissed after this process.  Because she ignored the remedy, that isn't very likely.

- Acceptance of the violation:  Palin's case would then automatically be sent to the Personnel Board for the penalty phase.

- Palin "does not respond in a timely manner" (or ignores the charges):  "The allegations are considered admitted."  This means they automatically go to the Personnel Board for the penalty phase.  I find this scenario to be the most likely because in my experience with the Palins, they have a difficult time with deadlines.

Unless the unlikely occurs and the violation is dismissed after a full, public hearing, Palin has lost her "meme" that "she has not been found to have committed any wrongdoing."  Somehow, I don't find any of this to be a "minor" issue.

It's also not the only thing nipping at Palin's heels:

Arctic Cat

I spoke last week with Holly Hill, Executive Director of the Alaska Public Offices Commission.  I was double checking that she had received all of the documents I had sent the week before.  I asked if the response to Van Flein would soon be forthcoming regarding their claim that their benefits from Arctic Cat qualify as a "trade secret."  I mentioned how concerned I was about how this might effect attempts at income secrecy from other public officials.  Ms. Hill assured me that there were very many officials who had expressed concern about this upcoming decision as well.  She also stated that it probably wouldn't be out until the next meeting.

Interestingly enough, it came out early and a big "thank you" to Sean Cockerham and Lisa Demer for covering it:

In one lingering issue, the Alaska Public Offices Commission has refused Palin's request to keep secret the discounts that come from her husband's Arctic Cat sponsorship.

and...

APOC is giving Palin until Aug. 17 to make public "information related to the dollar amount of the discounts from Arctic Cat," as well as any gifts received in 2008 that she has not reported, said Holly Hill, the agency's director. Hill found that the state law Palin cited in arguing for an exemption from the Arctic Cat disclosure "only protects information submitted under the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act, and does not apply in this matter."

Personnel Board:  I turned comments into the Personnel Board refuting the Arctic Cat dismissal and have been watching and waiting for their next meeting.  That's most likely when they will have a "hearing" on them.

Emails:

First, to start out with the "most asked" issue...I have heard nothing more from Linda Perez on the emails.  My target date to start bugging them about it is August 24th although they have until September (the deadline).  I am very, very eager to see what I'll get and I'll pursue this until the bitter end.

Next, Sean and Lisa covered Andree McLeod's email cases very well:

A judge on Tuesday heard arguments in a lawsuit by Anchorage activist Andree McLeod, who is seeking to ban the practice and is arguing it could hide information the public has a fundamental right to see.

and (emphasis mine)...

"This is not something between Andree McLeod and former Gov. Palin. This is a very serious public policy issue," McLeod's lawyer, Don Mitchell, told the judge Tuesday.

The heart of the case is whether private e-mails obstruct the public's right to public information, Mitchell said.

Mike Mitchell, arguing for the state, said many e-mails aren't public records anyway because they are too trivial. McLeod is trying to expand the definition of a public record, and not just for the governor's office, he said.

What do you mean "too trivial?"  Who makes the decision on what's trivial and what isn't?  Emails about emails could be considered "trivial" except, in this case, they are not.  According to every Federal Law I understand, all information produced in government service is fair game.

Gifts

I have believed all along that these will be the bane of her existence.  

APOC also said Palin needs to disclose all the gifts she received last year, rejecting her interpretation that she doesn't need to until after she gets around to actually opening the gifts.

Palin has told APOC "there are boxes of unopened mail at this point, even mail that was delivered in 2008."

Andree has an excellent pending ethics complaint regarding the gifts and I believe Palin will encounter significant trouble with APOC regarding them as well.  I have a much more thorough post started on the gifts issue that I'll put out this week.

As you can see, it's a veritable rainstorm of shoes in the Palin camp these days.  It would be foolish to dismiss them offhand just because they are not federal indictments.  As we've seen in Alaska, federal indictments aren't always very successful.

What's next? Will Palin be held accountable? **UPDATE and edit after talk with a lawyer**

by: Celtic Diva

Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 00:40:55 AM AKDT

In all the activity this past weekend, it seems that we've forgotten a rather important detail left over from last week:  what's to become of Sarah Palin's Alaska Fund Trust?

According to a previous post by New York lawyer JHop, Investigator Daniel was incredibly lenient with and even sympathetic to former-Governor Palin.  In fact, he based his investigation on the public relations material written on the website...meant to show the Fund in the best of possible lights to encourage donations.  However, he completely ignored the extremely damning legal documents that were only a click away!

We learned in another previous post that the Investigator's report for the ethics complaint against Palin's AK Fund Trust was released to the media by unknown sources.  This was after Palin and Van Flein had been sitting on it for a week while Investigator Daniel was waiting for them to agree to the "remedy" he offered in order to allow her to continue her "they found I did no wrongdoing" meme.  That remedy was to give up the money collected in the Fund while she was Governor.

It seemed that our former-Guv was not inclined to comply.

Again, according to the Executive Branch Ethics Act (EBEA) (emphasis mine):

Sec. 39.52.330. Corrective or preventive action.
After determining that the conduct of the subject of a complaint does not warrant a hearing under AS 39.52.360, the attorney general shall recommend action to correct or prevent a violation of this chapter. The attorney general shall communicate the recommended action to the
complainant and the subject of the complaint. The subject of the complaint shall comply with the attorney general's  recommendation.

*******************************************UPDATE (includes edit)***********************************************

Since Investigator Tom Daniel's decision was in the role of the AG, the law is clear that her compliance was an absolute.  Ignoring the remedy IS UNLAWFUL.

So where does that leave us?

--The Personnel Board needs to hold a hearing based on 1) the violation of the Governor refusing to give back the money and 2) the fact that the Governor ignored the remedy in the first place.

Including this portion of the EBEA (emphasis mine):

Sec. 39.52.350. Probable cause for hearing.

(a) If the attorney general determines that there is probable cause to believe that a knowing violation of this chapter or a violation that cannot be corrected under AS 39.52.330 has occurred, or that the subject of a complaint failed to comply with a recommendation for corrective or preventive action, the attorney general shall initiate formal proceedings by serving a copy of an accusation upon the subject of the accusation. The accusation shall specifically set out the alleged violation. After service, the accusation is a public document open to inspection. Except as provided in AS 39.52.370(c), all subsequent proceedings are open to the public.

(b) The subject of the accusation shall file an answer with the attorney general within 20 days after service of the accusation, or at a later time specified by the attorney general. If the subject of the accusation fails to timely answer, the allegations are considered admitted.

A couple of points:

1)  A hearing is automatically open to the public.  That means anyone can go.  As we learned from the last meeting, that's the Personnel Board's worst nightmare.  They tend to "act up" when we're around.

2)  Palin and Van Flein have serious trouble with timely answers. Investigator Daniel gave them much more time during Arctic Cat than he should have.  They blew off two deadlines.

3) The releasing of the report to the media is a separate issue...proven by the fact that there is no vehicle by which to address it within the EBEA.  I was reminded that Palin tried to use lack of confidentiality as a way to sidetrack an investigation before.  At that time, the Personnel Board stated they didn't have the authority to derail anything.  However, they may try to regularly throw emphasis on the "leak" to deflect attention from Palin thumbing her nose at Alaska Law.  

Continuing with the EBEA:

(c) If the subject of the accusation denies that a violation of this chapter has occurred, the attorney general shall refer the matter to the personnel board, which shall notify the chief administrative law judge (AS 44.64.010), who shall appoint an administrative law judge to serve
as a hearing officer to conduct a hearing.

Very important point:  This is now involving a "hearing officer"...a judge appointed to deal with this hearing.

Like Tom Daniel, who I believe was negligent by ignoring the legal documents of the AK Fund Trust during the investigation, he still couldn't maintain his integrity in Alaska's legal community by letting her off completely.  Any judge in charge of this hearing will be in the same position.

Moving back to the EBEA again:

(g) At the conclusion of the formal hearing, the hearing officer may direct either or both parties to submit proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation to be filed within 10 days after the conclusion of the hearing.

(h) Within 30 days after the conclusion of a formal hearing, the hearing officer shall serve a written report on the personnel board and the parties, unless the personnel board grants an extension of time. The report must contain the officer's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation. The hearing officer shall submit the record to the personnel board.

The Personnel Board...

(c) The personnel board shall review each report submitted by a hearing officer and shall either adopt or amend the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation of the officer. Deliberations of the personnel board must be conducted in sessions not open to the
public.

(d) If the personnel board determines that a violation occurred, it may impose the penalties in AS 39.52.410, 39.52.440, and 39.52.450, as appropriate. If the board determines that no violation occurred, the board shall issue a written order of dismissal.

No one else is going to touch this until they go through this process...a procedure that the Palins could drag out for months.

If, by chance, Palin decides to blow the whole thing off, making her automatically in violation:

--The Attorney General could take action himself, bringing charges or a lawsuit against Sarah Palin demanding her compliance to Alaska Law.  

My initial reaction to that possibility is hysterical laughter.  There is a reason that Governor Sean Parnell agreed to keep all of Palin's minions...I mean appointees...in place.  She wants to be protected from the ethics issues and other legal problems she knows will be springing-up in the coming months. (I'll list those later.)

--The Alaska Legislature could take this up (finally) and hold her accountable.  

I can't laugh at this...I get too angry.  It's not going to happen and I can't even begin to discuss how I feel about their total lack of a collective spine without derailing this entire thread.

--Some citizen or group of citizens could come up with legal representation in order to sue Sarah Palin for her complete disregard of Alaska's Statutes.  

I think that the previous possibilities would have to be exhausted first.  I also think that it would be a very lengthy battle as it would be the first one of its kind in the State.  

So, what's actually going to happen?  At this moment, I don't think anyone knows.  I believe letters to the Personnel Board asking that they start the hearing process against Palin for ignoring Investigator Daniel's remedy are in order.  

Of course, there are many other issues still on the table:

--Andree McLeod's complaint surrounding the gifts and Zane Hennings complaint dealing with the per diem are still active.

--Comments have been filed in response to the dismissal of several ethics complaints (the EBEA version of an appeal), including Arctic Cat.  Those comments will be addressed at the next Personnel Board meeting.

--The Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) will decide whether or not the Palins will be able to use the "trade secret" defense to prevent them from revealing their income from Arctic Cat at their next meeting. (It's amazing to me that APOC is actually investigating this...without a complaint attached, which rarely happens...and no one in the media will even talk about it.  Any other state...it would be big news.)

--We'll also have a completely new set of Financial Disclosure documents to analyze a little less than 90-days from now based on APOC rules. (Palin must turn in a final report.)

--There will be a slew(?) of emails to go through with a fine-toothed comb sometime in the future.

As far as what may be up with the future of the Executive Branch Ethics Act, Palin-supporter legislator Bob Lynn wants to tighten the confidentiality requirements on ethics complaint filers.  However, Blue Oasis Legal Analyst JHop had this to say:

I assume that she still has tricks and favors up her sleeve - which is why this whole ethics complaint procedure is terrible.  It is so shrouded in secrecy that the public is denied the right to have legitimate claims investigated and heard by an impartial adjudicating body. It seems inherently unlawful if claims are being dismissed and whitewashed out of loyalty to the state or the Governor (who appoints the Personnel Board); and that the Governor is afforded automatic confidentiality that only she can lawfully waive. On its face, the process offers an unfair and unfounded advantage to the Governor; reforms are required to level the playing field.

I couldn't agree more.

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

by: Celtic Diva

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sec. 39.52.330. Corrective or preventive action.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bullshit...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

"AK Fund Trust Iceberg dead ahead!" Can I say "I told you so" now?**UPDATE**

by: Celtic Diva

Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 15:49:41 PM AKDT

I bring you back to July 3rd, when this fantasy story was told about a Governor who was driven out by us evil filers of "frivolous" ethics complaints...of how she was so abused and was drowning under this huge debt (in spite of the reportedly millions she's getting for her book deal).

Back then, I "puzzled until my puzzler was sore" over what possibly could have motivated Palin to do this.  However, it was my husband that came up with the most logical reason as to why Palin would resign with so much time left in her term:

Hypothetically, what if all of the ethics complaints really ARE over...and several days ago, PALIN WAS TOLD THAT AS GOVERNOR, RECEIVING MONEY FROM THE LEGAL DEFENSE FUND WAS DECLARED UNETHICAL?  One of the options to resolve a potential violation in the Executive Branch Ethics Act is to achieve resolution between the investigator and the complainee.  What if, the only way to a) keep the money or NOT HAVE TO PAY IT BACK and b) to keep her "perfect record" of "no wrongdoing" was to leave the Governor's office?  

At that time, everyone got involved with the Federal Indictment theory--after all, the Executive Branch Ethics Law is terribly misunderstood thanks to the Palin/Van Flein spin.  It's also not very "sexy."

As it turns out, like Al Capone's tax evasion (also not very sexy), Palin's problems involve money problems as well..

An investigator for the state Personnel Board says in his July 14 report that there is probable cause to believe Palin used or attempted to use her official position for personal gain because she authorized the creation of the trust as the "official" legal defense fund.

The practical effect of the ruling on Palin will be more financial than anything else. The report recommends that Palin refuse to accept payment from the defense fund, and that the complaint be resolved without a formal hearing before the Alaska Personnel Board.

Palin's response...on Twitter (of course)...was unethical (she lied), as covered by AP:

Palin posted an entry on Twitter in which she said the "matter is still pending."

"There is no final report. The Investigator is still confidentially reviewing this matter. It appears suspect that in the final days of the Governor's term, someone would again violate the law and announce a supposed conclusion before it is reached," her spokeswoman, Meghan Stapleton, said in an e-mail to The Associated Press.

But Daniel said his report was final.

HERE is the report.

So, Governor Palin knew AT LEAST by July 14th that this final decision had been reached by the Personnel Board.  (Knowing the process, I strongly suspect that someone tipped her off early...like maybe July 1st or 2nd?)  Palin CONTINUED to collect donations through the site, Palin's supporters have continued to promote the site and amazingly enough, THE SITE IS STILL UP AND STILL TAKING DONATIONS!

She is absolutely disgusting.  If this doesn't wake a few people up, I don't know WHAT will!

And yes...I can't help it...I TOLD YA SO!

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

In response to rampant speculation (brought on by Palin lies/spin):

1)  Once a report is sent out to the complainant, the findings have already been approved by the Personnel Board.

2)  In this case, it looks like they were just waiting for Palin to agree to the remedy so they could close the case and move on, as well as for her to determine whether or not to waive confidentiality.

3)  For Palin to let it to sit there for a week like that is unheard of. It makes one think that perhaps they had no intention of paying the money back nor of informing the folks who gave them the money.  Of course, that's speculation...

Newest Ethics Complaint: Van Flein claims documents Palin signed don't really mean what they say

by: Celtic Diva

Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 08:29:45 AM AKDT

Monday, July, 13, 2009, Anchorage, Alaska:  Anchorage resident and registered Republican Andrée McLeod has filed an ethics complaint today with the Attorney General's Office charging that Governor Palin violated the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act and knowingly, intentionally and willfully abused her official position and state resources for partisan political purposes and withheld official action for personal and political interests.  

"We've been had," says Andrée McLeod. "Sarah Palin failed to preserve, protect and safeguard the office of the governor for selfish reasons and the State of Alaska and Alaskans were left vulnerable and exposed."

Signed and completed official travel documents show that upon being summoned by the McCain campaign on August 27th Sarah Palin wrote "Conclusion of state business" for that day and flew off to places unknown.  After her failed bid, similar documents state "Return to duty status".   However, payroll documents show Palin continued to receive her $125,000 governor's salary and benefited by using state funded staff on the campaign for 'state business' while knowing she was off duty.  

"By signing these documents Sarah Palin knew she temporarily quit as governor to campaign for VP full-time; but by pocketing her salary Palin deceivingly used her official position and state staff for partisan political purposes to garner votes."  

The complaint also touches on the Alaska Constitution's Article 3, Section 9: Acting Governor ~ In case of the temporary absence of the governor from office, the lieutenant governor shall serve as acting governor.  

McLeod asks, "What was Sarah Palin thinking when she went off to the Lower 48 for God knows how long without transferring duties to the lieutenant governor?  Alaskans were left fending for themselves while Outside political campaign operatives hijacked our system of governance and rendered it paralyzed.  Who was looking out for Alaskans and where was the lieutenant governor? How could Sarah Palin be so thoughtless?"

Upon reading the complaint, (which you can do here), a few things stand out:

--All documents were signed by Sarah Palin and approved by the appropriate officials (Chief of Staff, Director of Department of Administration, etc...)

--Palin DID NOT, officially or unofficially, turn the duties of the Governor over to Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell.

--It is VERY clear that the documents tell one story (Palin did NOT consider herself to be on state duty while she was campaigning.  The perdiem and travel charges to the State of Alaska stopped and were picked up by the McCain Campaign for that period.) Yet she collected her paycheck throughout, claimed she was on-the-job 24/7 and BROUGHT STATE EMPLOYEES ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL WITH HER (Kris Perry, Bill McAllister) claiming they were doing the state business.

--The Ethics Act is clear...if Palin would turned over her duties to the Lt. Governor while campaigning (Like GW Bush and Bill Clinton before her), she would have been free-and-clear to campaign.  However, because she did not, she blatantly violated the statute:

Sec. 39.52.120. Misuse of official position.
(a) A public officer may not use, or attempt to use, an official position for personal gain
(b) A public officer may not
(4) take or withhold official action in order to affect a matter in which the public officer has a personal or financial interest;
(6) use or authorize the use of state funds, facilities, equipment, services, or another government asset or resource for partisan political purposes;

Yet, in a press release by Palin's attorney, Van Flein (Yes, you heard me correctly, HER ATTORNEY DID A PRESS RELEASE...there's that Legal Defense Fund at work!) the spin is absolutely desperate and makes no sense.

1)  It's not the same theme. He's referring to the complaint against Kris Perry, not the Governor which was dismissed for lack-of-information....the information she FINALLY received from the State and is contained in this complaint.

2)  If it is "meritless," it won't even make it through the Department of Law over to the Personnel Board for investigation.  I suspect that will not be the case.

Then there's this amazing claim:

In order to avoid the overlap?  You mean, in order to get away with campaigning while still acting as a state employee?...in order to received her $50,000 $5,000 every two weeks while still jetting all over the country and collecting boxes and boxes of gifts from the public?...in order to have everything her way, the LAWS SHE CAMPAIGNED ON BE DAMNED??????

OK, THAT I can see.

And once again, the Board has NOT ruled as such.

Are they scared of this complaint...yup...they have no defense because, well, everything has her signature on it.

Bon Voyage, Governor Grifter!

If we look at the record, Palin's resignation should come as no surprise

by: Celtic Diva

Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 04:28:18 AM AKDT

Among those Wonkette posts was a little gem under the title "win of the afternoon"...they highlighted a comment from Alaska Girl:

She didn't finish her term as mayor, stepping down to run for Lt. Governor. She didn't finish her term on the petroleum board ethics panel, she resigned in protest and then ran for Governor. She doesn't want the office, she just likes running for office. She doesn't want (can't actually) accomplish anything, she just wants to talk about it.

That was absolutely correct.

However, before that, Sarah Palin left the Wasilla City Council only one year into her second three-year term in order to take the Mayor's job.

And, if you go all the way back, it took her five years and five colleges to get a Journalism degree.

Quitting before the job is done is her modus operendi.

Of course, this last year has also highlighted other patterns that Sarah Palin can't seem to break. Her biggest, most glaring pattern is hypocrisy mixed with secrecy.

--Palin did leave the office of Mayor of Wasilla a few months early, but not before she campaigned for Lt. Governor from the Mayor's Office...the same thing for which she filed an ethics complaint against Randy Reudrich.

In the middle of the primary, a conservative columnist in the state, Paul Jenkins, unearthed e-mail messages showing that Ms. Palin had conducted campaign business from the mayor's office. Ms. Palin handled the crisis with a street fighter's guile.

"I told her it looks like she did the same thing that Randy Ruedrich did," Mr. Jenkins recalled. "And she said, 'Yeah, what I did was wrong.' "

--In Palin's resignation speech, she continued her steady drumbeat of whining about the media, bloggers, the internet...everyone who has criticized her or made her life difficult.  Yet, during the campaign, she reamed Hillary Clinton for her "whining" about the press:

--During her resignation speech, Palin also blamed those who "cost the State money" by filing "all those complaints."

During Palin's inauguration speech, she told us to "hold her accountable":

She said the same thing about the Troopergate investigation (before she changed her mind):

Palin steadfastly denies the allegations, and with her signature resolve, said she welcomes the investigation. "Hold me accountable," she challenge her critics.

And, during Palin's own ethics complaint against Randy Ruedrich, she wanted more transparency, not less:

Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Chairwoman Sarah Palin said Friday she is resigning amid frustration that she is being forced to keep silent about ethics allegations against Republican Party of Alaska chairman Randy Ruedrich.

"I'm forced to withhold information from Alaskans, and that goes against what I believe in as a public servant," Palin said in a Friday interview.

Today, Sarah Palin doesn't seem to have any problem at all witholding information from Alaskans.  It obviously suits her long-term purpose to leave us in the dark.  I have my own theory as to what's going on.  However, no matter what the actual details of "why" she resigned, it's pretty clear that they involve personal or financial gain...much like the basis for every single ethics complaint filed against her.  

If we were paying attention, we should have seen this coming.

Never underestimate a chihuahua...one "anklebiter's" take on Palin's resignation. **UPDATE**

by: Celtic Diva

Sat Jul 04, 2009 at 11:06:10 AM AKDT

I had a hard time embracing the term "anklebiters" or the image of me as a "chihuahua."

All of my wisest friends told me I that needed to seek acceptance.  They reminded me that everything about the Palinistas, Palinbots, whatever you want to call them was myopic and ill-conceived.  Their nickname for those of us Alaska citizens who refused to stand by while Sarah Palin gutted the Alaska Statutes was no exception.  However, if there was a positive in being an "anklebiter" I still needed convincing.

One day I watched while some local folks walked their dogs.  They had two large husky-mix-mutts and one tiny little chihuahua.  Even though the little dog had to take about four steps for every one the other dogs took, it was quite clear that the chihuahua was the alpha dog of the group.  That fact was made evident when the dogs were playing and the little dog had clearly had enough.  The other big dogs rolled over on their backs while the "anklebiter" stood over them and barked authoritatively.

Now that's a tough chihuahua image I could get behind!

Yesterday, if you believe Sarah Palin, that visual metaphor proved itself true in a national way.  My fellow "chihuahua warriors" and I were blamed for driving Governor Palin out of office...a charge I'm sure was meant to infuriate her followers and intimidate us into future silence.

Good luck with that.  My plans haven't changed.  

--I'll continue to push for the records request that was bought and paid for by the government- transparency-loving readers of the Alaska blogs.  

--I'll continue following through with the comments I submitted in protest/response to the dismissal of the Arctic Cat ethics complaint.

--As other requests are answered, I will continue to take appropriate action if the information warrants it.

Don't get me wrong, I've had this blog since 2005 and I am QUITE ready to write again about the large variety of political and other issues that I used to cover that were NOT related to Sarah Palin.  I expected to be able to ease up a bit after the Democratic Convention ended August 28, 2008.  However, then came August 29th and Sarah Palin's rise to the McCain/Palin ticket.  I expected to be able to ease up after the election in November but Palin's antics increased.  

Alaska bloggers have been in overdrive for over a year minus those right-wing-fantasy checks from George Soros or David Axelrod.  

So it's much to my surprise that, after the initial relief of her resignation wore off, I discovered that I feel much the same way as the other long-term or lifetime Alaskans I spoke to yesterday.  It's like being part of a big group of kids playing together in a playground.  Suddenly the spoiled-rotten kid shows up.  You know which one I'm talking about...the teacher's daughter who can do no wrong, acting like she owns the place.  She has big bully friends and family who push kids off of whatever piece of equipment SHE wants to play on.  She cries huge crocodile tears to the authorities if she doesn't get her way. She throws all of her lunch wrappers and garbage around. She breaks a lot of the playground equipment.

And then she leaves the mess for everyone else to clean up.

Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell is stepping into that impending disaster.  While his relationship with Palin is all hearts and flowers right now, he should "gird his loins" and don the rest of his armor in preparation for his future, frequent trips under the Palin bus.    If/when anyone in the future tries to hold Palin accountable for the problems in Alaska, Sarah will declare that everything was "fine" when she left.  

Yeah, right.

There is much speculation as to "why." Why is she leaving office?  Is there something on the horizon?  I don't know the answer to that.  However, I DO know what the answer is NOT.  This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with intentionally caring about the good of the State of Alaska. Palin has repeatedly proven her apathy about her own state by years of ignoring/sidestepping the desperate needs of Rural Alaska, through rejecting real solutions to Alaska's epidemic Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault problem, by stacking the deck so that the Executive Branch Ethics Act is only a bunch of words on paper as it applies to her...the list goes on and on.   The fact that Palin's departure REALLY IS good for Alaska is just a happy coincidence that suits her purpose.

I've seen much of the speculation out there regarding the REAL reasons...including from many of my smart, witty Alaskan media and blogger friends.  All of that speculation has merit and as I know nothing that can contradict it, I won't.  However, I will add that while the possibility exists that there really is something HUGE (whether positive or negative) on a collision course with Sarah's ambitions, it's also just as likely:

--She learned some new piece of information (or finally read Andrew Halcro's blog) pointing out that AGIA is destined to be a failure.  Since that is the ONLY ACCOMPLISHMENT of her Governorship, that would be disasterous.

--She received some advance information that the next poll of Alaskans will show that her popularity has dipped below 50%.  If the indicators were there that she might not be able to win re-election that could kill her career.

--She knew the complaints and investigations would continue over the next 18 months and, contrary to worrying about "the money Alaskans will spend," she knows that some of this stuff is definitely going to stick.  (Palin doesn't seem to think that Executive Branch and APOC financial and gift reporting rules apply to her.)

--Perhaps something happening within her family that will demand she's out of the spotlight for awhile.

--However, there is one delicious possibility that my husband asked me about...one that has me MOST curious.  While Palin and crew are trying desperately to claim that all ethics complaints are over, I know that there was still one pending...the complaint against the Governor regarding using her office for financial benefit through the Legal Defense Fund.  

Hypothetically, what if all of the ethics complaints really ARE over...and several days ago, PALIN WAS TOLD THAT AS GOVERNOR, RECEIVING MONEY FROM THE LEGAL DEFENSE FUND WAS DECLARED UNETHICAL?  One of the options to resolve a potential violation in the Executive Branch Ethics Act is to achieve resolution between the investigator and the complainee.  What if, the only way to a) keep the money or NOT HAVE TO PAY IT BACK and b) to keep her "perfect record" of "no wrongdoing" was to leave the Governor's office?  

Palin has put the very-expensive Mr. Van Flein as a layer between her and everyone else.  He's appeared weekly, sometimes multiple times per week on the Eddie Burke Show.   He's the one who had all the contact with Arctic Cat complaint investigator Tom Daniel so I can only assume that's true for all the other complaints.  He is part of every media interview these days...almost as much as Stapleton.  Isn't it interesting that we haven't heard a peep out of him in the last two days?

Losing access to that money would be disasterous!!!  Paying the money back would mean financial ruin!!

You may ask: we know the disposition of all the other complaints, why wouldn't we know this?

The answer is two-fold:  1)We don't know whether or not the dispositions of all other complaints were made public because THE GOVERNOR HAS TO WAIVE CONFIDENTIALITY for the information to be revealed, especially if the filer did not make their complaint public in the beginning, and  2) There are also other resolutions under the Ethics Act to potential violations where NOT EVEN THE FILER IS NOTIFIED.  

If this hypothetical scenario is real, THERE IS NO WAY SHE WOULD WAIVE CONFIDENTIALITY and she would choose the MOST CONFIDENTIAL resolution possible to keep the information secret...just the way she likes it...hypothetically.  

What would that mean for the complaint-filer?  He/she either would never know what the resolution was or wouldn't be able to tell ANYONE if he/she did know!!!!  As one who filed a complaint myself, I can IMAGINE how crazy-making that would be!  The Governor could go out and lie about a "complaint being dismissed" and the filer would be powerless to do or say ANYTHING...hypothetically, of course!

Frankly, while the last scenario would explain a lot about this sudden announcement, I don't know if it or any of the other possibilities is true.  However, it's nice to think that she finally had to pay a price for her lack of ethical backbone.

It's an especially nice thought for a chihuahua warrior!  

Like I said, Arctic Cat isn't over...

by: Celtic Diva

Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 01:09:19 AM AKDT

I knew when I got up this morning that today was going to be one busy day.  I had to finish my "comments" and turn them in to the Personnel Board...the comments that are in response to the summary report by Investigator Thomas Daniel which dismissed the Arctic Cat Complaint for "no probable cause."  I knew I had to finish them early in the afternoon because I had to write my public testimony for the Alaska Public Offices Commission meeting held today and tomorrow.

I felt especially moved to give public testimony because I received the following in my email the night before.  It is a response from the Governor (OK, really from Van Flein) to the letter of inquiry sent by APOC back in March:

First...let's talk about the secrecy regarding this entire Arctic Cat process...stuff I didn't want to discuss until after I sent off my response to the Personnel Board.

The Investigator on the Arctic Cat complaint, Mr. Thomas Daniel, asked Gov. Palin nine questions and was permitted (by Van Flein...those Legal Defense Fund dollars at work) to look at the Arctic Cat Contract as long as he "kept it confidential."  Once Palin "waived her confidentiality" and they released the report, I asked for all of that information SINCE IT WAS WHAT HE BASED HIS DECISION UPON.

Mr. Daniel states that he is getting an Attorney General opinion because he believes that they need to...get this...keep that information "confidential" because it is the "product of attorneys."

So, what he seems to be saying is that his dealings with Mr. Van Flein are "confidential" because they are both attorneys...You know, as if he were an attorney working FOR THE PALINS instead of the Investigator working for the State of Alaska...the job he was contracted to do.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?  What part of "waiver of confidentiality" does Mr. Daniel not understand?  Not to mention, almost EVERY legal document can be called a "product of lawyers!"  The report itself is the product of a lawyer, yet he released it!

So, I'll let you know how THAT bit of attempted bullshit secrecy develops.

Back to the Governor's response to the APOC letter...let's discuss those "Alaska Statutes" they are trying to use to justify keeping Todd's discounts confidential.  They are...I kid you not...part of the Alaska Statutes establishing Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA)!!!

No...I'm NOT kidding!

Title 43. Revenue and Taxation

Chapter 90. Alaska Gasline Inducement Act

AS 43.90.150. Proprietary Information and Trade Secrets.

AS 43.90.220. Records, Reports, Conditions, and Audit Requirements.

If you read these, there is absolutely NOTHING that applies to anything other than AGIA.  To me, this looks like a "Hail Mary" pass by Mr. Van Flein and the Governor.  

As Sean Cockerham reported, the APOC decided to investigate this at the meeting today.  (They politely let me know right after my testimony...that was asking them to please investigate this!)  We'll see what APOC finds. Also, for those of you who may not know, APOC generally DOES NOT do investigations unless there is a complaint involved.  This is significant.

Of course, my day didn't end at the APOC Meeting.  I testified at the Assembly Chambers tonight in favor of Ordinance 64...but THAT will have to wait until tomorrow.

Ethicist Robert Wechsler weighs in on complaint dismissal

by: Celtic Diva

Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 04:36:12 AM AKDT

Sure enough, he had.

I originally found the CityEthics blog when I filed the complaint and Mr. Wechsler wrote about it in a piece titled Unethical Harassment and Wearing Logos:

When I saw the headline from the Anchorage Daily News, "Palin Calls Blogger's Ethics Complaint Bogus," and saw that it had to do with clothing the governor wore, I thought I might write a piece about using ethics complaints for the purpose of political harassment. But when I read the article, I realized that the complaint was not frivolous, and that the governor's criticism of it was worthy of taking note.

In a June 4th post about the dismissal, titled Misrepresenting Ethics Law in Highly Visible Case, Mr. Wechsler doesn't mince words in reference to the Administration's reaction and the report from Personnel Board Investigator, Thomas Daniel:

The relevant ethics act provision does not require proof of a bribe, which is essentially what the report states. Proving that there was a direct exchange of something in return for an act is not only very difficult, it is also unnecessary under the ethics act.

In fact, the provision only requires that an official "attempt to use" her position for personal gain. No gain has to actually occur. But in this case there was clearly gain to the family in the company's sponsorship of the Governor's husband. Whether or not the Governor was required as part of a deal with the company to wear the jacket at the particular occasion is irrelevant.

He even has a message for the Palin-bots:

I have no doubt that I will be falsely attacked in the blogosphere as a Democrat who never criticizes Democrats, as I was when I wrote about this complaint when it was filed (nor will my post on abusing the ethics process, with respect to Gov. Palin, be mentioned).

And that's why I'm writing this -- because such a highly visible, contentious complaint must be dealt with responsibly. It's not the outcome that matters, it's the honest presentation and interpretation of the law. This was not done here. I don't know if the people who misrepresented the law and the appropriate burden of proof were Democrats, Republicans, or independents. And I don't care

I have not agreed with all of Mr. Wechsler's posts on the subject, but I believe he's got this one pegged.

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:

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

by: Celtic Diva

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

VERY quick update:

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

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

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

Ethics complaint dismissal:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sec. 39.52.320. Dismissal before formal proceedings.

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

He didn't do his job.

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

The Governor & her Gifts Part III: Does the FEC ruling affect State of Alaska gift laws?

by: Celtic Diva

Wed May 20, 2009 at 02:14:16 AM AKDT

By now, Governor Palin made sure that we all know the Federal Election Commission (FEC) dismissed the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) complaint regarding the RNC buying Governor Palin all of those clothes during the VP campaign:

19 May 2009 // Washington, D.C. - Today, the FEC dismissed CREW's complaint against Governor Sarah Palin and the Republican National Committee for spending approximately $150,000 on clothing for the governor and her family. The FEC held that the clothing purchases were permitted as "coordinated party expenditures."

Although CREW had argued that the purchases violated the prohibition on the personal use of campaign funds, the FEC found that because this prohibition does not apply to party funds, the ban did not apply. In effect, the FEC is claiming its hands were tied and it could not penalize the RNC or Governor Palin.

Mudflats has a good editorial on some of the specifics of the dismissal.  However, I want to focus on one question:  How does the FEC dismissal of this complaint effect ethics issues in the State of Alaska?

At this point, IT DOESN'T.  

In Part I of the "Governor's Gifts" series, I discuss the background of the gifts issue, including why these gifts are still in play:

Remember that Governor Palin did NOT "turn over the reigns" to Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell while she was campaigning for Vice President.

Since "the Governor was the Governor 24/7," she was subject to the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act/APOC gift restrictions AS THE GOVERNOR along with any FEC rules as the VP Candidate. So, when you read this from Palin spokesperson Meghan Forkedtongue...errr...Stapleton:

Stapleton said Palin received advice from the Alaska Department of Law that those aren't gifts to be itemized to the state. They are campaign expenses instead, Stapleton said.

...realize it's all part of her normal half-truths and misinformation.

1)  The Executive Ethics Act, (overseen by the Department of Law) according to the most recent interpretation, covers "personal" gifts, and
2)  The Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) oversees the reporting of campaign expenses/gifts relating to the Governor.

While the DoL may not be involved, the APOC is VERY MUCH involved.  We can see this in Part II of the "Gift Series." APOC has sent the Governor an inquiry, asking whether her Financial Disclosure for 2009 was complete.  This is a direct result of this portion of Andree McLeod's public testimony at March's APOC meeting.

Why did Palin not completely disclose gifts she received last year?  There have been reports of hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of clothes, hair and make-up services that she and the family received yet they are missing from the report, although the travel costs are included.

It brought up enough serious questions that the APOC decided to send an inquiry even though NO APOC COMPLAINT WAS FILED.

I'm guessing that the Administration may also be rather worriedly awaiting the final answer to this Advisory Opinion Request from Palin's Ethics Supervisor, Linda Perez:

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

At the March meeting, the "short answer" was "no." However, the Commission felt that even the entire response was incomplete:

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

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

During the meeting, several Commissioners equated this to buying a dress, wearing it repeatedly and then trying to return it to the store for full price, which would be unacceptable (and I believe illegal).  So as you can see, while this FEC ruling is disappointing, it really doesn't effect what's happening in Alaska....all because Sarah Palin wanted to crow to everyone who would listen that she could do BOTH jobs.

I believe that "two job" mentality may be her undoing.

 

Sarah Palin's Personel Puppet Show -- The Department of Law

by: Celtic Diva

Wed May 13, 2009 at 15:24:04 PM AKDT

I remember seeing puppet shows and marionette performances as a kid.  Usually they would be part of a carnival or a state fair...a larger venue...a show within a show.

What always fascinated me about them was the way most folks would react to a puppet or marionette.  Even if the operator--the true voice of the puppet--was standing in plain sight, kids especially would always direct their conversation to the puppet/marionette and NOT to the person actually speaking.  It's automatic...you can't help but act like the puppet actually has a voice, a brain, a personality all its own.

Meet Acting Attorney General Svobodny (during a case as a District Attorney):

Looks almost lifelike, doesn't he?

Mr. Svobodny already issued one opinion which had a sock-puppet-like quality:

The Alaska Department of Law issued an opinion this week that was critical of the Legislature's secret process.

"While we recognized that there is a tradition of confirming such appointments in private, we have never agreed with this procedure and have doubts as to its constitutionality," acting Attorney General Richard Svobodny said in the opinion

Now, why would the Legislature do this meeting in private?  OH YEAH, they are talking about PERSONNEL INFORMATION...something that by statute, Alaska REALLY DOES CONSIDER CONFIDENTIAL!

Besides, Sarah didn't have a problem with it earlier on:

It took Palin only a few days to appoint Wes Keller to that seat and a few more for him to be confirmed. She made no objection then when Keller, a Republican from her hometown of Wasilla, was confirmed in secret.

I'm sure Mr. Svobodny would have written an opinion to support that as well.

So now we come to yesterday's announcement...that Governor Palin has signed a book deal (contract) with HarperCollins Publishers for what they are calling "her memoir."

It seems that the Governor told asked the Department of Law about the book deal and that she didn't care about its implications regarding Alaska Law. The Acting Attorney General was pulled up from his slumping position on the ground by attached strings leaped into action.

The law department has looked into whether the governor having a book contract conflicts with the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Acts, including its prohibition on accepting outside "employment for compensation."

The department concluded a book contract isn't employment, because it's not regular work for a salary or wage. State employees are allowed to provide services for their own financial benefit as long as it's on their own time, does not conflict with their official duties and does not involve using state equipment or resources, said the legal opinion, signed by deputy attorney general Richard Svobodny.

"A book publication project is compatible with your position as governor so long as it does not interfere with your official duties," Svobodny wrote to Palin.

There has probably been a rash of short-circuiting monitors in the State of Alaska Executive Branch offices the last two days when the employees have read that "decision" from the Svobodny puppet.  You see, it's kinda contradicted by this little thing called the "definition of outside employment" for all State of Alaska employees!

To explain, when they first come on board and then every year afterwards, they are contacted by the person who is their "ethics supervisor" and are given a memo and then some attachments with information explaining the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Law.  They are reminded that they MUST report any outside employment by July 1st, if it is applicable to them.  

Now, if I only had an example of this...

OH WAIT!!!  I DO!  I have the one that Sarah Palin was sent in 2007 by her "ethics supervisor," Attorney General Talis Coleberg! (page 6)

Since I serve as your designated ethics supervisor, I want to remind you that the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act requires that all state employees report to their designated ethics supervisors any outside employment or services benefiting their personal or financial interests by July 1 of each year. Although elected to your position, you are considered a public employee under the Ethics Act and must comply with the reporting requirement, if appropriate.

However, the Ethics Act also precludes "the head of a principal executive department of the state" from engaging in "outside employment."l The Office of the Governor is a principal department of the state.2 Therefore, as head of that office, you may not be engaged in outside employment. We construe "employment" to have its ordinary meaning.

But wait...what is its "ordinary meaning?"  Oh, there is an attachment (page 7) which gives a definition...how fortunate!

3. What does "outside employment" include?

• Any employment for which you are paid, but not your state employment.

• Examples: a job with another employer, work as an independent contractor, and work in your own business.

Now, let's revisit Mr. Svobodny's "legal pile of crap opinion."  

First:

The department concluded a book contract isn't employment, because it's not regular work for a salary or wage.

Holy crap! State workers who do contracting on the side, rejoice!  If you arrive at a bid of $15,000 to remodel someone's home, get paid half upon start and half upon completion, it's not regular work for a salary or wage so IT DOESN'T COUNT!!!!  If you are commissioned to sew dresses for a wedding, do art pieces for a business, any kind of contracting that involves a finite figure, you are in the clear!!!!!

Tell YOUR ethics supervisor to GET STUFFED when they try to insist that you need to report it as outside employment!  What's good for the Governor...

Second:

State employees are allowed to provide services for their own financial benefit as long as it's on their own time, does not conflict with their official duties and does not involve using state equipment or resources, said the legal opinion, signed by deputy attorney general Richard Svobodny.

But wait...other state workers are ALLOWED to provide these services but THEY MUST REPORT THEM as OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT.

2. What do I have to disclose?

• Any compensated employment;

• Any volunteer activity, if you receive any type of compensation, such as payment for travel or meals; and

• Any other volunteer or non-compensated work, if there is a possibility that such work conflicts with your official state duties.

And it VERY CLEARLY STATES in the information from the past REAL ATTORNEY GENERAL, not the Acting Attorney Puppet, that:

The Office of the Governor is a principal department of the state.2 Therefore, as head of that office, you may not be engaged in outside employment.

Now it seems that Governor Palin Acting AG Svobodny is attempting to change all the rules AND the Constitution with one opinion!  However, Governor Palin isn't fooling ANYONE into thinking this puppet is using any voice but hers.

Once again, we have a puppet show within a larger production...the farce that calls itself the State of Alaska Executive Branch.  However, there are two other Branches missing.  Isn't it time for the Legislative and Judicial to change the script?
 

Ethics Complaint dismissed: What have we learned?

by: Celtic Diva

Sat May 09, 2009 at 09:28:05 AM AKDT

She knew nothing about it until that minute.

-- It seems that Governor Palin's lawyer, Mr. Van Flein, plastered the media with the dismissal when the Personnel Board notified him/the Governor.  However, Ms. Tompkins was not yet sent anything by the Board.  

Hmmmmm...

According to the Alaska Executive Ethics Act:

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

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

The complainant...that would be Sondra, no?

When Sondra checked her email, she did find something from the attorney who was the investigator of the complaint.  He mentioned something about findings, but there was no attached letter.

Ooops...technology faux pas...and not a good time for THAT to happen.

What have we learned?  While the Governor doesn't want anyone to know that there are complaints against her and is even willing to mischaracterize the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act to maintain the confidentiality she herself railed against in the past, she'll surely blast the news of a dismissal from the highest mountaintop.

-- When it came to the complaint's assertion that Governor Palin was "using her official position for personal gain," the investigator acknowledged that while SarahPAC easily fit the category of "personal gain," Palin was actually using her new national standing as a former VP candidate to form that PAC, not her position as Governor.

What have we learned?  That if this standard is applied to the other ethics complaints which use the same part of the Ethics Act, the Governor might be in trouble.  The Governor openly states that she is using her office as THE reason for money/gift collection through legal expense trust fund, which makes the fact that she's accrued these expenses as Governor (and the other folks who qualify are effected by her position as Governor) central to using the money.

-- According to Governor Palin's press release on this dismissal:

The governor's attorney, Thomas Van Flein, noted that of 14 ethics complaints filed against the governor or her staff, nine have now been resolved without any finding that the law was broken. Another five complaints are still pending.

Why, if that's true, why have we not heard the dismissal of these complaints crowed from the highest treetop?  Why have ballads not been written to the purity of our Governor?  Why have we not seen press release upon press release with solid evidence that these complaints were handily thrown out?

Well, perhaps because reality may more closely resemble the case of Frank Gwartney's complaint, where she ended up paying back thousands of dollars, but did not have to admit wrongdoing PER THE SETTLEMENT:

"Nothing in this agreement constitutes an admission of wrongdoing, and none has been found," the document said.

Palin's lawyer, Thomas Van Flein, took it a step further.

"The governor has been exonerated of all wrongdoing in this ethics act complaint. There is no finding of wrongdoing and there is no ethics violation," Van Flein said in a news conference.

So was she exonerated?

"To be exonerated suggests a hearing on the merits and a conclusion. That was not what happened here," Petumenos said.

As Petumenos described it, the governor agreed not to contest certain charges. He agreed not to file a formal accusation or take the case to a hearing.

What have we learned? For some of us, this was just reinforced...that the Palin Administration has a passing relationship with the truth.

Regarding why we've not heard anything of these other complaints because, obviously, Mr. Gwartney was able to speak on his...perhaps the Governor learned something as well?  Perhaps it's like a hypothetical event...say...a towing company through a string of incompetent errors accidentally crushes your car and tries to hide it from you for weeks.  They finally settle with you financially (and you desperately need the money for a new vehicle), but the papers not only REFUSE to admit wrongdoing but also require that you to sign a non-disclosure clause to get the money!

That would be an interesting turn of events if they found a way to do something similar...hypothetically.

Of course, another reason they COULD be claiming all of these complaints were "dismissed" goes right along with that passing relationship with the truth."

Van Flein represented Palin on the Troopergate controversy, which grew from her dismissal of the state's public safety commissioner, as well as other complaints alleging ethics violations, some of which have not been publicized. One was filed under the name of a soap opera character, Palin said.

Unless the Department of Law is completely incompetent, that is a lie.  You see, to actually OFFICIALLY FILE an ethics complaint, one has to sign it under oath.  That involves going to a notary, proving your identity and signing while they witness and THEN sign their own name.  NO ONE is going to risk their notary status (employment) by allowing someone to use a bogus signature.  No one in the Department of Law or Personnel Board is going to even consider it a legitimate filing without a signature-under-oath.  And if it hasn't even gotten to that stage, it's not an officially filed ethics complaint.

So here's a question...are they counting that in with the "14 complaints?"  What about other ethics complaints filed against Bill McAllister and Kris Perry?  Are they counting those in with the Governor's?  

The only person who can access information about ALL of the ethics complaints and share it is the person who the complaints have been filed against so there is no way to verify.

How convenient...for them!

What I've learned from this whole process is to ignore Palin's minions when they "crow" about any perceived victory in light of so many other problems (i.e. Palin's crashing poll numbers).  I've also learned to be patient...that fat lady hasn't sung yet.  If she does start singin', you KNOW it won't be good for the Governor!

NEW ETHICS COMPLAINT FILED--Against the Governor's Legal Fund Trust

by: Celtic Diva

Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 18:24:37 PM AKDT

Integrity of Governor Palin's Office Up for Sale

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Monday, April 27, 2009 - Eagle river resident Kim Chatman has filed an ethics complaint against Governor Palin for creating a legal defense fund for the Palins and state officials.  Chatman charges that this fund violates the sections of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act which address conflicts of interests that are substantial and material:

Sec. 39.52.120. Misuse of official position

(a) A public officer may not use, or attempt to use, an official position for personal gain, and may not intentionally secure or grant unwarranted benefits or treatment for any person.

Sec. 39.52.130.  Improper gifts

A public officer may not solicit, accept, or receive, directly or indirectly, a gift, whether in the form of money, ...that is a benefit to the officer's personal or financial interests, under circumstances in which it could reasonably be inferred that the gift is intended to influence the performance of official duties, actions, or judgment.

"First off, I find it offensive that they're calling it the Alaska Fund Trust," Kim Chatman said.  "It is deceptive, misleading and has absolutely nothing to do with either trust or Alaska ."

Chatman believes that Gov. Palin's legal bills are the direct result of Gov. Palin's actions.  "It's time for her to accept responsibility for the manner in which she decided to handle the legislative council investigation." Chatman says. "She could have cooperated like she promised.  Instead, Governor Palin chose to fight it and incur legal bills."

Chatman has further concerns.  "With 20 months remaining in the governor's term, this contrived money scheme leaves a lot of room for people to buy favors from Palin and her cronies," Chatman says. "And what about all these other state officials involved in this plot. Aren't they in violation of the Ethics Act too?"

I have literally not had an opportunity to read the whole thing yet.  I'll have more comment later...probably in a new post.

Yes, the Governor is still wearing the Arctic Cat jacket.

by: Celtic Diva

Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 15:59:38 PM AKDT

Here's a photo from the Slush Cup:

Here's the link to C4Ps article on the Slush Cup:  http://www.conservatives4palin...

Here are the posts on the complaint:

http://divasblueoasis.com/show...

http://divasblueoasis.com/show...

http://divasblueoasis.com/show...

Talk amongst yourselves...

BREAKING: Sondra Tompkins on KTUU Channel 2 tonight at 5:00 PM

by: Celtic Diva

Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 14:14:49 PM AKDT

Please watch and spread the word!

P.S.  I am struggling with this @#$%^^&* blog today

I keep losing posts.

I'm on my way to the Alaska Public Offices Commission meeting...with tape recorder and camera.

And a list of questions about the "legal defense fund"...

I'll write about it all later...I hope!