REGISTERING ON THIS BLOG WILL ALWAYS BE FREE. Soapblox charges Blue Oasis a monthly fee for the blog platform as well as the yearly charge for the website domain. There are also occasional fees for records gathering activities (CDs of meeting minutes and copying fees for letters and other documents from APOC). If you can support the blog and all of our work towards justice for ALL Alaskans and to hold ex-Governor Palin accountable, please visit the drop- down list above. Any contribution is much-appreciated!
Thank you!
ADVERTISING ON BLUE OASIS
(Click picture to go to Facebook page)
CLICK IMAGE TO PURCHASE
Though many of us suffer from Palin Factor Fatigue, it is irrefutable that there is a nagging curiosity to have the question answered, ?How in the world did Sarah Palin become so popular and why do we still need to hear about her?? My book answers these questions in detail and urges us all to be vigilant. She is one of a small pool of ?rising stars in the republican party? as John McCain stated as recently as January 25, 2009 on Fox News Sunday.
As unbelievable as her meteoric rise was we cannot delude ourselves, turning our backs once again, into thinking that she and those like her are going away. This woman is joined by millions of loyalists whose perception is that she was persecuted in the media, stifled by McCain, and mocked by liberals - and now the theocratic conservatives are regrouping with a vengeance!
"Blue Oasis" began in 2005 in its Blogger format (now an archive) and became possibly the first Alaska Blog on Progressive Politics. At the 2008 Democratic National Convention, Celtic Diva's Blue Oasis was honored to represent Alaska as the state blog.
Transition--Community Blog
In September 2008, Celtic Diva's Blue Oasis moved to a Soapblox Community Blog format. Readers can become full participants by registering on the blog to comment and write "diaries." Diary titles appear on the right sidebar for folks to read and provide comments. Blog editors may choose to move some of these diaries to the front page.
While this Community was formed specifically with Alaska in mind, all "friends of Alaska" are welcome as members!
**Note about registering** Scroll down the right side until you find the link to register. Then, just follow the instructions!
**Note about comments** To comment on a story, click on the heading and then look for the "comment bar" at the bottom (it's light grey, I can't seem to change it). I believe the font color NOW permits you to see the "post comment" text.
YOUR BLOGMISTRESS
My name is Linda Kellen Biegel and I am a former 15-year Federal employee. Thirteen of those years were spent working for the US Army Corps of Engineers. I am also semi-retired from the Alaska music scene (singer, sound tech, stage manager, logistics).
When the blog was chosen to represent Alaska in the DNCC State Blogger Pool at the Denver Convention, I attended with the help of Alaska Real blogmistress, Writing Raven and my daughter Morrigan. On August 29th, one day after Barack Obama's inspiring speech at Invesco Field , my life took another turn as it did for all Alaska bloggers when Gov. Sarah Palin was chosen to be John McCain's VP running mate. Since then, I've either assisted or have been interviewed by media from the UK, Italy, Australia and Germany as well as national media outlets such as Wall Street Journal, NY Times, ABC Good Morning America's Kate Snow, National Journal, Dallas Morning News, LA Times, and NPR.
Presently, I work as a freelance writer, PR, event coordinator, community organizer, wife to computer programmer Josh and mother to 11-year-old Morrigan. Our family especially enjoys our summers in Alaska where we get to subsistence set-net fish Sockeye salmon as well as halibut fish/whalewatch in the family's homemade aluminum boat, "The Neverdone" (when it's working). We reside in Anchorage, Alaska.
Origin of "Celtic Diva"
I've used "Celtic Diva" as a screen name since the early 1990's on Web TV.
"Folks have asked about my Celtic heritage, especially in light of my name. What they don't realize is that I'm adopted. I was born Valerie Morehead of the Clan Muirhead. I was adopted at three-months-old by the Kellens. I always "knew" I was Celt even before really knew. I was drawn to all things Scottish, especially music. That's why my parents eventually told me at age 16."
"Linda is well-known in Alaska & beyond as the prominent progressive political blogger Celtic Diva of Celtic Diva?s Blue Oasis. But back in the day, the early 1990s, I knew her as Linda Kellen, a member of the local folk/rock band Sky is Blu, which amongst other things performed in at least a couple or so of the annual women?s show Celebration of Change, in which I also performed. And if you don?t already know, let me tell you: Linda is one fine damn singer."
I went on after the break-up of "Sky is Blu" to perform with various Alaska musicians and work with national folks like Bo Diddly, Coco Montoya, Debbie Davies, Taj Mahal, The Fabulous Thunderbirds, Bad Company, Creedence Clearwater, Carny Wilson, etc...
USA Women's Olympic Hockey Team Star Kerry Weiland with our friend Isabella and my daughter Morrigan at St. Baldrick's Day
(Scroll down to find posts.)
(Please register to participate in diaries and comments! We'd love for you to join our Community!)
******************************************************************************************
I have been watching the emergence of the various books on Palin...from "journalists" who followed her campaign, to "writers" who don't understand the first thing about non-fiction and research, to Palin's own book. My interest has been purely in determining how each will handle the information about the state Records Requests (FOIAs), the Personnel Board, Ethics Complaints and the APOC investigation. The books I'm looking at are "Sarah from Alaska," released several weeks ago, "The Persecution of Sarah Palin" released this week and, because of a kind gentleman who gifted me with the pages, "Going Rogue," Palins own book not set to be released until Tuesday.
1) APOC Investigation: NOTHING. Not ONE of these books even mentions that Alaska Public Offices Commission is investigating Sarah Palin's lack of sponsorship/Arctic Cat monetary information on Calendar Year 2008's Financial Disclosure form. They also don't mention her non-compliance in revealing that information to them even though they have asked multiple times.
So, one of the most important and damning issues regarding Palin isn't mentioned in any book so far! Hmmmmm...
2) Ethics Complaints: "Sarah from Alaska" covers it in just two pages...basically including Arctic Cat...which is how my name got in the index (page 240!).
As you can see, it was mostly rehashing Palin's bogus assertion of "frivolousness," and they were critical in their interpretation of their interview with Andree McLeod. However the book did take her to task for her high-schoolish responses to each complaint's dismissal. The authors also chastise Palin for her inappropriate response to me when the Arctic Cat complaint was filed.
Regarding Matthew Continetti's book...
I went to Barnes and Noble yesterday, grabbed his "persecution complex" book and a cup of coffee and sat down to speed read/skim.
That's an hour-and-a-half of my life that I want back.
Continetti occasionally talks about having "lunch" with someone to get inforamtion, like AK Republican Party head Randy Ruedrich. However, overall his book has a) no index b) no footnotes c) no endnotes d) no references and e) frequently uses sources like "a University professor" or "an Alaska insider." (Even his friends on Conservatives4Palin bust him for it.) When he reams Charley James for lousy sourcing last year, I laughed out loud. When he talked about progressive blogs "linking" to James' article anyway, without mentioning those of us that took him to task, I just got angry.
With all of that in mind, I was not surprised that basically one paragraph on one page (211) is dedicated to the entireity of Palin's legal challenges. Continetti's presentation of the ethics complaints can be summed up in this factually challenged "quote" from the book, attributed to Legislator Gene Therriault:
"That was part of the Democratic plan to grind her up; use the ethics law as a blunt instrument to club the administration."
I guess the fact that of the 20+ ethics complaints filed, only 3 (that I know of) were filed by folks who are actual Democrats. As Mr. Therriault knows quite well, Andree McLeod is strongly Republican, and I believe the rest were filed by non-partisan folks.
The thought of trying to get Andree McLeod to join a "Democratic Plan" just makes me laugh.
At least Continetti fixed his mistake regarding what my Artic Cat claim was about. In his original article on the subject (that was riddled with inaccuracies), "Out of Alaska" in The Weekly Standard, he claimed that Palin was wearing an Arctic Cat "t-shirt."
I also found it interesting that he tied this line from Palin in with the Arctic Cat complaint:
"I got to the point where I said, 'May I just plead guilty?'?" she told me.
While Palin also attributes that line to the Arctic Cat complaint, parts of her "ethics" story is somewhat different in her own book, "Going Rogue." The first two pages were posted early this morning which showed the direction her explanation was going...Andree McLeod-bashing. We see much more of that nastiness in the next two pages:
First off, Palin lied...there was never an official "complaint" about the dress code from McLeod and the target of the letter wasn't Palin. Since her previous job with the State of Alaska Department of Labor was helping people prepare for the workforce, Andree McLeod was hyper-aware of what clothing was not appropriate for the government workplace...especially those folks who regularly deal with the public. The letter was intended for Annette Kreitzer who dealt with those issues for the Office of the Governor. When they decided misconstruing this was great way to attack McLeod, they passed this email to Alaska Ear gossipper Sheila Toomey. The rest led to several records requests.
Considering all of the ethics complaints, I found it interesting that she spent the most amount of time lying (and bitching) about Arctic Cat.
--She claimed that she'd been wearing "the logo and team colors for years." Not while she was Governor and starting the Iron Dog race, she wasn't! I went back three years and she never had a sports jacket on during that race.
--She says the jacket "happened to be the team colors"...actually, it wasn't for 2009. Team Davis/Palin's snow machines and outfits were orange and black while hers were yellow and green. It's the big HUGE Arctic Cat logos all over the jacket and pants that made the difference.
A little worried about the eventual outcome of the APOC investigation, are we?
Wait a sec...did she just insinuate that the ethics complaint against her over the Alaska Fund Trust was the last straw in her decision to quit her job? Where did I read that before?
So far, the authors have not bothered to achieve a working understanding of Palin's legal issues and the problems that still face her. I look forward to the more accurate books coming out from Geoffrey Dunn and Joe McGinness to see what they have to say about her legal troubles.
You can also look forward to future posts on the blog!
--As "EyeOnYou" pointed out in the comments (and I forgot to emphasize) Sheila Toomey insinuated via email that the way she got the Andree's memo was through a records request. Nice that Palin cleared that up for us.
--Forgot to point out the rehashed lie that the ethics complaints were all dismissed. There are still several complaints out there BESIDES the AK Fund Trust issue that should have dragged her in front of a hearing by now.
--The official Arctic Cat complaint cited her for vioation of AS 39.52.120 Misuse of Official Position. You can read it HERE.
I found this in my email (and it seems that PALINGATES got one too):
I act as legal counsel to HarperCollins Publishers. I have just learned that you have posted substantial excerpts from our as yet unpublished book, Going Rogue, by Sarah Palin, on your web site. We view your posting of these excerpts as an infringement of our and Governor Palin's exclusive rights under copyright. Accordingly, we demand that you remove them from your web site.
Christopher Goff
Senior Vice President & General Counsel
HarperCollins Publishers
10 East 53rd Street
New York, NY 10022
Voice: 212 207 7127
Fax: 212 207 7552
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This E-Mail is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this communication in error, please do not distribute and delete the original message. Please notify the sender by E-Mail at the address shown. Thank you for your compliance.
As you can see, I took the pages off the site. However, the real story here is this:
--The Senior Vice President of Harper Collins,
--ON A SUNDAY,
--Sent emails to two specific blogs, one little blog based in Alaska, another based overseas,
--ignoring the multiple other outlets (many of which were larger or were "Palin-positive") that have pages or "extensive excerpts" from her book on the site.
They didn't do this on their own. Palin picked the ones she wanted them to email. Perhaps not-so-coincidentally, my posts in question leaned towards fact-checking/lie-refuting than some of the others that were more for entertainment.
In other words, this was Palin-flattery!
I was once asked if, God forbid, Palin ever did become President, what would her first act be? I stated that she would gather up the considerable resources available to a U.S. President and use them...to go after her "enemies" in Alaska and the media.
I rest my case.
And in light of all this, the question I have for Mr. Goss and HarperCollins: HOW DOES IT FEEL TO BE PALIN'S BITCH?
A wonderful reader and researcher sent me all of the pages on the ethics complaints from Palin's book because he knew it would be of interest to me.
I just got them in the email and I'm working on a post for the later today, but I'll share two of them with you before I go to bed.
PAGE 352 is alluding to our friends, Gryphen and Dennis Zaki, regarding the "divorce" issue but it's also the first page where she starts to delve into the records requests (FOIA) and ethics complaints. PAGE 353 is a continuation of that.
You can see the beginning of the attacks on Andree McLeod. There is more of that in the next several pages as well as dealing with Arctic Cat. I'll share those as well as my thoughts on it all with you later today.
2) Why would it cost thousands of dollars for the Personnel Board to "dismiss" an ethics complaint?
She goes further into discussing the fable of the "frivolous" ethics complaints and questions how one could even determine if a complaint was "frivolous."
Ray Ward's July 6th complaint filing and dismissal today gives us an opportunity to more clearly explore that question and gives the Governor another opportunity to misrepresent the process.
Until the State of Alaska has better checks and balances (i.e. a Legislative Branch that will do its duty and actually hold the Executive Branch accountable) I am unwilling to call ANY ethics complaint "frivolous." However, I can present the EBEA (Executive Branch Ethics Act) process, as I became aquainted with it through my filing and continuing experience with the Arctic Cat complaint.
There are multiple levels that a complaint travels through during the process and actions can be taken at each level. Looking at those can help determine whether or not the Personnel Board actually viewed a complaint as having potential.
--First, to file a complaint:
(b) A person may file a complaint with the attorney general regarding the conduct of a current or former public officer. A complaint must be in writing, be signed under oath, and contain a clear statement of the details of the alleged violation.
(c) If a complaint alleges a violation of AS 39.52.110 - 39.52.190 by the governor,
lieutenant governor, or the attorney general, the matter shall be referred to the personnel board...
To summarize, the complaint must:
a) quote the portion of the EBEA that the charges address,
b) do a thorough write-up, explanation and provide evidence on what the charges are and
c) be notarized and signed "under oath" before the document is turned in to the Department of Law, it's first stop.
--If it is a complaint against the Governor, the Lt. Gov. or the AG, it is reviewed by Julia Bockman or someone in her office at the Dept. of Law for the a,b and c requirements listed in the above paragraph. If it lacks any one of those things, generally the filer is contacted and is told they have X number of days to comply before the complaint will be tossed...yes, that happened to me as I did not understand the "under oath" was part of the notarization process. (They have a special stamp for it.)
Note: ALL OF THIS is SUPPOSED to be done in the Department of Law, before it goes to the Personnel Board.
Interestingly enough, Mr. Ward was clearly not given the same time frame (or ANY time frame) to correct his error like I was. Perhaps it was because THE DEPARTMENT OF LAW determined that the rest of the complaint did not fit the requirements it needed to pass it on to the Personnel Board. As I said before, those determinations are made BEFORE the complaint goes to the Board.
I don't think that the vagueness of the Governor's statement on this dismissal is that surprising in light of that. Why? Because it shines a light on the fact that the rest of the complaints DID fit the requirements and DID get passed to the Personnel Board.
(By the way, this also emphasizes one of the Palin Adminstration's "big lies"...the alleged "Edna Burch" complaint. If her name was fake, she would never have been able to have it legally notarized...it would not have passed the "sniff test." If "Edna's" complaint DID make it to the Personnel Board, then Julia Bockman or someone in her Dept. of Law office seriously fell down on the job.)
So, now we know one way that a complaint can be rejected...by the Department of Law itself. It should take no more than an hour of Julia Bockman's time to do so.
--Moving right along...
...The personnel board shall retain independent counsel who shall act in the place of the attorney general under (d) - (i) of this section, AS 39.52.320 - 39.52.350, and 39.52.360(c) and (d). Notwithstanding AS 36.30.015(d), the personnel board may contract for or hire independent counsel under this subsection without notifying or securing the approval of the Department of Law.
Summarizing: if the complaint fulfills the requirements (and if the complaint is against the Gov, Lt. Gov or the AG), it is sent to the Chair of the Personnel Board (Debra English) who then hires an independent investigator. This investigator DOES NOT use the resources of the Department of Law...a conflict of interest in the case of the AG, the Governor and the Lt. Governor. That's why he/she is an "independent investigator" as required by statute.
--From now on, substitute "independent investigator" for "Attorney General" as we are talking about complaints against the Governor:
(d) The attorney general shall review each complaint filed, to determine whether it is properly completed and contains allegations which, if true, would constitute conduct in violation of this chapter. The attorney general may require the complainant to provide additional
information before accepting the complaint. If the attorney general determines that the
allegations in the complaint do not warrant an investigation, the attorney general shall dismiss
the complaint with notice to the complainant and the subject of the complaint.
The next level: once the "independent investigator" gets the complaint that has previously been determined to fit the requirements, he/she can then determine whether or not the complaint warrants an investigation.
According to investigator Thomas Daniel, that was his determination with the SarahPAC complaint because he said it came under Federal jurisdiction. I am unaware of any other ethics complaint that was dismissed at that point of the process.
--So then, the investigation proceeds:
(f) If the attorney general accepts a complaint for investigation, the attorney general shall serve a copy of the complaint upon the subject of the complaint, for a response. The attorney general may require the subject to provide, within 20 days after service, full and fair disclosure in writing of all facts and circumstances pertaining to the alleged violation. Misrepresentation of a material fact in a response to the attorney general is a violation of this chapter. Failure to answer within the prescribed time, or within any additional time period that may be granted in writing by the attorney general, may be considered an admission of the allegations in the complaint.
(g) If a complaint is accepted under (f) of this section, the attorney general shall investigate to determine whether a violation of this chapter has occurred. At any stage of an investigation or review, the attorney general may issue a subpoena under AS 39.52.380.
The Governor's attorney Thomas Van Flein did not respond until after the deadlines had passed.
--Dismissal:
Sec. 39.52.320. Dismissal before formal proceedings.
If, after investigation, it appears that there is no probable cause to believe that a violation of this chapter has occurred, the attorney general shall dismiss the complaint. The attorney general shall communicate disposition of the matter promptly to the complainant under AS 39.52.335(c) and to the subject of the complaint.
Arctic Cat was filed in March and not dismissed until June 3rd. It was investigated as were (to my knowledge) the rest of the complaints. There were ample opportunities to dismiss them prior to an investigation but the investigator determined that EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE COMPLAINTS warranted those investigations before it could be determined WHETHER THERE WAS A VIOLATION. I disagree with the dismissal of Arctic Cat and took the action available to me as I'll discuss in the next post...contining the explanation of the ethics complaint process. However, I believe this post has shown this complaints had merit in the eyes of the investigators, thus putting the question of whether the complaints were "frivolous" to rest.
Hat-tip to "midnightcajun"--he mentioned in the comments below an interview with whack-job John Zeigler that Palin did on July 3rd...the day she resigned...where Zeigler called us all "terrorists" and she didn't disagree:
I suspected this had been suggested elsewhere before it made it to Glen's show and I thank midnightcajun for pointing it out.
Tuesday on the Glen Biegel Half Hour Show (following Eddie Burke on KBYR), Glen had a caller who had some rather...uhhh..."strong" views (from the podcast of 7/7/09):
"...There are tactics that are being used by those left-wing Marxists who hate our country and use our own Constitutional rights against the very fact that are our country. The whole attack against Governor Palin was done within the parameters of what is legal only because we never, ever had internal terrorists attacking our country using our country."
Glen's response:
No, I agree with you. Look, they are trying to destroy our system of government. That is what their goal is and they want to make it the worst thing you can do is to win office.
(2) the term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;
the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that-
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended-
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping;
and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
So, exactly how is holding Sarah Palin accountable to display the same ethical behavior she demanded of the Administration before her (when she filed complaints against Ruedrich and Renkes) a terrorist act? Under what definition can that be found, exactly?
Should we infer that, in Biegel's mind, our completely legal, non-violent, non-aggressive citizen activism, initiated to hold Sarah Palin to the standards that she requested in her inauguration speech and again during Troopergate, is somehow worse than all of those murders?
In a related topic, Glen said this in response to the last caller:
The left loves to use offensive language...as offensive as they can possibly make it.
Really? So, are you saying that "people on the right"...supporters of Sarah Palin especially...detest the use of "offensive language?" Are you saying that these people are far above using that language in order to insult, threaten or intimidate?
That has not been my experience.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009 10:30:19 PM
From: Ryan Bailey (baileyosu24@yahoo.com) To: celticdivaak@yahoo.com
Subject: you+sarah palin=scared little girl
Linda,
You as well as all the other terrified liberals afraid of Sarah Palin will eventually get yours. You are degrading her?! Well darling, you are nothing to look at either. Fat and guarantee you are a lazy no good liberal bitch. You are the reason why this country is going down the drain. But don't worry, when we take it back from the liberals and their white trash followers like you, you'll wish you had never lived.
--An American tired of crying white trash welfare people
Actually, this is one of the milder ones. I just printed it to point out a) the cursing and insults, b) the threats and c) that I'm not on welfare nor am I on disability, but MY EXPERIENCE with Sarah Palin supporters is they just MAKE IT UP AS THEY GO ALONG.
That's only one. There are 600+ more of them in varying degrees. I'll share a few more.
You are a fat cow. I hope you die. If you have kids i hope they are retarded. Die bitch die!!!!!
Of course, Palin supporters aren't limited to cursing, insults and threats of violence...they like to toss in a bit of racism (or, according to KBYR's Eddie Burke, "rascism") for good measure. Some of them also seem to like attacking my daughter.
(Note: The rest of the emails are vile enough that they must be "under the fold" so that whoever wants to read them must click deliberately to do so.)
(SO SORRY ABOUT THE TYPO!!!! REBUTTAL, REBUTTAL, REBUTTAL...)
Mel Green and I have known each other for close to 20 years...with about a 15 year gap. It's been absolutely wonderful to reconnect with her and to see how someone who was such a good writer back then has become a great writer now.
Palin has been spewing the claim that the ethics complaints have cost the state $2 million, but has been unable or unwilling to show definitive proof as to how she came up with those numbers. Mel has done some tireless research and wrote an excellent piece on her blog, Henkimaa:
The 2 million dollar meme--by Mel Green (excerpt)
meme. n. A unit of cultural information, such as a cultural practice or idea, that is transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another. [Ref #1]
That's the definition given in the American Heritage Dictionary, 4th edition. The topmost collection of definitions, posted at the Urban Dictionary in 2003 by a user called Emme, provide some additional help in understanding the term, which was coined by the biologist Richard Dawkins in his 1976 book The Selfish Gene:
1 : an idea, belief or belief system, or pattern of behavior that spreads throughout a culture either vertically by cultural inheritance (as by parents to children) or horizontally by cultural acquisition (as by peers, information media, and entertainment media)
2 : a pervasive thought or thought pattern that replicates itself via cultural means; a parasitic code, a virus of the mind especially contagious to children and the impressionable
3 : the fundamental unit of information, analogous to the gene in emerging evolutionary theory of culture....
4 : in blogspeak, an idea that is spread from blog to blog
5 : an internet information generator, especially of random or contentless information [Ref #2]
One might add this definition: an idea that is fed by a less than truthful politician to a lazy mainstream media, which is uncritically transmitted to the public when the true facts are readily available & have even been reported on already - sometimes even by the same media source as the one now passing on the prevaricating politician's false information.
Case in point: from Sarah Palin's July 3 resignation speech:
Political operatives descended on Alaska last August, digging for dirt. The ethics law I championed became their weapon of choice. Over the past nine months I've been accused of all sorts of frivolous ethics violations - such as holding a fish in a photograph, wearing a jacket with a logo on it, and answering reporters' questions.
Every one - all 15 of the ethics complaints have been dismissed. We've won! But it hasn't been cheap - the State has wasted THOUSANDS of hours of YOUR time and shelled out some two million of YOUR dollars to respond to "opposition research" - that's money NOT going to fund teachers or troopers - or safer roads. And this political absurdity, the "politics of personal destruction" ... Todd and I are looking at more than half a million dollars in legal bills in order to set the record straight. And what about the people who offer up these silly accusations? It doesn't cost them a dime so they're not going to stop draining public resources - spending other peoples' money in their game. [Ref #3]
There's actually a number of errors of fact in this brief passage of Palin's speech, but this post will be long enough if I focus on the one I've emphasized: Palin's claim that $2,000,000 taxpayer (or rather, oil revenue dollars - this is Alaska, after all) have been spent on responding to ethical complaints against Palin.
Problem? Just two days before, on July 1, the Anchorage Daily News, the Juneau Empire, and the Associated Press all reported on figures released by the Alaska Personnel Board about the actual costs of its investigations into ethical complaints against Palin & members of her administration. The costs were considerably less than what Palin claims: $296,042.58...
Mel has included links, charts, graphs and thorough research into the entire issue...I applaud her and encourage you all to read the rest of the article!
As Alaskans, we have now come to know our Governor and her Administration through both word and deed. This greater intimacy has obviously not benefited Palin, as the Governor's poll numbers have plummetted from 89% in summer of 2008 to 55% in the spring of 2009. Some people claim it's a "media barrage" of negativity that has caused this. However, most of the media attention Palin has courted herself.
What people have seen is the lack of honesty and professional behavior coming from the Governor and those in her employ. It seems that this behavior is catching, even spreading to long-time state employees like her Chief-of-Staff and members of the Personnel Board.
"Not one of the complaints actually reached the personnel board for its formal adjudication," noted Bill McAllister, the governor's communications director. "Rather the complaints have fallen short based on just a simple review of the facts and the law."
The Administration conveniently ignores the settlement of the family travel complaint where she shelled out thousands of dollars in reimbursement money in exchange for not having to "admit any wrongdoing"...kinda like the civil version of a plea bargain.
The Governor's Chief of Staff managed a two-fer...his dangerous unprofessionalism encouraged a backlash against citizens exercising their rights under the law and, once again, he joined other members of the Administration in "ignoring" the settled ethics complaint:
In the past several months, we have seen an orchestrated effort by the governor's opponents to make differences of opinion and ideology almost criminal," said Mike Nizich, the governor's chief of staff. "Governor Palin has spent a considerable amount of time and money fighting ethics complaints - and no charge has been substantiated. I hope that the publicity-seekers will face a backlash from Alaskans who have a sense of fair play and proportion.
Michael Geraghty, investigator for the State Personnel Board, concluded that there is no need for a hearing on the complaint filed in March by Andree McLeod, who has been a vocal critic of the governor since being denied employment with the state last year.
Then, of course, we have obfuscation of what was really said regarding an email sent by Andree McLeod (calling their attention to the lack of professional dress in the workplace) to high-level Office of the Governor employees Mike Nizich and Annette Kreitzer:
If you follow the email chain, you'll note that the word "confidential" doesn't show up until Sharon Leighow gets hold of it...right after she sees whatever the Governor wrote. Makes you wonder what incredibly "top secret" comments the Governor could have made about "cleavage." Or, perhaps, I should replace the words "top secret" with "politically damaging."
Of course, who could expect the State of Alaska workforce to understand the concept of "professional attire" when they have this top-level-executive as an example:
photo courtesy of Shannyn Moore
As I briefly discussed in an earlier post, I saw all of this obfuscation and unprofessionalism reflected in yesterday's Personnel Board Meeting. Nowhere was the lack of these ingredients more obvious than in Board Chair, Debra English.
This is significant because English was the only board member physically present at the meeting. The other two, Al Tagmani and Laura Plenert, were on the phone (an issue I'll address further down).
During the meeting, English:
--Didn't bother to ask any of us who'd come to give public testimony what we were testifying about. She assumed we were going to testify about a specific complaint during the Executive Session (i.e. behind closed doors) I explained that I would be testifying publicly on-the-record about confidentiality. When Ms. McLeod stated that she would be testifying about public issues as well, English tried to disuade and intimidate her.
--We were each given only 3 minutes. The microphone where we needed to speak was at a chair right in front of Debra English, next to her at the table. Yet, rather than wait and get up between testifiers (there were only three of us), English excused herself out loud and stepped out to refill her water glass WHILE ANDREE MCLEOD WAS SPEAKING ON THE RECORD. When Ms. McLeod was finished speaking, she requested answers from the Board members to questions she'd asked during her testimony. English bluntly stated that she stepped out so she didn't hear them.
--English asked their board attorney to find out information about changes made to rules of "other boards." The attorney was confused at the general question and attempted to get more detail. English struggled with that and seemed to get even more mysterious until I figured out that she was trying to get the information across to the attorney WITHOUT THE PUBLIC KNOWING WHAT SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT! It was hysterical because I figured it out right away...she wanted to know the procedure by which the legislature was able to make all of their ethics complaints confidential!
Perhaps she was hesitant to discuss that information openly because I'd just testified as to why attempting to make public information (what the citizen ethics complaints are based on) confidential is not in the spirit of the Alaska Statutes. Perhaps she was hesitant because it is now a regular meme of the Administration to use the comparison of the two different ethics laws as an attempt to slam those of us who filed ethics complaints openly (which is legal, by the way, because it isn't illegal). Perhaps they didn't want it to be so obvious that this "neutral body" is getting its marching orders from the Governor.
Ooops, too late! Her attempts at covert conversation were so poor, I was tempted to yell out "She means the legislature" but I restrained myself. He then asked if she was talking about the legislature and she hesitantly acknowledged that she was. However, they managed not to use the word "confidentiality."
Personnel Board Meetings fall under AS 44.62.310 which states that:
All meetings of a governmental body of a public entity of the state are open to the public
Since English was discussing potential legislative action, which does NOT qualify as "executive session" material, the pathetic attempt at obfuscation borders on the unethical.
--During that same conversation, English made a statement to the effect that she understood the legislature to be working some revision/amendment to the ethics complaint procedure. When Ms. McLeod asked about that, she denied saying it. When I asked about it because I heard it quite clearly, she told me that I was "mischaracterizing her remarks." The rest of the observers didn't agree with her. Sean Cockerham gives his (very restrained) version of what happened:
Personnel board members spoke Wednesday about possibly pursuing changes in the law regarding their ethics complaint procedures -- such as changing the "thresholds for investigations."
Ethics complainants in the audience asked board chair Debra English for detail after the meeting, but she curtly brushed them off, saying the meeting was over and she wasn't going to say more.
English also refused to answer when a Daily News reporter asked what the board had in mind. She said the reporter should have come before the board and given public testimony in order to get any questions answered from its members.
What she really told Sean Cockerham was that "the meeting was over" and he should have asked his questions during the public testimony. His response was that he worked for the newspaper and "that's not how it works." (I felt like he should have added the phrase "you idiot" on the end of that but he's a professional.) He then asked her, "Are you refusing to answer my questions?" English, the same way she spat it at me, said "You are mischaracterizing what I said."
Uhhhh...he asked you questions and you said you wouldn't answer. I don't think there's any "mischaracterizing" going on there.
Other signs of unprofessionalism:
--The Personnel Board meets three times a year and not on a set schedule. You would think that since two of the board members live in Anchorage, they could both be at the meeting. Nope. Al was at "a hotel" in some undisclosed location.
--The Personnel Board seems obsessed with confidentiality, yet they had their "executive session" using OPEN PHONE LINES! As a matter-of-fact, the various operators were jumping in and out during the regular part of the session; that "hotel operator" wherever Al was could have listened in to the entire meeting and no one would have been the wiser! Not to mention, that use of the hotel phone was a dollar a minute plus an additional fee. So they were paying extra for a completely unsecure line!
I worked for the Federal Government...the Army...where we have levels of confidentiality. I've never heard or seen anything that was so sloppy from a security standpoint. Also, in my 15-years I went to tons of meetings, including public meetings. I would have been fired from my job or at the very least given a reprimand had I acted towards a member of the public the way that Debra English acted towards us. It was made very clear to me that they consider Alaskan citizens who exercise their legal rights (and those who report on their activities) to be "annoyances." The arrogance from the top is having a trickle-down effect.
However, English is a success in one area: she'll be able to sidle up to Sarah Palin at the next party and whisper to her, "I had your back at the last meeting." In Palin's world, that's really what counts.
Here's my best and cheapest advice to the governor. Do not let state-paid employees get involved in your personal imbroglios and make fools of themselves -- and you. You are, as governor, supposed to be above the fray. Think Bill Egan. Let somebody else wade in the mud.
And if you or your worker bees are determined to melt down because somebody says you broke the law, for crying out loud don't abuse the law to make your point.
Wise advice...and something that the ADN editors have failed to notice. Worse yet, one of the ADN editors shows his true ignorance of Alaska Law in this piece:
Alaska citizens have a right to file ethics complaints against their elected representatives. State law guarantees it. But when Alaskans use the ethics law to score political points, they abuse that right -- and may put it at risk.
Case in point: The latest complaint against Gov. Sarah Palin. Kim Chatman complains the governor has violated state ethics law by having her old friend Kristan Cole set up and run the "Alaska Fund Trust," a legal defense fund to cover Palin's legal bills.
We don't like the title any more than Kim Chatman does. The governor should play it straight and call the fund what it is -- the Sarah Palin Legal Defense Fund. And if someone else named it, the governor should get him or her to rename it.
But she's within her rights to create a fund to cover her legal expenses -- and complaints like Chapman's only win sympathy for the governor and run up the legal bills.
Unless Mr. Dougherty-Hulen-Zencey is a lawyer, has been selected as the investigator for that complaint and has already done all the research required (and there will be a lot of research required...the Palin modus-operendi seems to be obfuscation rather than transparency), he cannot claim that Palin is "within her legal rights to create a fund". As a matter-of-fact, most of this article proves that he knows nothing about the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act at all:
But she complained earlier this year that a press release issued by Palin on the state Web site last August was a misuse of state resources. Spare us.
Actually, spare me! You see, Governor Sarah Palin did something no previous Governor had done when running for higher office...she DID NOT turn over her duties as Governor of Alaska to the Lt. Governor, which is kind of what he's there for. One of the writers of Alaska's Constitution took note of that:
In the 2000 presidential campaign, then Texas-Gov. George W. Bush turned over his duties to Lt. Gov. Rick Perry when Bush was out of state. In identical circumstances in the 1992 presidential campaign, then Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton turned over his duties to the lieutenant governor, Jim Guy Tucker, as called for in that state's constitution.
Coghill, an author of the state constitution, said he remains unwavering in his conviction that Palin should have done the same in her cross-country campaign as the state constitution implies but doesn't explicitly require.
"It's not a moot issue. It's a constitutional issue, even after the fact," he said. "Now you can have someone come back later and say, 'Well, Palin did it.'"
Because the Governor decided that doing "both jobs" was a good idea (remember that Ethics rule against "two jobs"), she left herself open for weeks of consistent conflicts of interest. The referenced complaint by Andree McLeod only scratches the surface.
To avoid additional accusations of impropriety, the fund set an unusually low, self-imposed cap of $150 per donation. It also volunteered to disclose the names and dollar amounts of each donor, leading Cole to call it "one of the most restrictive and transparent legal funds in history."
Three days later though, another ethics complaint was filed - this time against the legal defense fund itself.
Unusually low "self-imposed" cap? I don't think so. The Executive Ethics Act allows gifts worth $150.00 and under to go UNREPORTED. Also, trusts in Alaska are FOREVER--there is no cutoff of 90 years like there are with the rest of the country. It's why The Alaska Trust Company, the creator of Palin's legal trust fund, markets these trusts as being more lucrative than other "offshore" opportunities.
It's also why there needs to be an investigation. The Executive Branch Ethics Act says that NO PUBLIC EMPLOYEE is permitted to actually BENEFIT financially from their state position. I don't see how the Governor is NOT benefiting from this trust!
One thing that is clear...Palin is making gains in the spin-war when it comes to these complaints, which is also the reason for repeating the false interpretation of the confidentiality issue. She desperately wants to shut us up and would probably spend any amount of her new defense fund fortune (if she could) to make that happen.
