"We took her at her word"--APOC rejects staff recommendation regarding Palin

by: Celtic Diva

Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 02:31:26 AM AKDT

I made it to the APOC Meeting Thursday, in spite of the fact that my daughter is battling the flu (every time the Ibuprofen wears off, her fever shoots up again...bad cough...sore throat...the works).  She said she felt OK if I left her for about an hour.  So, I went to:

1) See whether or not the Commission would accept the Staff Recommendation saying that Sarah Palin had (finally) "revealed enough" in regards to her Public Office Financial Disclosure (POFD)...i.e. gifts and Arctic Cat

2) Give public testimony (I'll cover that when I get the CDs tomorrow.  Andree McLeod made good points about the AK Fund Trust and why APOC should be involved).

First off, there just couldn't be two meetings as night-and-day as the Personnel Board vs. the Alaska Public Offices Commission.  It was professionally run from beginning to end.

Secondly, there was some very obvious "common sense" at work among the Commissioners and it was bipartisan in nature.  As a matter-of-fact, much of the serious questioning came from Republican member Kathleen Frederick, a lawyer from Wasilla.  I think her career as a lawyer was much more important in this instance than the designation as "Republican" or "from Wasilla."  Also, she is a musher and is well-acquainted with the snow machining community.  She was the one who imparted knowledge to the Commission regarding the nature and value of sponsorships, the cost of snow machine equipment, etc...

APOC staff member Jerry Anderson presented the Staff Recommendation to the Commission and took everyone through the history:

When APOC first sent a letter questioning Palin's gift disclosure and Arctic Cat sponsorship disclosure;

Palin's response, claiming it's a "trade secret";

APOC rejecting the "trade secret" claim;

APOC Staff's Recommendation that Palin has "revealed enough."

After the presentation, Commission Chair Elizabeth Hickerson started the questioning by pointing out an "inconsistency" between the letter requesting the "trade secret" status, which stated:

and the most recent letter from Thomas Van Flein which claimed that:

"Governor Palin has no direct contact or communication with Arctic Cat.  She has not read, and under the terms of the contract, is not entitled to read, the specific sponsorship provisions but she is generally aware that Todd Palin is entitled to the discounts and fee as part of being a sponsored team."

As the Chair pointed out, the first letter gave much more than "general" information.  

When discussion ensued, Commisioner 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.

(By this point, he had been joined at the table by a representative from the AG's office, Tom Dosik, who had been a part of a meeting with Van Flein.)

--Frederick asked, based on the 50% discount Todd Palin receives on "merchandise":

a) What equipment was part of that discount?
b) How many snomachines were included in that discount?
c) Had Palin/Van Flein revealed the dollar value of that equipment/discount?

In discussion, she explained that snowmachines of that caliber are worth approximately $15,000, which raised some eyebrows among the other Commissioners, and that didn't count the expense of the other merchandise.

Again, Anderson and Dosik admitted that information had not been revealed.

-- Palin claims the confidentiality clause of the contract prohibits her from knowing the information.  Frederick stated that would be very unusual, that most contracts of this nature allow the immediate family to share in the information.  Frederick asked if anyone had requested a redacted copy of the contract so that they could see that confidentiality clause.

It appeared that there was hesitation on the part of Anderson and Dosik.  Hickerson rephrased the question several times.  She asked them how they could be sure as to the nature of the confidentiality agreement.  The incredulous, (literally) forehead-slapping moment for me was when Tom Dosick from the AG's office stated:

"We took her at her word."

(That so perfectly sums-up my experience with the Attorney General's Office as well as the Personnel Board...there is no investigation, they simply "take her at her word.")

By that point, the Commissioner who had, rather hesitantly it seemed, seconded the motion to accept this report (probably so that discussion could occur) withdrew her second.  The motion died and the recommendation was rejected.

The Commission has now tasked the APOC Staff with three new duties:

1) They are to acquire information on the what merchandise was discounted to the Palins and at what monetary value.

2) They are to review a redacted version of the contract so they can examine the confidentiality agreement.

3) They are to find out the amount of the sponsorship fee.

At the end of the meeting, Hickerson asked the staff when Palin's final POFD is due into the office and received the answer:  October 26th.  This is the Financial Disclosure that covers this last Iron Dog...the one where the "Davis/Palin team was prodigiously sponsored."

This is SO not over.

APOC Meeting begins today and will cover far-reaching issues of disclosure

by: Celtic Diva

Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 12:51:06 PM AKDT

Today, they are dealing with an interesting complaint from the Alaska Democratic Party from finance issues leading up to the last election-- October of 2008:

Under state law, an independent expenditure is only possible if there is no coordination between the person or group making the expenditure and the candidate or his campaign. The Democrats are filing a complaint with the Alaska Public Offices Commission, asking the commission to investigate how it happens that the party is attacking Crawford on the same point Brokaw has been attacking on, without coordinating the attack.

In August, Democratic Party officials asked the APOC whether a political party could legally make an independent expenditure on behalf of a candidate. APOC's Chris Ellingson told Alaska Democratic Party spokeswoman Kay Brown that it would be "hard for a party to do it and pass a straight-face test." She advised that any party entity doing an IE would have be "completely uninvolved" with the candidate and the candidate's campaign, and that there could be no contact about the campaign with the candidate, manager, or other agent of the candidate in order to legally do an independent expenditure.

Based on that advice, the Alaska Democratic party decided not to make independent expenditures.

"We wanted to stay in the center of the ethical playing field," Doogan said.

Ruedrich and the Republicans, who received the same advice from Ellingson, apparently decided differently.

This issue is scheduled to take the entire day, as the Republican Party is calling a myriad of witnesses...probably because this is a practice they want to continue.

The phrase "ethically bankrupt" comes to mind.

While I'll stop by today to discover if there's been a decision regarding the AK Dems complaint, the day I'm attending the meeting is tomorrow:

HEARING AGENDA
Thursday, September 24, 2009

4:00 - 4:30 Sarah Palin POFD Staff Recommendation [6]Presented by Jerry D. Anderson, APOC Staff

4:30 - 5:00 Public Comment Period

While it doesn't say the words "gifts" or "Arctic Cat," those are the disclosures for which the Staff has made recommendations regarding her 2008 Public Offices Financial Disclosure (POFD):

APOC and Palin went back and forth this summer over just what had to be disclosed. Palin didn't want to reveal details of the Arctic Cat sponsorship, saying it was proprietary information, and also argued that gifts were not "received" until they were opened.

APOC disagreed with her on both those points and Palin filed a new disclosure last month, listing more gifts and providing some information in the disclosure about Todd Palin's Arctic Cat sponsorship, while pleading ignorance of specifics.

Palin's lawyer, Tom Van Flein, told APOC that Palin "has not read the contract and does not know the specific terms of the contract."

"She has a general awareness that the sponsorship contract provides for discounts...Scott Davis is sponsored by Arctic Cat and has been for 15 years. As a sponsored team he, and his crew (which includes Todd Palin), can obtain Arctic Cat merchandise for 50% off of retail. In addition, the company pays a sponsorship fee and gives Team Arctic Wear to the Racing Team," Van Flein wrote.

APOC staff responded in Sept. 2 memo that Palin's response "appears to be appropriate...given the level of knowledge and disclosure of facts by this filer."

The staff will present their recommendation to the Commissioners tomorrow, immediately before the public comments period. I called the APOC staff and they do not know if the Commissioners will deliberate and make a decision before the public comments or not.

1) No one as of yet has made a complaint regarding specific gifts missing from Palin's 2008 gift disclosure.  I'm not sure if they will be able to act on anything unless they have specific evidence of missing gifts.

2) Regarding Arctic Cat...following the Staff Recommendation sets a dangerous precedent regarding disclosure for ALL public officials in Alaska.  A spouse of ANY public official could simply choose NOT to tell that official about their income (wink, wink) yet still use that income for the benefit of the family, including that public official.  

3) Business could "pay" these spouses in "discounts" to avoid disclosure.

4) Even if these "discounts" from Arctic Cat do not qualify as "income," they most certainly qualify as "gifts" which directly benefit Sarah Palin.  While "other income" must be reported if it is over $1,000 (according to POFD instructions), gifts over $250.00 must be reported...this includes the amount.

5) Sarah Palin has NOT answered any direct questions about the Arctic Cat income, though she DID report it in 2007...that means she consciously witheld it.  Sarah Palin did not provide the sponsorship amounts from ANY Iron Dog sponsor on her 2008 POFD.

Sarah Palin in NO WAY has satisfied the questions about the Arctic Cat sponsorship.  IN NO WAY has Sarah Palin followed the disclosure laws regarding the Arctic Cat sponsorship per APOC's POFD form instructions.

Public Comments are accepted in written form as well as verbally in front of the Commissioners.

Teleconference number: 1-800-315-6338, Code 4176

EMAIL: apoc@alaska.gov
 

APOC deadline today for Palin's Arctic Cat and gift disclosures--remember her "bribes?"

by: Celtic Diva

Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 05:06:22 AM AKDT

Welcome to Monday, August 17th!

Sarah Palin has until midnight to disclose all of this information...and let's remember, it was ORIGINALLY DUE ON MARCH 16TH...when EVERY OTHER ALASKA PUBLIC OFFICIAL who was required to do so turned in their Financial Disclosure form!  She's been given a serious five-month grace-period!

We'll see if she complies today.

While I'll discuss more about the Arctic Cat issue tomorrow when we know what Palin's response will be, there is quite a bit to understand about Palin's biggest problem...her inability to report gifts properly both under the Executive Branch Ethics Act (EBEA) rules as well as the APOC rules.

Here is the video of Palin speaking at the Right-to-Life dinner in Indiana, where she talks facetiously about being "bribed" to go there (4:29):

She discusses the gifts they give her over time, the fact that they were sent to her office (this was a non-state-sanctioned event), that they were enjoyed by staff, press, etc...  When some were uncomfortable with the gifts issue being treated so casually and even questioned the potential ethics ramifications, Palin's followers went in full attack mode, accusing the questioners' motives, genetic heritage, etc...

However, through an investigation of Palin's gifts, it may be that those questions were not so far off base after all:

Here is the report of the infamous chocolates.  The "NO" is in response to the query "Is it necessary to report this to APOC."  Because this individual item is only $40.00, that would be true...unless more items were sent and depending on the CUMULATIVE cost remaining under $250.00.

So here's the second gift...

...also from Vanderburgh County Right-to-Life

And the third:

Cumulative $90.00, still nothing outrageous.

Here's the forth and fifth...not mentioned in the speech...cumulative is up to $130.00...still safe:

Here's where we start to get serious and where Sarah Palin is terribly fond of pushing the envelope.  These gifts are not marked as coming specifically from Vandenburgh Right to Life:

However, Palin mentions the hockey stick as being part of the "bribes." The others she didn't mention are clearly meant to encourage her to make the trip, either from business owners who were members of Vandenburgh Right-to-Life, would be attending the dinner or were purchased by other members.  This is where an APOC Complaint would be handy to ask the legitimate question, are these gifts now reportable to APOC because of their obviou link and now exceed the $250.00 cutoff?  (We're up to $340.00 to be exact.)

But, we're not even done.  Here's another box of chocolates from Evansville...this time from the owner of the chocolate shop!

Do you think the Libs family are members of Vandenburgh Right to Life?

Same for the Dunn family:

And what about the Zeidlers of "Zeidler's Flowers" who gave then-Governor Palin a $129.00 Orchid?

Yet, Sarah Palin simply writes "NO" when the total price tag of the Evansville gifts is $548.09!!!  Hell, the Corrupt Bastards (embarassingly) were busted by the Feds when being "bribed" by similar amounts!

We'll see if she reports these to APOC by midnight tonight.

Of course, it isn't just the amount that is a challenge for her, it's reporting them in a timely manner per the EBEA:

Note the art piece was given to Palin in September of 2008.  She didn't actually report it and get the form signed by the AG UNTIL MARCH 2009!  Time-frame gifts are supposed to be reported within:  30 days.

And these are only the gifts that she's actually reported.  We haven't even talked about the ones that she hasn't:

On Monday, July 20, 2009, I (along with most local media and bloggers) received a press release regarding another ethics complaint filed with the Attorney General's office by Anchorage resident and registered Republican Andrée McLeod.  The charges are that "Governor Palin violated the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act for failure to submit completed and signed gift disclosure forms claiming gifts received by her and her family."

The press release continued:

"Governor Palin intentionally and willfully broke the Ethics Act by not claiming gifts timely, if at all," McLeod said.

The Ethics Act is exceedingly and simply clear in that officials MUST claim gifts within 30 days of receipt. Yet, Sarah Palin states in a June 15th letter, "There are boxes of unopened mail at this point, even mail that was delivered in 2008.  Thus, as initially disclosed, 'we continue to open boxes' and we consider any parcel "received" at the time it is opened."

"The governor's statement sets off alarms. Alaskans expect their public officials to follow the rules of law; especially the ones that are intended to keep them honest," McLeod said.  "Instead this woman admits to having no intention of complying with our laws."  

McLeod continues, "What possible reason is there for Palin to keep all these gifts a secret for so long? Why has she not disclosed them by the book now before quitting? "

This Ethics Complaint is still outstanding and I await its outcome.  As for the extent of Palin's cooperation with APOC, we'll know in a few hours.

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.

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.

 

The Gov.'s Gifts--Part II: Why Andree McLeod scares the hell out of the Administration. *UPDATE*

by: Celtic Diva

Sun May 10, 2009 at 02:32:41 AM AKDT

We also discussed the yearly reporting requirements under the Alaska Public Offices Commission and mentioned testimony given by Andree McLeod at their latest quarterly meeting regarding those gifts.

You may have wondered:  Why was Andree McLeod testifying at that APOC meeting?  

On the agenda, the APOC was going to provide the answers to several "Advisory Opinion Requests" put in from Linda Perez for her boss, the Governor.  (Requests for "Advisory Opinions" come from candidates or other public employees who may be confused as to whether or not they need to report something specific on any of their APOC documents.  Here, we were talking about gifts so it was in reference to the Governor's financial disclosure form (POFD).)

The first of the Advisory Opinion Requests from Linda Perez was AO-09-05-POFD:

If Governor Palin donates to third parties the gifts that were received by her or her family as a result of her vice-presidential candidacy, must she report those gifts under Alaska's Public Official Financial Disclosure Laws?

Per the APOC:

The short answer is yes.  Even if a gift is donated to a third party, it must still be reported on the Governor's annual Public Official Financial Disclosure form.

So in other words, if the Governor...say...donates a bunch of clothes she just wore a couple of times to a charity organization, she must still report it on her gift disclosure forms.  Hmmmmm...

The second Advisory Opinion Request, AO-09-06-POFD, was related:

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?

Per the APOC:

The short answer is no.  A proffered gift which is not accepted by a public official does not need to be reported on a Public Official Financial Disclosure Form.

So, hypothetically, if you were "given" a bunch of clothes by the Republican Party but you gave them back to the Republican Party then you wouldn't have to report them on your POFD.

Or would you?

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.

As I stated before, Ms. McLeod testified the day before in anticipation of the answers to Linda Perez's Advisory Opinion Requests.  Two of the issues Ms. McLeod raised were the subject of much discussion during "unfinished business" section on the second day.

1)  Would you please request Palin to submit the appropriate amendments to her [financial disclosure] report instead of waiting for a complaint?

2)  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. Though on the campaign trail, Sarah Palin was still in the role of governor and must abide by Alaska financial disclosure laws.  For consistency's sake, could you please request a full accounting of those clothes, hair and make-up services?  Even if they were given away, they were still gifts that she and her family did receive and must be accounted for in the report, as well as other gifts she received on the campaign trail.

During the discussion, it was clear that one of the members of the Commission (Kathleen Fredrick, the Republican member from Wasilla) felt that anyone who saw anything they believed to be incorrect should be forced to file a complaint before the APOC should investigate.  In other words, that would completely put the responsibility for honest politicians and campaigns on the shoulders of the public.  Commission Chair Elizabeth Hickerson did not agree, stating that Commissioners had the authority to investigate without the need for a formal complaint.  

Several of the Commissioners agreed that they found the first two items of Andree McLeod's testimony disturbing and upon discovery that the staff regularly sent out inquiries to public officials even without a complaint on file, they requested that the staff ask Governor Palin for clarification.

A letter, dated April 29, 2009, was sent to Governor Palin.  It stated that it was in response to testimony from the APOC meeting and it asked for two items of clarification:

1) Are there gifts which have been received by you or your family in your personal capacity during calendar year 2008, which have not been reported on your 2009 public official financial disclosure statement covering the period January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008?  If so, please amend your most recent disclosure statement to reflect this information.

This question was directly related to the public testimony given by Andree McLeod at the meeting.

The second question surprised me:

2) You 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?

Why is this question significant?  Governor Palin only listed the names of Todd's Iron Dog sponsors on her 2009 (covering calendar year 2008) financial disclosure statement, not any amounts.  This is different from her 2008 financial disclosure (calendar year 2007), where the Palin's claimed a total of $7,500.00 income/gifts from Arctic Cat.  Listing only the names of the sponsors and not the amounts is "legal" as long as the gifts for each sponsor total LESS THAN $1,000.00.

Remember, 2008 was the year AFTER he and Scott Davis won.  Also remember this is now a separate question coming directly from APOC regarding "disclosure" on her forms.  It's not affiliated with any other agency.  

(Next:  we'll look at the pieces of a smear campaign orchestrated by "Chief of Backlash" Mike Nizich against Andree McLeod.)

*UPDATED with links to Gov. Palin's financial disclosure forms for 2008 and 2009.

*All information for this piece was obtained:

1) - through attendance at the quarterly APOC meeting in April

2) - through $5.00 purchase of the CDs containing the raw recording information used in the eventual minutes of the meeting.  The minutes will not be available until the June meeting.

3) - through hard copies of the the "Advisory Opinion Requests" from Linda Perez and APOC's responses to those requests.

3) - via emails from the participants.  

Morning summary--stories I'm working on, upcoming events and stories you should read

by: Celtic Diva

Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 08:39:29 AM AKDT

-- The REAL Stimulus story in the works -- Senator Begich is helping Alaska's businesses access those federal dollars for the good of Alaska's economy.

-- IMPORTANT story on Mudflats today -- While the pollock trawlers can merrily toss as much king salmon bycatch over the side as they want this year, the Yukon's rural subsistence fisherfolk now have severe limits as to the number of kings they can keep.  AKM has the story and comments from Yukon residents as to the impact on their already struggling economy.

--  Don't forget, Eric Croft's fundraiser is tonight at the Snow City Cafe.

Eric Croft and Jane Angvik

The Governor and her Gifts--Part 1--A little background

by: Celtic Diva

Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 08:48:08 AM AKDT

--Over the weekend, "Palingates" recounted a fanatical "Team Sarah" member gushing over  recently receiving a thank-you note from the Palins:

Generous Elizabeth, a member of a certain Team connected to our Sarah, was over the moon upon receiving a thank you card from Bristol after sending a couple of gifts for Trig and Piper.

I just received a card from Bristol :)

I think it was sweet of her to send this!

Further down in the thread, replying to envious comments, such as :

Another card from the Palins? LOL, Good on you girl. Are you collecting Palin Cards or something? :)

Generous Elizabeth waxed lyric:

Hehe, I only have 2 right now. I just love sending them stuff and showing my support, and they are just so sweet enough to send out replies! :)

To which another fan commented:

They are so lucky to have such a special friend like you Elizabeth! Perhaps they'll put you on their Christmas card list? Now wouldn't that be something?

Do you have an address where we can all send gifts?

--So they must be continuing to open all of those boxes of gifts and letters Chuck Heath talked about in an interview with Grandparents.com

"In Sarah's mailroom, there's 87 boxes - big boxes of mail that haven't even been opened. I've been answering letters all day, all week. We figure there's over a hundred thousand pieces here. And we'll never get it done. We're just inundated."

--Gifts are regulated through The Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act:  

Sec. 39.52.130. Improper gifts.

(a) A public officer may not solicit, accept, or receive, directly or indirectly, a gift,
whether in the form of money, service, loan, travel, entertainment, hospitality, employment,
promise, or in any other form, 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. A gift from a person required to register as a lobbyist under AS 24.45.041 to a public officer or a public officer's immediate family member is presumed to be intended to influence the performance of official duties, actions, or judgment unless the giver is an immediate family member of the person receiving the gift.

(b) Notice of the receipt by a public officer of a gift with a value in excess of $150, including the name of the giver and a description of the gift and its approximate value, must be provided to the designated supervisor within 30 days after the date of its receipt

--The forms filed by the Governor's Office every 30 days disclosing those gifts are subject to records requests by the public.  The public is finding those disclosures to be less-than-complete, as we will see later in this post.

(Make a mental note of the "in excess of $150.00" requirement bolded and underlined above.  We will be "revisiting" that in future posts on this topic.)

--The Governor is also required by the Alaska Public Offices Commission to fill out yearly Financial Disclosure forms.  This year, the Governor's were less-than-complete as she a) fails to list actual monetary figures at all regarding how much her husband received from his Iron Dog sponsors b) fails to list precise monetary figures as to the exact nature of her legal debts and c) fails to list how much legal debt applies to each complaint (i.e. how much of the legal debt applied to the very expensive complaint which she filed against herself?)  

--Remember that Governor Palin did NOT "turn over the reigns" to Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell while she was campaigning for Vice President.  This had the probably unintended consequence of making all of the gifts accepted on the campaign trail subject to Ethics Act restrictions as well.  

--This brings us to the Seven Requests Andree McLeod made of APOC during Thursday's public testimony in front of the Alaska Public Offices Commission at their quarterly meeting:

1)  Would you please request Palin to submit the appropriate amendments to her [financial disclosure] report instead of waiting for a complaint?  

2)  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. Though on the campaign trail, Sarah Palin was still in the role of governor and must abide by Alaska financial disclosure laws.  For consistency's sake, could you please request a full accounting of those clothes, hair and make-up services?  Even if they were given away, they were still gifts that she and her family did receive and must be accounted for in the report, as well as other gifts she received on the campaign trail.  

3)  Why are there gifts missing from Palin's APOC report that she's received according to gift disclosure forms on file?

4)  There have been reports that Bristol Palin's fiancé Levi Johnston's lived at the Palin household in 2008.  Why is that not reflected in the report?  Wouldn't Palin have to disclose his income in the report too?

5)  Why is the dollar amount of gifts and/or discounts missing from Todd Palin's list of gifts received from sponsors for his Iron Dog business?

6)  Why is the dollar amount missing from the listed legal debt? Shouldn't that debt be more detailed and be listed case by case?  

7)  There's talk of a legal trust fund forming for Sarah Palin, her family and state colleagues.  There might be laws addressing the legality of such a coordinated fund for public officials.  But never before in Alaska 's history has someone had at least 500,000 people on their facebook page.  Never before has there been the potential of those people contributing an average of $100 towards such a fund.  That would total $50 million.  Half of that is $25 million.  A quarter of that is $12.5 million. And an eighth of that - I'll need a calculator.

In Part 2, we'll look at a) responses to some of these questions by APOC as well as b) how the Legal Defense Fund Trust plays into all of this.

Some Saturday Snark: questions on the day Gov. Palin's first grandchild is supposed to be born

by: Celtic Diva

Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 01:25:34 AM AKST

- What are the oddmakers saying about the chances that the new little one's parents (Bristol and Levi) are really going to get married?

- It turns out that the "controlled substance" Grandma number two  was busted for is Oxycontin.  

This tidbit was in the article:

Kalytiak said the standard protocol for drug arrests is that law enforcement officials observe one drug buy, then get a warrant that permits them to record conversations and document more buys.

"I'd imagine standard protocol was followed," the district attorney said.

How badly do you imagine the Palins are sweating right now?

Also, was there a "surge" in Sherry Johnston's "business" that coincided with the same time Levi claimed responsibility as the father of Bristol's baby and said they were getting married?

- Why has Governor Palin been dissing "her favorite consignment shop?"

Back in the early days of Sarah Palin's Wardrobegate, the governor first addressed the issue at a Florida rally, where she told the audience -- "without the filter of the media" -- that she's "back to wearing my own clothes from my favorite consignment shop in Anchorage, Alaska."

However...

"She's been shopping here for about three years," Arvold said. "Her office is only a block away so sometimes she'd come shop during lunch, or she'd stop in with her daughter on the weekend. But no, we haven't seen her since she's been back, but she's a really busy person."

Not too busy to shop in the women's clothing department in Nordstroms!

No more used clothes for her?

- Great-grandfather Heath reported that:

"In Sarah's mailroom, there's 87 boxes - big boxes of mail that haven't even been opened," 70-year-old Heath told Grandparents.com.  The future great-grandfather says Bristol's newborn will be swimming in baby items once he makes his debut.

Who are those gifts addressed to?  

Washington Post uncovers $25,000 in gifts to Palin in only 20 months as Governor

by: Celtic Diva

Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 23:24:24 PM AKDT

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who has made a crackdown on gift-giving to state officials a centerpiece of her ethics reform agenda, has accepted gifts valued at $25,367 from industry executives, municipalities and a cultural center whose board includes officials from some of the largest mining interests in the state, a review of state records shows.

The 41 gifts Palin accepted during her 20 months as governor include honorific tributes, expensive artwork and free travel for a family member. They also include more than $2,500 in personal items from Calista, a large Alaska native corporation with a variety of pending state regulatory and budgetary issues, and a gold-nugget pin valued at $1,200 from the city of Nome, which lobbies on municipal, local and capital budget matters, documents show.

About a quarter of the entities bestowing gifts on the governor are represented by one of Alaska's most influential mining lobbyists, who said in an interview that she was not involved in the tributes. The lobbyist, Wendy Chamberlain, has a relationship with the governor's family through the friendship of their teenage daughters.

Hmmmm...could this be why she postponed her financial records release until a day after her debate with Joe Biden, who released 10 years worth?

(more below the fold)