IMPORTANT MEETING TONIGHT--Please attend!

by: Celtic Diva

Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 11:34:48 AM AKST

(Parts of this post were "borrowed" by permission from Mudflats.  Please click on the link and read the entire article.)

The Anchorage Fish & Game Advisory Committee will hold its election meeting:

January 5th at 6:00 pm

Anchorage School District Education Center, located at 5530 E Northern Lights Blvd, in the School Board room.

Last year the conservation community rallied to elect three members to the committee and what a difference it made! In one short year those three members successfully passed conservation proposals to:

--Support the expansion of the Denali Wolf Buffer Zone;
--Restrict Nonresidents from hunting in predator control areas;
--Support the proposal to end wolverine trapping in Chugach State Park

Thanks to these seven candidates for their willingness to donate their time and talent in support of balanced conservation.  Each candidate will give a short speech on their behalf at the meeting before you vote.

Karen Deatheradge (Biologist and Conservationist)
Valerie Conner (B.S. in Environmental Planning and Management)
Kate Swift (Biologist and Conservationist)
Kneely Taylor (Lawyer and Conservationist)
Lynette Morino Hinz (Native Alaskan & Subsistence Advocate)
Justin McGinnis (Hunter and Conservationist)
Terry Miracle (Hunter and Conservationist)

Clear your calendar for Tuesday night, because you will have the opportunity to cast a vote for wildlife, and for supporting a sustainable model of conservation - a recognition that the land and its wildlife are not here for us to "harvest" only, but that we must strike a balance between what we take, and what we leave for the greater enjoyment of all.  There is no question that many Alaskans, Native and non-Native, rural and urban, hunt and fish for subsistence, and for sport.  But for too long, the voices of those who stack our commissions see Alaska's wildlife as ONLY a resource to be eaten or hung on a wall, and not as creatures in their own right, and a renewable resource for photographers, tourists and outdoor enthusiasts.

(Note from Linda:  I was just cruising around the blogosphere and discovered a few websites that are encouraging "the other side" to get to the meeting as well as promote "their own" candidates.  They are also trying to motivate their folks by ridiculing Mudflats.  It's extremely important that we all show up to vote!)

"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.

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.  

Alaska Personnel Board Meeting NOON TOMORROW May 27, 2009 **UPDATE**

by: Celtic Diva

Tue May 26, 2009 at 20:39:08 PM AKDT

For background and analysis:

OK, So here's the bombshell...

Governor Palin's over-the-top response...

Sarah Palin's dangerous words

Clearing up some misconceptions

Everyone has an opinion...

Ethics Complaint Dismissed...

ADN reveals lack of understanding...

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

A Clay Bennet Cartoon

Alaska's very own Personnel Board (yup, THAT Personnel Board) will be meeting tomorrow starting at 12:00 noon in Room 880 at the Frontier Building, 3601 C Street, Anchorage, Alaska

What will they be meeting about?

To take action on minutes from earlier meetings, to review outstanding ethics cases and reports, to consider the adoption of proposed amendments to Leave Rules, and other matters that may come before the board within the scope of this notice. Deliberations on ethics matters will occur in executive session because these matters are required to be confidential under AS 39.52.340.

Here are the Personnel Board Members.

Here's the agenda:

Notice I bolded the "public comment" area and notice that it's AFTER the Executive Session,  which could be very long.  I'm having the girls bring books, their DSes, snacks, the works. There's no way of telling how long it will be until Public Comment happens.

The Statute they are looking at revising is this one:

AS 39.25.130. Extension of Partially Exempt and Classified Services.

There is no way of knowing what (if any) hearings are happening during the executive session on which (if any) of the ethics complaints.

However...

The Personnel Board does NOT meet on a regular schedule...two to three meetings a year.  Usually, when they do meet, it's because there needs to be one or more hearings.

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.  

According to my email, folks are SERIOUSLY UPSET at the Governor over the Georgia trip.

by: Celtic Diva

Thu Nov 27, 2008 at 08:00:00 AM AKST

Can someone find out exactly how much state is paying for trip vs Chambliss
campaign?

The Philadelphia meeting is Tuesday.  She is in Georgia all day Monday (at
least) for 4 events, meaning she is on the road at least one day more than
if she were just going to Philly.

McAllister said the Chambliss campaign was just paying for the "side trip"
to Georgia.  I can't imagine that she would fly to Philly- then Georgia-
then Philly- when it makes sense to go to Atlanta first, etc.

Anyway, that's a long version of saying the Chambliss campaign should be
paying more- at least half.

Dear Celtic Diva,

Who pays for Palin's campaign trips? And are there some angry Alaskans over this hopscotch touring of hers? OUR governor has been tapped for Obama's transition team and (I don't know if it's official) Boarder Security something or other. But at least she's been CALLED by her president-elect to serve. What's Palin's excuse? And WHO'S paying her fees and/or the State of Alaska for taking her away from "puttin' government back on the side of the people"?

Dear Ms. Celtic Diva;

Governor Palin's trip has me a little riled up:

If the State is paying for her trip, if she conducts State business while in GA (on a State owned Blackberry), if she represents herself as Governor Palin instead of Private Citizen Palin, if her assistants are helping her engage in "partisan politcal purposes' while on State time and on the State nickel there's some ethics issues involved.

And, my personal favorite...

Weren't you there during the turkey thing when she said she had no plans on traveling other than Juneau for gov's mansion open house?

I sure was and I remember the quote was something like "The only tickets I have right now are to Juneau."  I also remember she had this look on her face that reminded me of my daughter when she's telling a fib.  

The reason I remember that clearly was because the thought flashed through my mind, "Wow, talk about parsing words!"

In other words, THE ONLY TICKETS SHE HAD IN HAND were to Juneau...until the very next day or so.

So what can we do?

1)  Stay vigilant!  Keep track of what our Governor is doing!

2)  Ask questions of the Governor's office, of the Anchorage Daily News, of your favorite television news team, of your favorite bloggers!  Tell these folks that YOU WANT THE STRAIGHT STORY!!!!  

3)  HELP ALASKANS FOR TRUTH by emailing your Legislators and encouraging them to follow-up on the Branchflower Report.  Governor Palin continues to pull this behavior because no one has held her accountable for anything else!

4) DONATE to Alaskans for Truth so that we can attack those ethics issues.  AFT is the only group out there publicly doing just that.  The Legislators, the Governor, everyone else needs to know you support consequences for unethical behavior!