GOV-4-SALE

by: Celtic Diva

Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 20:25:08 PM AKDT

I've been working today on the house and other projects...some of which you'll hopefully see in a few days on the blog and other places.  I didn't get an opportunity to cruise the other blogs until this afternoon.

Mudflats did a beautiful job of transcribing Darth Stapletongue's...I mean...Sarah Palin's speech from last night's Michael Reagan appearance (as an adopted kid myself, I can't imagine speaking the way he did about his brothers and sisters...what a pig).  I read most of it but hadn't had enough coffee to allow me to make it through the whole thing.  It wasn't until later that a friend called me and said..."Please, please tell me she did NOT talk about her shoes!"

Uhhhh...I guess I missed something.  I went back to the computer while I was on the phone and read the rest of the speech.

Good Lord...I couldn't believe it:

So I encourage Michael just to keep on speaking up, and for me....you know me....  Before my Franco Sarto red high heels even get off the stage and touch the floor my critics, they're going to be loaded for bear and they're going to start unloading because, because I dared speak up.

***INSERT PRODUCT PLACEMENT***HERE***

***CUE COMMERCIAL***

"Yes, Governor Palin is sporting a beeeeeautiful new pair of Franco Sarto red patent leather "Talk" shoes.  YOU BETCHA that you can have that fresh, BOLD look of your very own on sale this week at Nordstroms for $59.99!!!"

***END COMMERCIAL***

If anyone can find a speech where an national or state public officer promos a clothing designer they are wearing while giving a policy speech, I'd be interested to see it.

I also doubt it was coincidental that, just a paragraph or two later, she mentioned the dismissal of the Arctic Cat complaint (of course, mentioning Arctic Cat at the time).  

I asked the friend who told me about the price "Do you think Palin bought them for $59.99?"

Her response:  "I don't know, but I'll bet she never does again!"

I believe the line is "We've already established WHAT you are, now we're just dickering over the price."

Educational Standards **UPDATE 2** ADN quotes incomplete, ThinkProgress info

by: Celtic Diva

Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 23:11:43 PM AKDT

Gov. Palin doesn't want Alaska to participate in setting national test standards for K-12 education:

Palin on Sunday rejected what nearly all other states have accepted and said Alaska has chosen to "monitor but not yet actively participate" in the process of standardizing K-12 education.

Forty-six states have signed on to the initiative to devise standards for reading and math testing that would let the performance of students in one state be compared with those in another.

God no...we can't allow Alaskan kids to be compared to others across the country...then EVERYONE would know that we are behind and golly, that would reflect SO BADLY on the Governor!

And, of course, the Governor gave us a clear, concise statement on her thinking about this decision, right?

In a Sunday press release, Palin said, "Alaska's decision not to participate until after we monitor this is based on our desire to spend our time and public resources to improve instruction in the classroom and to form productive relationships between schools and the communities they serve."

HUH?

Granted, what we've "opted out" of right now is actually participating in CHOOSING the standards.  However, we have VERY UNIQUE educational challenges, as stated by Senator Begich:

Begich said he believes "that the No Child Left Behind law has been a disaster for Alaska."

When the Senator is talking about WHERE NCLB has been a disaster, he's referring to Rural Alaska.  So, who do you think gets screwed if Alaska doesn't have an opportunity to have any input into these standards?

LeDoux also says there is nothing for Alaska to contribute to the standards conversation -- because the conversation has already happened. It is building on a project that several dozen states have been working on for years, called the American Diploma Project.

Several dozen?  Try 35 and counting...

What Are States Doing?

Governors, state superintendents of education, business executives and college leaders are working to bring value to the high school diploma by raising the rigor of high school standards, assessments and curriculum and aligning expectations with the demands of postsecondary education and careers. The Network is building on the work begun by the American Diploma Project (ADP), an initiative launched by Achieve in partnership with The Education Trust and the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation in 2001.

Why haven't we been part of this conversation all along?  Oh yeah, I forgot who our Governor happens to be.

The website also talks about what individual states are contributing:

To close the expectations gap, ADP Network states have committed to the following four actions:

--Align high school standards and assessments with the knowledge and skills required for success after high school.
--Require all high school graduates to complete a college- and career-ready curriculum so that earning a diploma assures a student is prepared for opportunities after high school.
--Build assessments into the statewide system that measure students' readiness for college and careers.
--Develop an accountability system that promotes college and career readiness.

Yeah...that sounds positively dangerous.  I mean, readiness for college and careers...why do Alaskan kids need that?

After all, this whole program is going to force Alaska into some "little box" and not give us an opportunity to direct our own educational programs, right?  I mean, we'd have no say at all...

Although all Network states are committed to a common set of key policy priorities, there's no one-size-fits-all approach. Each state has developed its own action plan for carrying out the agenda.

Pardon me for not having faith in Palin's educational decisions when I think back on her track record.

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

I was immediately leary of the quotes attributed to John Pile, executive director of the Alaska Association of Elementary School Principals and Barb Agaiak, President of NEA which is why I didn't reference them in the original post.  According to the ADN article:

[John Pile] supports the governor's choice but said national tests would help teachers with kids who move into Alaska from other states. Given the large number of students who transfer in and out of Alaska, that would be especially helpful.

That sounded incomplete and disjointed.

I contacted Mr. Pile so I could get more information.  He had not read the article yet and when I read the title and first paragraph of the ADN article (that Gov. Palin was opting out of participating in creating the standards) to Mr. Pile, he told me that was not the question the Daily news asked him.  The question she asked was whether he believed there ought to be national standards in education.

When I asked whether he thought Alaska should be involved in creating those standards, he responded.

"The more people participating the better."  

I also spoke to Barb Angaiak, President of NEA and Virginia McKinney the Communications Director when they called back.  Her quote in the ADN sounded equally incomplete and off-target:

Barb Angaiak, president of the teacher's union, the National Education Association-Alaska, echoed a similar sentiment. "It's a good idea to proceed with caution before we blindly sign on to something."

They recounted a similar story to Mr. Pile's, that the question they were asked was "whether we believe there ought to be national standards."  They tried to probe a little bit for clarification from Megan Holland on what she was trying to ask but they didn't get more than that.  

As a result of the article, the NEA put out a press release this afternoon for clarification (emphasis mine):

"We definitely support national standards for students and teachers, but they're not always a good fit for Alaska when it comes to implementation," said NEA-Alaska President Barb Angaiak.  "We applaud Governor Palin's decision to move slowly into the process of standardizing K-12 education-as long as Alaska participates in the dialogue.

The press release also added:

"We certainly see the value of having national standards that allow for state-to-state comparisons of student achievement and international benchmarking against academic standards.  

"On the national level, NEA is working closely with the National Governors Association, the Business Roundtable, and other education and advocacy groups to produce a common core of voluntary state standards.  We are playing a key role in the process of coming up with manageable, high quality standards for adoption by states to guide efforts to improve education."

Again, my question to the Governor:  why haven't we been participating in this dialogue "for months?"

I understand that journalists try very hard to keep their questions neutral so as not to bias the story.  However, the article was about Governor Palin choosing to take Alaska out of the dialogue completely and the questions posed to education officials didn't represent the meat of the story.

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

ThinkProgress did an excellent piece showing Palin's and Gov. Sanford of South Carolina's folly (thanks to JustMe in the comments).  The first thing they refute, with the help of the Washington Post, is Palin's excuses for refusing to sign up:

However, Alaska state education commissioner Larry LeDoux noted that merely signing up for the initiative would not drain any state resources. The Washington Post reported that the sign-up phase for the initiative is a preliminary step and that later "each state would decide individually whether to adopt" the proposal recommended by the organizers.

So basically, Palin's excuses are a smokescreen for the real embarassment...where Alaska presently ranks within U.S. standards:

According to a report by the Center for American Progress and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on educational effectiveness, both South Carolina and Alaska received a 'D' in overall academic achievement.

ThinkProgress also points out the most important part of this initiative that Palin ignored/played down--that it's voluntary:

...this initiative is a voluntary effort that promotes ideas from the states - something conservatives claim to support - rather than a mandate decided by an agency in Washington, DC.

The Personnel Board (like the Palin Administration) lacking transparency and professionalism

by: Celtic Diva

Thu May 28, 2009 at 14:18:34 PM AKDT

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.

Examples:

Governor Palin personally used her office to attack a private citizen:

"How much will this blogger's asinine political grandstanding cost all of us in time and money?"

The dishonesty , as we see in Bill McAllister's comments on dismissed complaints:

"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.

The unprofessionalism has risen to heights of arrogance previously unimagined when yesterday, Bill McAllister actually puts out personnel information in a press release, possibly violating Alaska Statutes while trying to convince us they did nothing wrong:  

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.

Palin's transparency-for-sale: At what cost? For this Alaska resident, about $65,000...**UPDATE**

by: Celtic Diva

Fri May 22, 2009 at 12:33:06 PM AKDT

Recently, I've done several posts on "backlash" attempts by the Administration.  Several of those posts expose how the Administration uses members of the media like Eddie Burke and ADN's Sheila Toomey as tools of their backlash.  These posts have directly led to several records requests which I have filed with the Palin Administration.

Pursuant to Alaska Statute 40.25.110, I request the Office of the Governor to duplicate and provide me with a copy of:

1) any and all email contact between you or any employee of the Office of the Governor (statewide) and Alaska resident Eddie Burke,  

2) any and all emails to/from you or any employee of the Office of the Governor (statewide) that discuss Eddie Burke in any way,

3) any and all records requests submitted which target emails to or from Alaska resident Andree McLeod, and

4) a fee breakdown, invoice or any other document which assesses the cost of retrieving the McLeod emails and whether those fees have been/will be charged to the requester.

(This was basically the same records request I used for Sheila Toomey as well.)

This week, I finally received a response to those requests.  They also provided me with the "costs" I would have to provide before they would be able to do this records request for me:

To provide complete responses to the email portions of your request, we will need to electronically search the email accounts of the 71 current and former employees who have worked in the Governor's Executive Offices since December 2006.  For that electronic search, we will need the assistance of the State Security Office in the Department of Administration, Division of Enterprise Technology Services (ETS).  ETS estimates that each email account retrieval, search, and record production will require 16 hours to complete.  The ETS hourly rate is $54.84, so ETS estimates its costs per email account will be $925.44.  Based on that estimate, ETS's estimated costs for obtaining records from 71 employee email accounts total $65,706.

Division of Enterprise Technology Services (ETS) is the State of Alaska version of any company's IT department.  ETS employees are public employees, paid with public funds.

In other words...ETS employees work for the people of the State of Alaska.

Yet, as an Alaskan citizen, I am being charged money...an EXORBITANT, UNREASONABLE amount of money...for a records search which is my statutory right as an Alaskan citizen.  

I'm being charged directly for something that's ALREADY PART OF THEIR JOB!

Plus, if it takes as long as they claim to do a simple email search on two names, then ETS should lose the "technology" part of their name...they have none.

Of course, just like with any "deal," now starts the negotiation. I sent these questions back to Linda Perez.

1) Am I correct in understanding your claim that it costs $925.44 to search and copy emails from one email account?  

2) Is this the standard rate and is everyone charged this fee who makes a request of this nature?

I received a reply, where Ms. Perez states:

1. Yes, the Division of Enterprise Technology Services charges $925.44 to conduct an electronic search of a state e-mail account and make electronic copies of the search results. I have attached a breakdown of the ETS process and resulting fee estimate.

2. Yes, these ETS costs are a standard rate that we charge whenever ETS conducts an electronic search of a state e-mail account to respond to a public records request.  Of course, these rates could change based on, e.g., changes in personnel costs or changes in the amount of time needed to complete the work.

I guess the ONLY way to find out if that's true with Sheila Toomey and Eddie Burke is to do my records request, right?  See the catch?

Of course, Governor Palin's penchant for secrecy is...well...no secret anymore.  Many who have filed records requests with the state have had to look into their pocketbooks first to determine how much honesty they can afford.  This was well documented by the New York Times during the campaign:

The governor and her top officials sometimes use personal e-mail accounts for state business; dozens of e-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that her staff members studied whether that could allow them to circumvent subpoenas seeking public records.

Rick Steiner, a University of Alaska professor, sought the e-mail messages of state scientists who had examined the effect of global warming on polar bears. (Ms. Palin said the scientists had found no ill effects, and she has sued the federal government to block the listing of the bears as endangered.) An administration official told Mr. Steiner that his request would cost $468,784 to process.

I'll be sending my request modification to them sometime today.  While I will be significantly shrinking the parameters, which should significantly reduce the price, it's still going to cost several thousand. (I'll have to figure out the money end when I know the final tally.  I jokingly asked my husband if we could sell the house.  He didn't laugh.)

I'll update you when I know the final cost of this "open and transparent" government.

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

My reply to Linda Perez:

Ms. Perez:

Thank you for your prompt reply.

Several points:

-- I want to make sure that I have a clear understanding of the situation so, in summary:

1)     The ETS charges $925.44 per individual email account if they find it necessary to electronically search it.

2)     The ETS per/hour charge is $57.84

3)     This means that per individual email account, it takes an ETS employee 16 hours to do an electronic search.

Is this correct??  

If so, what type of "electronic search" on one email account for two names takes 16 hours?  Is that in anticipation that there will be a great many emails that will fit the "Eddie Burke" and "Sheila Toomey" search parameters?  If I shorten the date range to, say, one year or maybe six months...will it take less than 16 hours?

-- Your original response to my request (pdf file "Linda Kellen fee letter") also stated:

"Once you pay the fees and the record compilation is completed, we intend to review the records to determine whether they are truly responsive to your requests and whether they include any confidential or privileged information that should not be disclosed."

Since the letter was unclear, I wanted to ensure that some of the "16 hours" for the electronic search time was NOT actually taking into consideration the time required to "review" the documents to determine "privilege."  My understanding is that any estimate of anticipated costs for search and copying cannot include time likely to be spent reviewing the documents to see if they can or should be withheld due to a claim of privilege. (5902 S-11105 Fuller v. City of Homer, 113 P.3d. 659, 666)

-- I would also like to make these modifications to my records request:

1)  Change the "start date" to July 1, 2008.

2)  Limit the Governor's Office employee email accounts to be searched to Governor Sarah Palin, Linda Perez, Bill McAllister, Kris Perry and Sharon Leighow

3)  I would like all other parameters of my request(s) to remain the same.

-- Finally, per Section 40.25.110 of the Alaska Statutes, I would like to request a reduction or waiver of the final fees, once we have come to an agreement upon the modified request.  As we live on my husband's income because I do not have regular employment due to disability, my family would be unable to afford the extra expense.  Also, my request and use of these records more than qualifies as an exercise benefiting the public interest.  The results of my records request(s) will be published on my blog, Celtic Diva's Blue Oasis, which is specifically geared to Alaska issues.  I'm also using this as an opportunity to educate my readers not only on the workings of state government in general but specifically on the process surrounding the State of Alaska Public Records Act.  

Thank you and I await your response,

Linda Kellen Biegel

Thanks to your comments here and on Mudflats, as well as some of the private emails, I was able to craft that response!  Thank you for all of your help and support!

Mid-week Wrap-up: Idiots, Backlashers, Soldotna Whiplash and Email Karma

by: Celtic Diva

Thu May 21, 2009 at 02:26:45 AM AKDT

A village is missing its idiot...

In the entertainment industry, if a talk-show host needs someone to fill in for them while they are away, the rule of thumb is to use someone less-talented as a replacement.

I didn't think Eddie Burke could find someone that almost...almost made me miss him.  Then, he had McHugh Pierre fill in for him on Friday afternoon.

Listening to both parts was painful at times.  It was as if he had a list of talking points sitting in front of him that he would check off as he awkwardly injected them into conversations with callers, many of whom he clearly knew personally.  However, the most idiotic thing he said by far was during his diatribe about the Governor's book deal:

"I just think it's so bogus, it's not outside employment.  It's not like Rishi has a job or I have a job.  It isn't a second job, writing is a hobby."

If one needs any proof of the embarassment, all one has to notice is that even though Conservatives4Palin members are the ones who religiously YouTube Eddie's Show and then post those YouTubes as a story, they recorded McHugh but made no mention of him anywhere on the blog.

Eddie, your place as king-of-the-idiots is secure.



Darth Stapleton joins in the Backlash.

In another Eddie Burke-related story, Meg Stapleton was on his show yesterday to promote the fact that the FEC dismissed the CREW complaint to the RNC about Palin's wardrobe.

During the show, she spent a great deal of time maligning those who filed ethics complaints.  Eventually, she dove headfirst into backlash territory:

...I think we are to a point where we may have to say you know what this is enough and if we have to stop it to the extent where we have to become more aggressive then we have to become more aggressive...

So, is she taking over for Nizich?



Changing direction this fast is giving me whiplash...

So Governor Palin has issued several statements in the last few days to try and convince people that she is on an equal footing with President Obama.  

One situation was just bizarre.

It seems that, according to the above-linked article in the AK Politics Blog by Sean Cockerham, Palin blames Obama for the closing of a GM dealership (Hutchings Chevrolet) in Soldotna:

"Today, we learned that Obama's decisions continue to impact Alaskans; while we as taxpayers now own General Motors, Obama closes another dealership - this time in Soldotna as more of Alaskans' hard-earned money and jobs are lost to big government."

The problem:  it's not actually closing (Hutchings is terminating the franchise agreement but staying open for service and used car sales) and the change has been coming for awhile, according to another May 10th article also referenced in the Politics Blog.

Then comes the weirdness...

UPDATE -- I just got a call from SarahPAC spokeswoman Meg Stapleton, who contacted Hutchings about this blog post. While I was talking to Stapleton, Hutchings sent me an email saying Palin is right.

His email said "the bottom line is this: Governor Palin is correct: Soldotna lost a new car dealership as part of the federal intervention. 44 local jobs were terminated. Over a million dollars in annual payroll was lost. The net effect to Soldotna is substantial. Obama's actions have directly impacted Alaska and Soldotna. The Governor is correct."

Two things:

1)  Why the HELL would Darth Stapleton and SarahPAC have anything to do with this?

2)  Ummmmm...doesn't that email, especially the repeat of the phrase "The Governor is correct" at the beginning and the end, kinda come off as rather creepy?  It seems rather "Stepford Wife-ish" to me!  I joke around (sorta) when I say "Darth Stapleton" but I swear that some day, I'm going to see her grab someone by the neck and hold him/her over her head.

Fittingly, the final story...


She who laughs last...

Governor Sarah Palin's email hacker, David Kernell, may be getting some serious help in escaping major penalties in the case.

That help originated with Alaskan citizen, Andree McLeod:

A lawyer for the Tennessee college student charged with hacking into the Alaska governor's Yahoo e-mail account last year says his client couldn't have violated Palin's privacy because a judge had already declared her e-mails a matter of public record.

"He's not suggesting that e-mail can't be private," says Mark Rasch, a former Justice Department cybercrime prosecutor. "He's saying this particular e-mail was not private or personal because of who she is and because it wasn't intimate communication. "

The reason he's arguing this is due to recent litigation in Alaska's courts:

Tennessee, he says, only recognizes an invasion of privacy when the invasion exposes something that is inherently private, and the victim was placed in a false light by the invasion. But Palin wasn't placed in a false light by the alleged hack, and her privacy wasn't invaded since "an Alaska court has issued an order requiring Ms. Palin to preserve the correspondence in her private e-mail accounts on the grounds that the e-mails are public records."

Davies is referring to litigation that was filed by an Alaskan activist before the alleged hack occurred. That lawsuit sought Palin's private e-mail. The activist charged that Palin used her Yahoo accounts to conduct official government business and therefore e-mail in the accounts was part of the public record and should be disclosed under Alaska's public records statute. A judge ruled, after news of the hack broke, that Palin was required to preserve the correspondence in her private accounts until the lawsuit was resolved.

Davies implies in his motion to dismiss that there are reasonable grounds to conclude that Palin's Yahoo correspondence was a public record, and cites case law showing that information that already appears on the public record can't be considered private.

That "activist" was Ms. McLeod.  At the time of the hacking, she had this to say about it:

"If this woman[Palin] is so careless as to conduct state business on a private e-mail account that has been hacked into, what in the world is she going to do when she has access to information that is vital to our national security interests?" she asked.

Now, a more timely question may be:  How will Governor Palin react if the young man who hacked her email accounts has his case reduced or dismissed because of litigation generated by Andree McLeod?

Oh, the delicious irony...

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 ADN editors on ethics: Once again, they reveal their lack of research (or understanding)

by: Celtic Diva

Tue May 19, 2009 at 14:40:20 PM AKDT

There's just an overload of issues surrounding Governor Palin and her media coverage...including questions about the book deal and the smearing of those who are viewed as her detractors, just to name two.

It also seems like the Alaska media is working overtime...

On Saturday, the ADN did an editorial opinion piece (Matt Zencey, I presume?) called "Not on Our Dime."  This is a follow-up to their last Op-Ed, which exposed the ADN's (Matt Zencey's?) obvious ignorance of the AEB Ethics Act:

An investigator made short work last week of two ethics complaints against Gov. Sarah Palin. His conclusions made sense, given how the cases were framed.

I'm sure the investigators are relieved that you agree.

But investigator Michael Geraghty and one of the complainants, Anthony Martin, never addressed one question about the governor's November trip to Georgia to campaign for Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss.

Why did the state of Alaska pay per diem expenses to Kris Perry, director of the governor's Anchorage office, for her time in Georgia?

WHOA...really?  You mean that there was State of Alaska money paid out to a State of Alaska employee for campaign activity?

According to spokeswoman Sharon Leighow, the Chambliss campaign covered travel and lodging expenses for the governor and Perry while they were in Georgia. But Leighow said the state paid per diem to Perry in Georgia because the trip qualified as state business.

State business? How's that?

The administration argues that Chambliss was a vote for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and his opponent wasn't.

WHOA...really?  You mean the Palin Administration is putting a spin on the whole thing, trying to justify one unethical act with another?

But to describe her trip to Georgia as state business because Chambliss favors ANWR drilling is fig leaf cover at best. Supporting Alaska in a congressional issue is hardly grounds for using State of Alaska money to support one side in an election battle. With a standard that loose, a governor could spend an entire election season campaigning at state expense in all 435 House races and 33 Senate races,

Wow...ADN, how astute!  This is probably the FIRST TIME that this issue has come up or has even been raised in the paper!

Oh wait...maybe not...

Perhaps Matt...errr...the ADN editor should read back a bit...back to the Alaska Politics Blog in January.  They might find somewhat similar conclusions in Andree McLeod's ethics complaint against...surprise...Kris Perry!

December 1, 2008, Perry again accompanied the governor in order to staff her as it relates to state business to attend a governor's Conference in Philadelphia, with a partisan political campaign stopover in Georgia. Perry did not claim leave during this period...

So, not only do we have the per diem issue, we find that "Perry did not claim leave" which means that she was receiving her State of Alaska salary.

McLeod includes a series of photographs from the event which feature Perry with the Governor at the various campaign stops.

It was during these Republican fundraising events that the photos below were taken and show Perry's role on the campaign trail.  She appears to provide services that are campaign related, not state related.

Yet, Matt...errr...the ADN is buying the spin from the Administration...the only thing that matters is state travel money and per diem.  The fact that they are pulling in a state salary, which is just as much state money as travel and per diem, seems to be ignored.  

We have no quarrel with Gov. Palin campaigning for someone outside Alaska. She's a national figure now.

Yet, the ADN also writes:

Paying State of Alaska per diem for Kris Perry while she was with the governor on a campaign trip doesn't pass the red-face test.

The Georgia trip was partisan politics. None of that should happen on the state dime, including Perry's per diem.

So where in the Ethics Act does it distinguish between per diem/travel and state salary?  Where does it say that it's OK to go on a trip that's primarily campaigning using ANY form of state money?  Where is our collective memory when it came to holding another Governor accountable...the ethics questions around former Governor Frank Murkowski's use of the jet and percentage of time campaigning?

But Alaska Public Offices Commission Executive Director Brooke Miles said she thinks the amount of time spent on state business is important. The commission acts as the state's campaign-finance watchdog.

"I would say if more than 50 percent of the trip was on campaigning, then the principal purpose of the trip wasn't for state work," Miles said. "That would be my recommendation to the commission if I were making one."

At the time, Frank Murkowski was terribly unpopular and had just lost the election to Sarah Palin, who had campaigned on HIS LACK OF ETHICS.  Do we hold Governors accountable for their ethics based on their poll numbers?

The fact that in the interview for this editorial, ONCE AGAIN the Administration (this time Sharon Leighow) is playing the "Palin is the Governor 24/7" card when it benefits them and claims the Governor has "personal time" when it doesn't should be a tipoff that something stinks.

Of course, when she's got most of the Alaska media eating out of her hand, why should the Governor care that her spokespeople are  blatantly contradicting themselves in the media?

And when an editorial staff can't even do their homework, why do they still believe that they are relevant?

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

by: Celtic Diva

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

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

Evans was leaving her for Sarah Palin, she said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feel free to speculate and discuss below!

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

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

It's now on the Alaska Politics Blog.

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

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

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

Homer fire, Bristol Palin graduates and other stories...on a rainy Friday *UPDATE*

by: Celtic Diva

Fri May 15, 2009 at 15:30:59 PM AKDT

There are so many parties, fundraisers and BBQs planned for this weekend because the last several weeks have been SO gorgeous!

Of course it's raining like crazy today!  

I don't mind because then I don't have to feel guilty for being behind the computer when there is so much yard work to do.  (Yes, folks, that's what 16-years of Catholic school will do to you!  My permanent companions sound like a popular Irish band, Shame-n-Guilt!) I just recently found my IPod (yay!) while unpacking boxes so I'm listening to my version of rainy-day music...Me'Shell Ndegeocello's album "Bitter."  ("Grace" is one of my favorite songs of all time.)

Anyway, it seems that, like the leaves on the trees outside, news, emails and comments are just springing up all around me and it's impossible to keep up.  I'm working on several other analytical posts, but I decided I needed to do a summary post of news I haven't had time to cover:



Homer Fire

While I have mentioned the flooding my friends in Rural Alaska have been experiencing and suffering through, I have NOT mention my good friends in Homer fighting and fleeing from the East End Fire.  The link is to an facebook group started to follow the fire.  Information about the fire can be found at Homer News, including the shared photos section:

photo by A. Bauer

The ADN has been doing a pretty good job of staying up-to-the-minute:

The fire, originally estimated at about 1,200 acres, is more accurately about 1,075 acres, said spokesman for the fire command team Pete Buist on Friday morning.

"The weatherman is making us look like heroes," he said.

The forecast for the day was cloudy skies and temperatures in the low 50s, the National Weather Service said. The area might even get a few scattered rain showers later this afternoon.

Meanwhile, residents of three Russian Old Believer communities were still holding out in the face of the smoldering wildfire.

No injuries have been reported.

I hope that some of the rain we are getting here finds its way South to you guys who need it!



My readers are smart and wonderful and really, really observant!!

Since Palin's book deal was announced and I posted on Svobodny's "new ruling" I've been getting all kinds of email and comments on the blog about various aspects of this shady deal.

One item was noticed by a number of you (bravo!) and was summed up nicely in this email from a reader:

Van Flein writes in his letter to Svobodny that "the Governor may spend time in the Governor's Mansion writing and editing drafts and use state provided equipment, such as a fax machine, phone, internet connection, etc. to do so, based on the premise that the Governor's Mansion is to be used as her personal residence and personal activities are permitted there.  However, if this uses causes an additional cost to the state, such as long distance charges, the Governor will reimburse the state for any such additional costs."

Despite this statement, Svobodny responded that "Ethics Act precludes use of state equipment and resources to benefit your (Palin's) financial interests. You have made representations that you will not use state equipment....in connection with your book project."  He also says it's ok to have "incidental, inadvertent, or insignificant... use" of state equipment.  It seems clear that Palin's is planning to use it (it's not inadvertent) and Van Flein's statement does not state any intention to limit the use.

Does the ethics act does say that the governor can feel free to use state equipment, and then reimburse the state? Or can a state legislator use his or her office/equipment for campaign purposes, and then only reimburse the state if there are incremental costs?

More to the point, didn't someone rise to prominence in large part that she accused Randy Ruedrich of using state equipment for personal purposes?

Why yes...yes she did!

Expect to see more about that on a future post!



Sarah Palin attends Bristol's graduation...and still manages to make it all-about-her!

Yesterday, Bristol Palin walked down the aisle, graduating with other Seniors from Wasilla High School.  Eddie Burke even congratulated her on the air.

However, could this day remain simply about Bristol's graduation?  No-friggin' way...

Conservatives4Palin, the same blog that spins those rare moments that Governor Sarah Palin is actually DOING HER JOB into supreme acts of courage, "reported" that Palin was "uninvited" to speak.  (Gee, I wonder who made sure they found out THAT information?)  After harassing the High School for information (and then their readers subsequently doing the same thing), Sean Cockerham from the ADN picked up the story.  He talked to Senior Class Advisor Tony Jenson, who told him:

Jensen said Palin, who had been chosen as governor since she last gave the school's commencement address, was the favored pick. School officials were discussing the speaking engagement with the governor's staff even as late as August. When Palin was picked as the vice-presidential nominee, those discussions took a backseat to her national election campaign. Jensen said he wasn't sure that she'd ever agreed to speak.

After the election was over, school officials began discussing graduation plans again. Their thinking about asking Palin to speak had changed, Jensen said. The school was already in the national media spotlight because of the election and Palin's alumni status there. Here's Jensen's synopsis:

"We didn't want that to distract from the graduation ceremony itself. The other idea was, we'd had a political figure speak at the last three or four ceremonies ... the idea was floated by our administration that maybe she had had her turn."

Gee...imagine that...thinking that Palin was going to be a "distraction" from the ceremony itself...from the graduates...hell, from her own daughter.  Why, that's MADNESS!!!!

PEOPLE EXCLUSIVE

Bristol Palin Graduates from High School

Her mom, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the former Republican vice-presidential nominee, was not always so sure. Palin said in an interview that one of her first thoughts when Bristol announced her surprise pregnancy last spring was, "Oh, there goes her education." "And that's why I'm so proud of her ... really relieved," Palin says. "It's been a challenging and exciting year - her senior year - and I'm just so pleased that we are where we are today."

Sarah's motto:  There is no major event in my children's lives that I cannot use to publicize MEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

Those Palin kids are going to need some serious therapy down the road.  On the other hand, their tell-all books should be awesome!

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

New Hampshire Gov. will sign Gay Marriage Bill with protection for churches

(DOH!!!!!!!  I had this tucked away to put in this post and then forgot it!)

Per Huffington Post:

CONCORD, N.H. - Gov. John Lynch said Thursday he will sign a bill to make his state the sixth to legalize gay marriage as soon as the Legislature makes some changes, which legislative leaders immediately said they would back.

Lynch asked that the already-approved legislation be revised to better protect churches and their employees against lawsuits if their beliefs preclude them from marrying gays. Gay marriage supporters said they do not object.

"Throughout history, our society's views of civil rights have constantly evolved and expanded," Lynch told reporters. "New Hampshire's great tradition has always been to come down on the side of individual liberties and protections."

And now, the part that blew me away:

Lynch said he personally opposes gay marriage, but decided to view the issue "through a broader lens."

And that, my friends, is the way it's SUPPOSED to work!  I can only hope that this will be Alaska someday.

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

by: Celtic Diva

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

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

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

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

Looks almost lifelike, doesn't he?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. What does "outside employment" include?

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

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

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

First:

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

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

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

Second:

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

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

2. What do I have to disclose?

• Any compensated employment;

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

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

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

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

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

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

Palin is LOSING IT--A legal battle with Houston (Texas) Crack Hos?

by: Celtic Diva

Tue May 12, 2009 at 15:25:26 PM AKDT

I've explained that the Administration's claim the Department of Law is completely tied up beyond all hope with ethics complaints against the Governor is false.  The reason we know this is true is because complaints barely stay in the Department of Law before they are passed over to the Personnel Board.

Now we have proof that the Department of Law has EXCESSIVE time on their hands.

It seems that they have the time to sue the owner of a (now defunct) website using the url www.crackhos.com.

You better darn-tootin' not hijack an official Web site from Sarah Palin's State of Alaska. Houston DJ and nightlife ne'er-do-well Shoe Latif recently found that out the hard way when she got a cease-and-desist letter from the flinty-eyed legal eagles in Palin's Attorney General's office. And no, Palin didn't enclose a picture of herself winkin' either. This is the Internet we're talking about here, people. Serious business.

When I pulled up the site, the title was "Bristol, your mom is a crackho!"  Here's what we find on the site now:

SHIT SHIT SHIT SHIT!!

So here's the deal. A while back during the election I created a new front page for crackho.com I used frames and in one frame I redirected to the Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin's website. I never had the official seal or anything from her site on my server. It was a simple redirect using the meta refresh tag. I didn't think anyone would notice. Ooops.

So, what kind of horrible human could this "Shu Latif" be that would warrant such action from a Law Department too busy for anything else?

Well, it seems that she's a photographer and a DJ!  How AWFUL!!!!

Meet Shu Latif:

Shu Latif was born on August 13th, 1976 in Miami. Growing up in Houston, she was raised by her mother who had emigrated from a small town in Egypt. Obsessively taking pictures of her cat at an early age, she quickly fell in love with the craft. Despite dreams of going to art school, she found herself in a career in technology. Almost ten years later she returned to school at the University of Houston pursuing her BFA in photography.

You can see the photos from her DJ career at her Flickr site.

So, let me see if I can get this straight...

Someone creates a "goof" site insulting Sarah Palin with a meta-tag link to the State of Alaska website (which, while questionable and unadvisable, I don't believe for a second is misuse of the State Seal).  Sarah Palin, because she feels that the government of the State of Alaska is her own personal Nazi SS squad, decided to use the full force of the Department of Law to slap down a detractor.

Does any of this sound...oh, I don't know...even vaguely familiar?

I think this is in the list of the best punchline's ever written, and it's the first sentence on a letter with official State of Alaska letterhead:

"It has come to our attention that the website www.crackho.com has hijacked a State of Alaska webpage."

Yeah, the State of Alaska has been hijacked, alright, and not just the website.

The Chief of Backlash: Smear campaign against Andree McLeod **UPDATE 2**

by: Celtic Diva

Mon May 11, 2009 at 08:40:27 AM AKDT

On April 22, 2009, Governor Palin's Chief of Staff Backlash, Mike Nizich made public something of which a number of us were already well-aware...that the Palin Administration wanted action taken against those private citizens who were attempting to hold her accountable for her unethical behavior:

I hope that the publicity-seekers will face a backlash from Alaskans who have a sense of fair play and proportion."

Some of us who have already experienced a measure of retaliation were curious what form Mr. Nizich's "backlash" would take.

We didn't have long to wait.

The last week of April brought a unique development:  As a direct result of testimony given by Andree McLeod during the public comment portion of the Alaska Public Offices Commission meeting, a letter of inquiry was sent to Governor Sarah Palin asking pointed questions about her Public Offices Financial Disclosure statement for 2009.

This was not the result of a complaint.  This was not the result of any required protocol stemming from a citizen-initiated action. This was a government watchdog agency hearing a citizen's testimony and FINDING THE QUESTIONS SO CREDIBLE the agency ACTED ON ITS OWN.

So what happened mere days after this letter reached the Governor?

Neanderthal radio talk-show host Eddie Burke was once again zapped by the electrodes directly linked to the Palin Administration.  Eddie's rap completely changed from his daily barrage against all of us ethics complaint-filer types to a laser-focused attack on Andree McLeod.  Suddenly, Eddie is claiming to file a document he incorrectly calls a FOIA to see all of Ms. McLeod's email to the State of Alaska.  

Of course, "coincidentally," all of the Palin-bot blogs followed lock-step with EXACTLY THE SAME "STORIES" on Andree McLeod.

So who knows why this past weekend Mr. Nizich and his partner-in-unethical-behavior Annette Kreitzer decided to openly pass PRIVATE EMAILS to ADN's gossip rag Alaska Ear that were sent to them by Andree McLeod. Perhaps he got impatient waiting for Eddie Burke to figure out what a records request is and then write and send an intelligible one.

But the Ear's Sheila Toomey obediently did the Administration's bidding by making fun of Ms. McLeod's email, which expressed concern (even through a little humor) about the inappropriate attire she saw displayed in some Alaska State offices.  Of course, Ms. Toomey neglected to include what she, Nizich and Kreitzer all knew...the context of those emails.

I mean after all, Toomey's own favorite saying is "the truth is so limiting."

If you do a simple Google search on "Andree McLeod," you discover that her former position with the Murkowski Administration (where Nizich and Kreitzer also served) was on the Alaska Workforce Investment Board, Alaska Department of Labor & Workforce Development.  See that part of the title that says "Workforce Development?"  Part of the job in that agency is to help people become employable and learn APPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR IN WORKPLACE SETTINGS.  As a former 15-year federal employee, I also know that April (when Ms. McLeod was in the state offices) is the time of year when all the new summer-hire and STEP (Student Educational Employment Program)employees come on-board with ALL government agencies, state and federal. With them comes all of their youthful inexperience and (often) inappropriate attire.

I completely understand why Ms. McLeod wrote the emails...had I witnessed this recently in federal offices THAT INTERACT WITH THE PUBLIC, I would have done exactly the same thing despite the fact that I no longer work there.  I also find it hilarious that on the Conservative websites, folks are saying the same thing.

I SO look forward to what Mr. Nizich has in store for us next!  Considering he seems to perfectly exemplify the total divorce Governor Palin has experienced from ethics, I'm sure his next attempt at "backlash" will be quite newsworthy!

*******************************UPDATE WITH A COMMENT***********************

Can you imagine if Senator Begich's or President Obama's Chief of Staff forwarded an email that dealt with government business from a private citizen...to a gossip columnist in order to ridicule the sender??

How long would that person still have a job, do ya think?

**********************UPDATE--EMAIL WITH ADN AND SHEILA TOOMEY*****************************

I sent an email to Mark Dent (Alaska Newsreader), David Hulen and Pat Dougherty (editors of the ADN) which said:

I think that if Begich or Obama did the same thing, you guys would definitely be writing about it.

How convenient!  ROFLMAO!

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.  

Ethics Complaint dismissed: What have we learned?

by: Celtic Diva

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

She knew nothing about it until that minute.

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

Hmmmmm...

According to the Alaska Executive Ethics Act:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So was she exonerated?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How convenient...for them!

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

The Governor's "backlash" campaign...the Eddie Burke component...

by: Celtic Diva

Thu May 07, 2009 at 02:50:25 AM AKDT

So Conservatives4Palin and radio hack Eddie Burke are joining forces in a newfound mission to harass and defame Ms. Andree McLeod.  

As heard on his radio show yesterday, Burke stalked and harangued her at the victory celebration for new Anchorage Mayor Dan Sullivan Tuesday Night. (Remember, folks, contrary to the misinformation we are spoon-fed by the right, the truth is that Ms. McLeod is a Republican...there is no "Democratic Conspiracy"...there are no checks from Obama **sigh**...)  

C4Pers are patting him on the back for a job well done. But listen to the YouTube...what's that I hear?  Is he actually RECORDING A CONVERSATION SHE'S HAVING WITH SOMEONE ELSE!!!!  Mr. Badass Toughguy didn't show her the mic until the point where she told him to get it out of her face?

Like I said, radio hack.

Let's remember, this was a celebration for THE NEW MAYOR OF ANCHORAGE.  This had NOTHING to do with the State of Alaska, Governor Palin, etc....Yet, he chose this place to stalk and harass her.

Gee, I guess that's pretty common behavior for him with the crotch-grab of a waitress, the undesired "sexting" of a legislator, verbally abusing the women leading a rally and giving out their phone numbers ON THE AIR (for which he was suspended).  Then there are other questionable issues:

-- Eddie once served in the Legislature (House) but...errr...had to leave.  What was it that could have happened on top of his desk that precipitated that and who else was involved/witnessed?

-- Eddie claimed that he was fired from KFQD (Morris Communications) for "pissing off the oil companies."  However, he was on probation for "inappropriate behavior" for MONTHS before.  What really was the last straw?

Of course the most recent question is:  as someone who can barely put an intelligible sentence together, how could Eddie spare the brain cells to file a records request all by himself?  After all, he erroneously states that he's filing/filed a FOIA (a federal request which requires that forms are filled out and sent to the federal government) as opposed to a state records request, which just takes a memo.

So who is filing it for him?  

Andree asks the big question on the YouTube piece:

Andree asks:  "Has the Administration asked you to expose me?"

Burke:  "Never!"

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that Palin's Chief of Backlash, Mike Nizich, put out the call for folks to go after complaint-filers just two weeks ago.  

Maybe not.

Today, I sent off a records request to the Governor asking for ALL emails between anyone who works for the Governor Office and Eddie Burke.  I also requested any emails where Eddie is discussed and a copy of "Eddie's" records request of Andree McLeod's emails.

Yes, that too is public information.

Soooo...let's see how much of Palin's "water" Eddie has carried over the years...and let's make it public!

My, my, my...it seems EVERYONE has an opinion on those darn ethics complaints!

by: Celtic Diva

Tue May 05, 2009 at 02:56:33 AM AKDT

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.

Mudflats does a beautiful job of 'splainin' things to ADN.  That's also where I saw the Politico Article.

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.

American Chopper turns into another Arctic Cat promo opportunity

by: Celtic Diva

Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 15:38:04 PM AKDT

"We've got an Arctic Cat, a couple of different kinds of race machines..."

People Magazine has the continuation of that conversation in their article on the show.

Paul Sr. hangs out with the Governor in her office and talks about the Alaskan weather, snowmobiling and fishing in the summer. "I inherit whatever [husband] Todd rejects from the year before," Palin says.

A-freakin'-mazing...

You can watch the full show tomorrow.

By the way, this bike was raffled off for the benefit of Chidren's Hospital at Providence on March 28th.

"Big Announcement" on **gag** Eddie Burke's show today at 4:00 PM ADT...

by: Celtic Diva

Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 14:27:40 PM AKDT

What could it be????

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

What a waste of time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It was just SPIN about THIS.  They wanted to make it clear to the Governor's lower-48 minions that she didn't change her mind about the stimulus money, like the previous article may have indicated.

***YAWN***

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

I talked to a really-savvy-newly-unemployed-friend who had some interesting speculation...

...having something to do with...

...and...

??????

OK, it made sense at the time.  I'll explain it after the announcement when we see if the speculation is correct!

********PS********

My friend took a VERY good guess which I won't reveal...but let's just say the Darth Vader in the bathtub using Calgon was Megan Stapleton!

**best Vader voice**

"Calgon...take me away...and help me crush the Rebel chihuahuas!!!!"

(OK...so we're all a little crazy!)

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

Here is a picture to amuse you as you listen to Burke the Jerk and feel your braincells abandoning all hope.

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

by: Celtic Diva

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

Integrity of Governor Palin's Office Up for Sale

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

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

Sec. 39.52.120. Misuse of official position

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

Sec. 39.52.130.  Improper gifts

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

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

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

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

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

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

by: Celtic Diva

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

Here's a photo from the Slush Cup:

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

Here are the posts on the complaint:

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

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

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

Talk amongst yourselves...