Undisclosed--what Palin's Financial Disclosure left out--Pt. 1 Alaska Fund Trust

by: Celtic Diva

Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 12:27:56 PM AKDT

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

However, Palin has proven herself to be selective as to which rules she chooses to follow and how completely she follows them.

For example, we've seen nothing "disclosed" nor have we heard anything about Palin's AK Fund Trust (for which her website is still collecting money) since the summer revelation that Investigator Daniel found Palin cannot spend the Fund Trust without probably violating a pesky Statute or two.  While the Personnel Board is a separate issue from APOC, it is still important to note that the Board IS NOT following the Executive Branch Ethics Act. How do we know?

...the attorney general shall initiate formal proceedings by serving a copy of an accusation upon the subject of the accusation. The accusation shall specifically set out the alleged violation. After service, the accusation is a public document open to inspection. Except as provided in AS 39.52.370(c), all subsequent proceedings are open to the public.

1) Palin "blew off" Investigator Daniel in July.  By sometime in August, he should have "served a copy of an accusation" upon Palin.  If he had, the Personnel Board would no longer be able to hide behind the "confidentiality" claim, as all further proceedings would be public.

2) If Palin and the Board, as Debra English may have hinted they were trying to do during the last Personnel Board Meeting, had reached a "settlement," that too would become public information and would have required an announcement.

According to the ADN, Kristan Cole (fund trustee) did not respond to their questions.  Back in July, she said the fund would be "frozen" until the legal issues were "resolved."

Readers may remember that an East Coast lawyer did an exhaustive analysis of the "trust agreement" that Palin's people have out for inspection on the AK Fund Trust website:

There is NOTHING in the official purpose of the AFT related to legal defense or legal proceedings or ethics complaints. In fact, the purpose of the trust is for any expense at all incurred by Sarah Palin "as a result of the fact that she is Governor . . . or as a result of the performance of her duties as Governor."  Those are the only limitations instilled by the purpose clause.

So the purpose of the AFT is to collect money for...basically anything and everything, short of overt criminal activity. This includes legal expenses, of course, along with everything else under the sun. It also covers her family and staff, as well as "any other person determined by the Trustee."

Like I said, the Personnel Board is a separate issue from APOC.  However, Why was this trust not listed on her APOC Financial Disclosure?

Trusts valued at more than $1,000 must be identified on the Public Officer's Financial Disclosure (POFD).  Palin didn't bother to list a Trust containing hundreds of thousands of dollars designated for her and her family's personal use.

So, what is the future of this debacle?  

It seems the Personnel Board is paralyzed, I'm guessing by fear:  Palin won't budge and give up the money and they are loathe to drag her as a national figure back to Alaska for a hearing that could forever damage any political aspirations.  After all, she keeps making those erroneous claims that she cleans up corruption.  (Also, it seems that everyone and their friggin' cat thinks that Palin is going to "take them with her" when she makes it big.)  

The AK Fund Trust faces other hurdles.  Again, according to legal analysis:

The AFT's purpose, as ambiguous as it may be, is clear about one thing - the purpose was set up for Palin "as Governor." As soon as she resigns, the trust loses its purpose. Even if she drags her feet and says that the funds are being used for expenses "as a result of" her being Governor, that excuse will only last for so long. For example, even if she says that moving expenses and consulting lawyers about new ethics complaints and a hiring a masseuse to relieve her stress all resulted from her actions as Governor, eventually, at some point in the future when her excuses run out, the AFT will have to be dissolved and the funds donated. I originally thought that Cole could just set up a new trust; but according to the trust language, the funds would have to be given away to charity.

So, since she is no longer Governor, they will have to dissolve the Trust and donate it to charity.  However, I doubt they can do anything with the money until the legal issues are "resolved."

And now we have a brand new business reported on the Disclosure form and started by Palin/Stapleton--"Pie Spy, LLC."  Paperwork claims it will be a "marketing business" geared towards "Services for the Elderly and Persons with Disabilities."

I have speculated all along that:

1)  Palin quit when she found out she couldn't access the AK Fund Trust in order to start making money to pay her legal debts

2)  Palin has absolutely no intention of letting go of that money whether or not it's legal, because,

3)  If the Personnel Board does not move forward, she can just let the money sit there for a very short statute of limitations of two years (from July 26th)...and;

4)  She can simply donate the Trust to whatever "friendly" 501C3 happens to be around **coughSamaritan'sPursecough** who would probably be only too willing to make donations to a business geared towards "the elderly and disabled."  501C3 donations are not public information.

Unless, of course, they can actually turn the LLC into a 501C3.

Of course, this is only speculation...

(next installment...Sarah Palin's letter to APOC contradicts her Financial Disclosure form.)

The Alaska Fund Trust...an analysis from one of those dreaded East Coast lawyers!

by: Celtic Diva

Fri Jul 24, 2009 at 01:00:00 AM AKDT

JHop does an incredible job of keeping the legal jargon to a minimum (unlike the purposely-unintelligible-piece-of-crap she's analyzing) and I highly recommend that everyone read her very enlightening conclusions at the end.  When I first read the AFT "legal document," I have believed from the very beginning that this "fund" has little to do with legal defense and everything to do with the Palins trying to use her position to increase their wealth...my opinion.  I believe this analysis comes to a similar conclusion.)  

I thought that I would take a closer look at Governor Palin's Alaska Fund Trust (hereinafter "AFT"). I am not writing to contest any specific finding in Mr. Daniel's report; for my purposes here, I accept them as valid. Instead, I want to highlight some of the issues that were not properly analyzed or, in some cases, mentioned at all in Mr. Daniel's report.

The Law & Ethics: To understand any of this, we need to know at least some legal basics. Trusts have specific, quirky legal rules; each state is different. It is not my specialty and I do not purport to be an expert; but I have a general knowledge, and enough of it to have genuine concerns about the AFT.

In brief, there are common requirements for a valid trust: 1) a settlor; 2) delivery of legal title; 3) property in the trust; 4) a trustee: who holds legal title for benefit of beneficiary; 5) at least one beneficiary; 6) intent: to create the trust for a lawful purpose; and 7) a lawful purpose: a trust cannot call for commission of crime, destruction of property, or a violation of public policy.

The purpose of the trust is the sole reason for its existence and it must be followed closely. Once a trust's purpose is established, it cannot be changed or modified without dissolution or court intervention. As for the Executive Branch Ethics Act (hereinafter "EBEA"), there is only one vital provision for analyzing the AFT. Under AS § 39.52.120, 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."  The EBEA also states that "a public officer may not . . . accept, receive, or solicit compensation for the performance of official duties or responsibilities from a person other than the state." AS § 39.52.120(b)(2).

Issues & Concerns: The most fundamental flaw with Mr. Daniel's report is that it is not based on the trust instrument that created the AFT; it is based upon the website that describes the AFT. He quotes the website to state that the AFT:

"is the official legal fund created to defend the integrity of the Alaska Governor's Office from an onslaught of political attacks launched against current Governor Sarah Palin, the First Family, and state-employed colleagues. These baseless accusations have cost Alaska more than $1 million in public monies to defend, and Governor Palin has incurred more than half a million dollars in personal debt defending her official actions as Governor."

Mr. Daniel cites this as fact and continues to quote from the website throughout his report. The website, of course, was designed, written, and is maintained by Governor Palin and her staff. It is obviously based in self-interest, and in particular, to generate donations for the AFT. It is, by no means, a neutral source for legal analysis or for an unbiased conclusion of law.

Ironically, the trust document is posted directly on the AFT's website; thus, there is no reason why Mr. Daniel's report is not based on the AFT's legal document. It should be noted that the original complaint does not cite directly from the trust document. Nevertheless, when considering the trust language itself, the allegations against Governor Palin are seen under a much different light - specifically, a darker, shadier, murkier light.  

The Trust Language & Details: Rather than analyzing the AFT on quotes written by Governor Palin's staff, the legal and ethical issues associated with it must be analyzed using the specific language that created the trust. Below, in italics, are several key portions of the AFT; my brief comments follow:

"KRISTAN CHERYL COLE, as Settlor, and KRISTAN CHERYL COLE, as Trustee, establishes THE ALASKA FUND TRUST, a trust for the payment of expenses or amounts incurred, undertaken or paid in connection with claims, allegations, investigations, accusations, complaints, legal inquiries, requests, and proceedings, including the response and defense thereof, arising out of or by virtue of the activities of or performance of duties as, or on Governor Sarah Palin, in her capacity as (or as a result of her being) the Governor of Alaska."

This introductory clause is the only language that mentions a legal defense fund or anything to do with legal proceedings at all. It ambiguously includes anything "arising out of or by virtue of the activities of or performance of duties" for Sarah Palin "as the Governor." It is an umbrella clause and catch-all. This, however, is not the purpose of the trust. It may be used to circumstantially demonstrate the intent of the trust. But it is not the official and stated purpose of the AFT.

SARAH PALIN, who is the current Governor of the State of Alaska, has incurred and is responsible for various expenses in connection with or otherwise as a result of SARAH PALIN's service as Governor of the State of Alaska including without limitation, various investigations of her conduct as Governor of Alaska.

Here, in the first section, there is no mention of a legal defense fund. It simply says the funds can be used for "various expenses" (anything that has monetary value) . . . "in connection with or otherwise" (having anything at all to do with being Governor) . . . "including without limitation, various investigations" (for an infinite list of expenses which happens to include investigations of any kind).

It is the desire of the Settlor to provide the legal and proper means to accept transfers of money, property, and services (including pro bono legal services) for the purpose of defraying, paying, or satisfying the fees and costs that have been and will be incurred by SARAH PALIN and others (hereinafter "Covered Individuals") in connection with or otherwise as a result of SARAH PALIN's service as Governor of the State of Alaska, all in a manner consistent with and in compliance with the laws of the United States and the State of Alaska.

Also in the first section, the ATF further omits any mention of a legal defense purpose, instead morphing into an overly ambiguous and seemingly unlawful instrument. Here, the language simply states that the trust will collect anything valuable, no matter what it is or its intended use, to pay all "fees and costs" by Palin for anything "in connection with or otherwise as a result" of her position as Governor.  There is no purpose or clarifying clause to explain why money is being collected.

Trust Purpose. The sole and exclusive purpose of this Trust is to provide a proper means for the acceptance of money, property, and services, including, if necessary, pro bono legal services, to provide for all reasonable, necessary, and appropriate fees or charges incurred by (i) SARAH PALIN as a result of the fact that she is Governor of the State of Alaska or as a result of the performance of her duties as Governor of the State of Alaska; and (ii) Covered Individuals.* [...] In addition, the purpose of the Trust shall be to pay all reasonable, necessary, and appropriate expenses of Trustee's counsel and such other and usual, customary expenses and services that have been or may be incurred in connection with the above-stated purpose . . . Trust funds may be used for no purpose other than those specifically provided herein. *For purposes hereof, a "Covered Individual" shall be any other person determined by the Trustee, in the Trustee's sole and absolute discretion, to (i) hold a "covered staff' position within SARAH PALIN's administration and/or an employee in the office of the Governor of the State of Alaska; and (ii) hold a covered relationship with SARAH PALIN, including without limitation, a family member, such as a parent, spouse, child, grandchild, sibling and other close family relationship.

This is the most important clause in the AFT document (or any trust document). It is the reason for the trust's existence and necessity. There is NOTHING in the official purpose of the AFT related to legal defense or legal proceedings or ethics complaints. In fact, the purpose of the trust is for any expense at all incurred by Sarah Palin "as a result of the fact that she is Governor . . . or as a result of the performance of her duties as Governor."  Those are the only limitations instilled by the purpose clause.

So the purpose of the AFT is to collect money for...basically anything and everything, short of overt criminal activity. This includes legal expenses, of course, along with everything else under the sun. It also covers her family and staff, as well as "any other person determined by the Trustee."

After close interpretation, there is nothing stated about the AFT that could infer its specific intent was a legal defense fund. It is disingenuous to imply otherwise - as the AFT's website does, and consequently, Mr. Daniel's report echoes.

Rights of Withdrawal (a) Each of the beneficiaries of this trust, shall, in each calendar year, have an absolute and unrestricted power to withdraw from this Trust . . .

Without even a hint of ambiguity, this clause gives Sarah Palin (and her family and staff) the "absolute and unrestricted" power to withdraw funds from the AFT. It spells out in simple, clear, and concise language that no limitations exist for Palin's ability to use the AFT however she pleases. It says nothing about an intent for legal defense or a purpose to be used to defend against ethics complaints.  

Qualification of the Trustee. The Trustee hereunder, or any successor trustee appointed in accordance with this instrument, if an individual, shall be at least 25 years of age. Such Trustee shall not be a member of the SARAH PALIN's immediate family, her counsel in any pending legal proceeding, or a member, partner, associate, or employee of the firm employing that counsel [...] In addition to said powers enumerated above, the Trustee shall, subject to applicable law, determine in her sole discretion what is income and what is principal, to allocate to income or principal or apportion between them any receipt, gain, loss, or expenditure as is deemed just and equitable in the circumstances of each case, as it arises. The exercise by the Trustee of any discretion granted hereunder in good faith shall be binding and conclusive on all persons.

Who is Kristan Cole, does she have an association with any firm that has ever advised Palin? A trustee is entrusted with fiduciary duties to the trust, not an individual beneficiary. The trustee here is given the specific powers to determine what is income and principal, what is profit or loss, and what is "equitable in the circumstances of each case."  She is given complete, full reign of all business decisions connected with the AFT - including disbursement of funds, investment of funds, and the revocation of the trust itself. She even determines who the beneficiaries are. It is unconscionable the amount of power she has considering her close relationship with the beneficiary and the personal benefits they both gain through their professional/personal relationship.

Disclosure Provisions. The Trustee is authorized and directed to release information to SARAH PALIN and any other beneficiary hereunder and the public the name, amount and date of each donation every thirty days. The Trustee is authorized and directed to release the amounts and categories of expenditures for the benefit of any beneficiary hereunder and the public on a quarterly basis.

A small silver lining to take away from this cloud of corruption. According to this provision, the Trustee is directed to make quarterly reports to the public about amounts and categories of expenditures. The trust was created April 22, 2009. Ironically, today, July 22, 2009, is the three-month or quarter-year mark. We can request a disclosure starting today.

Trust Term and Disposition of Residual Funds. The term of the Trust shall be for an initial period of ten (l0) years and shall be irrevocable. In the event, in the sole and absolute discretion of the Trustee, the purposes for which the Trust is created are fulfilled or no longer exist prior to the expiration of ten (l0) years from the date of this instrument, the Trustee shall terminate the Trust . . . Upon the completion of the Trust, any funds, assets, or property of any kind, whether the same be principal or income, which may be remaining in the hands of the Trustee at the completion of the purposes of the Trust, shall be donated and distributed by the Trustee, in the sole and absolute discretion of the Trustee, to one or more organizations described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and made exempt from taxation under section 501 (a) thereof.

This is why I think the trust is unlawful on its face and was going to be an eventual problem, even without Mr. Daniel's report. The AFT becomes revocable only when the "purposes for which the Trust is created" are either "fulfilled" or "no longer exist." If that happens, the trust must be revoked and its assets must be donated to 501(c)(3) charity organizations.  The AFT's purpose, as ambiguous as it may be, is clear about one thing - the purpose was set up for Palin "as Governor." As soon as she resigns, the trust loses its purpose. Even if she drags her feet and says that the funds are being used for expenses "as a result of" her being Governor, that excuse will only last for so long. For example, even if she says that moving expenses and consulting lawyers about new ethics complaints and a hiring a masseuse to relieve her stress all resulted from her actions as Governor, eventually, at some point in the future when her excuses run out, the AFT will have to be dissolved and the funds donated. I originally thought that Cole could just set up a new trust; but according to the trust language, the funds would have to be given away to charity.

Analysis & Thoughts: I have been primarily focused on the intent and purpose of the AFT. I think the AFT's purpose is unethical on its face. As Mr. Daniel asserted: "There is no doubt that the [AFT] will provide a "gift" to the governor because the trust will provide money that is a benefit to the governor's financial interests." Thus, based on the law and the trust itself (i.e. that it was set up for her "as Governor"), it seems clear that Governor Palin's actions violated the EBEA by receiving personal benefits, if not also violated state and federal law (for example: a misappropriation of funds, corruption or abuse of office, or tax fraud in relation to under-reported gifts). The potential criminal violations are not my purpose here; but I do not think the severity of wrongdoing should be completely ignored as it was in Mr. Daniel's "recommended actions." While Mr. Daniel found "probable cause" that Palin violated the EBEA, he somehow recommended no formal hearing on this matter. He just investigated what he found to be a clearly unethical trust; he also alleged that the under-reporting of gifts could be an issue. But then he recommends the dissolution of the AFT and that this should just be swept under the rug without further exploration. How curious. Mr. Daniel also states that he has "sympathy" for Governor Palin and her multitude of ethics complaints. His personal feelings have no place in an official investigation; they have little effect here anyway, considering the AFT was not created as a legal defense fund at all. It should be noted that if he doesn't recommend formal proceedings, the Personnel Board most likely will not recommend them to the Attorney General. So, unless the AG pursued it on his own, formal hearings would not happen here. This leaked report may change that. Nevertheless, Mr. Daniel's recommended action is a mere slap on the wrist, giving Governor Palin a way to avoid ever taking accountability other than dissolving the AFT.  It is a legal whitewash, giving her a graceful exit, and ultimately determining that she is above the law - or at the least, should just not be formally investigated (or punished) in a manner consistent with it.

I think the idea of dissolving the AFT and refusing its funds is a good enough reason for Sarah Palin to quit. Especially if she, as Governor, decided not to ever waive confidentiality, so no one would ever know what ethics decisions were pending or why she was really resigning. And she could just keep her slush fund. Oops.

Bottom Line: Keep an eye on AFT. In my opinion, this is only the beginning --by JHop

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

by: Celtic Diva

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sec. 39.52.330. Corrective or preventive action.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bullshit...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Latest complaint dismissal highlights Palin/Van Flein unethical spin about ethics...Part 1

by: Celtic Diva

Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 04:15:21 AM AKDT

In Mel Green's piece "The 2 million dollar meme" where she discusses the Palin Administration's faulty budget numbers regarding the "cost of the complaints," she also addresses some very important points about the ethics complaints themselves:

1) What qualifies as a "frivolous complaint"?

2) Why would it cost thousands of dollars for the Personnel Board to "dismiss" an ethics complaint?  

She goes further into discussing the fable of the "frivolous" ethics complaints and questions how one could even determine if a complaint was "frivolous."

Ray Ward's July 6th complaint filing and dismissal today gives us an opportunity to more clearly explore that question and gives the Governor another opportunity to misrepresent the process.

Until the State of Alaska has better checks and balances (i.e. a Legislative Branch that will do its duty and actually hold the Executive Branch accountable) I am unwilling to call ANY ethics complaint "frivolous." However, I can present the EBEA (Executive Branch Ethics Act) process, as I became aquainted with it through my filing and continuing experience with the Arctic Cat complaint.  

There are multiple levels that a complaint travels through during the process and actions can be taken at each level.  Looking at those can help determine whether or not the Personnel Board actually viewed a complaint as having potential.

--First, to file a complaint:

(b) A person may file a complaint with the attorney general regarding the conduct of a current or former public officer. A complaint must be in writing, be signed under oath, and contain a clear statement of the details of the alleged violation.
(c) If a complaint alleges a violation of AS 39.52.110 - 39.52.190 by the governor,
lieutenant governor, or the attorney general, the matter shall be referred to the personnel board...

To summarize, the complaint must:

a) quote the portion of the EBEA that the charges address,

b) do a thorough write-up, explanation and provide evidence on what the charges are and

c) be notarized and signed "under oath" before the document is turned in to the Department of Law, it's first stop.

--If it is a complaint against the Governor, the Lt. Gov. or the AG, it is reviewed by Julia Bockman or someone in her office at the Dept. of Law for the a,b and c requirements listed in the above paragraph.  If it lacks any one of those things, generally the filer is contacted and is told they have X number of days to comply before the complaint will be tossed...yes, that happened to me as I did not understand the "under oath" was part of the notarization process.  (They have a special stamp for it.)

Note:  ALL OF THIS is SUPPOSED to be done in the Department of Law, before it goes to the Personnel Board.

Interestingly enough, Mr. Ward was clearly not given the same time frame (or ANY time frame) to correct his error like I was.  Perhaps it was because THE DEPARTMENT OF LAW determined that the rest of the complaint did not fit the requirements it needed to pass it on to the Personnel Board.  As I said before, those determinations are made BEFORE the complaint goes to the Board.

I don't think that the vagueness of the Governor's statement on this dismissal is that surprising in light of that. Why?  Because it shines a light on the fact that the rest of the complaints DID fit the requirements and DID get passed to the Personnel Board.

(By the way, this also emphasizes one of the Palin Adminstration's "big lies"...the alleged "Edna Burch" complaint.  If her name was fake, she would never have been able to have it legally notarized...it would not have passed the "sniff test."  If "Edna's" complaint DID make it to the Personnel Board, then Julia Bockman or someone in her Dept. of Law office seriously fell down on the job.)

So, now we know one way that a complaint can be rejected...by the Department of Law itself.  It should take no more than an hour of Julia Bockman's time to do so.  

--Moving right along...

...The personnel board shall retain independent counsel who shall act in the place of the attorney general under (d) - (i) of this section, AS 39.52.320 - 39.52.350, and 39.52.360(c) and (d). Notwithstanding AS 36.30.015(d), the personnel board may contract for or hire independent counsel under this subsection without notifying or securing the approval of the Department of Law.

Summarizing:  if the complaint fulfills the requirements (and if the complaint is against the Gov, Lt. Gov or the AG), it is sent to the Chair of the Personnel Board (Debra English) who then hires an independent investigator.  This investigator DOES NOT use the resources of the Department of Law...a conflict of interest in the case of the AG, the Governor and the Lt. Governor.  That's why he/she is an "independent investigator" as required by statute.

--From now on, substitute "independent investigator" for "Attorney General" as we are talking about complaints against the Governor:

(d) The attorney general shall review each complaint filed, to determine whether it is properly completed and contains allegations which, if true, would constitute conduct in violation of this chapter. The attorney general may require the complainant to provide additional
information before accepting the complaint. If the attorney general determines that the
allegations in the complaint do not warrant an investigation, the attorney general shall dismiss
the complaint with notice to the complainant and the subject of the complaint.

The next level:  once the "independent investigator" gets the complaint that has previously been determined to fit the requirements, he/she can then determine whether or not the complaint warrants an investigation.  

According to investigator Thomas Daniel, that was his determination with the SarahPAC complaint because he said it came under Federal jurisdiction.  I am unaware of any other ethics complaint that was dismissed at that point of the process.

--So then, the investigation proceeds:

(f) If the attorney general accepts a complaint for investigation, the attorney general shall serve a copy of the complaint upon the subject of the complaint, for a response. The attorney general may require the subject to provide, within 20 days after service, full and fair disclosure in writing of all facts and circumstances pertaining to the alleged violation. Misrepresentation of a material fact in a response to the attorney general is a violation of this chapter. Failure to answer within the prescribed time, or within any additional time period that may be granted in writing by the attorney general, may be considered an admission of the allegations in the complaint.
(g) If a complaint is accepted under (f) of this section, the attorney general shall investigate to determine whether a violation of this chapter has occurred. At any stage of an investigation or review, the attorney general may issue a subpoena under AS 39.52.380.

According to the Arctic Cat dismissal report from investigator Thomas Daniel, he gave Governor Palin the 20 days and then an extension to get back to him regading the questions he asked.

The Governor's attorney Thomas Van Flein did not respond until after the deadlines had passed.

--Dismissal:

Sec. 39.52.320. Dismissal before formal proceedings.
If, after investigation, it appears that there is no probable cause to believe that a violation of this chapter has occurred, the attorney general shall dismiss the complaint. The attorney general shall communicate disposition of the matter promptly to the complainant under AS 39.52.335(c) and to the subject of the complaint.

Arctic Cat was filed in March and not dismissed until June 3rd.  It was investigated as were (to my knowledge) the rest of the complaints.  There were ample opportunities to dismiss them prior to an investigation but the investigator determined that EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE COMPLAINTS warranted those investigations before it could be determined WHETHER THERE WAS A VIOLATION.  I disagree with the dismissal of Arctic Cat and took the action available to me as I'll discuss in the next post...contining the explanation of the ethics complaint process. However, I believe this post has shown this complaints had merit in the eyes of the investigators, thus putting the question of whether the complaints were "frivolous" to rest.  

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

by: Celtic Diva

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then there's this amazing claim:

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

OK, THAT I can see.

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

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

Bon Voyage, Governor Grifter!

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!