Posted on 10/11/2008 3:50:47 AM PDT by SBD1
The ridiculously lengthy "PUBLIC REPORT" for the Legislative Council of Alaska, released October 10, 2008 by Stephen Branchflower, reached the following conclusions:
1. For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Alaska Statute 39.52.l10(a) provides
"The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust."
2. I find that, although Walt Monegan's refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety. In spite of that, Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.
As a preliminary matter, if I was in Governor Palin's shoes, I would have fired Monegan the minute I was given that Wooten Poster to autograph from him. In case you missed that little tid bit, here is a quote from Todd Palin's Deposition which included another outrageous accusation by Monegan.
In that same email, Monegan stated that he had heard a rumor from an unnamed source that Sarah was supposedly driving Trig, then around 9 weeks old, in her car without "an approved infant car seat" and that this situation could be "awkward."
This odd and offensive email was forwarded to me. I was in Dillingham at the time. She was not happy with Monegan's false accusation or his implied threat that it was "awkward" as if he now needed to issue a citation.
Sarah has always been a good mother and to accuse her of something like that was very offensive. Sarah responded that "I've never driven Trig anywhere without a new, approved car seat. I want to know who said otherwise-pls provide me that info now."(Emphasis added).
I am not sure Monegan ever responded to the Governor's direct order. The next day it was learned through Kris Perry that this false allegation of her driving was really about a group tour of a Point McKenzie farm and a big diesel truck that everyone rode in on a private farm road without traffic at low speed. Sarah was not driving, she was a passenger with others, and it was like taking a shuttle. Later, the same false rumor was repeated on an anti- Palin blog.
In May of 2008, the troopers issued a poster that featured Mike Wooten on it. I arrived at Sarah's office shortly after the Department of Public Safety dropped off the poster there. Sarah and I discussed this later. It seems odd to me now, after Monegan claims all this "pressure" about Wooten, that in May 2008 he did not know what Wooten looked like.
This is how this incident is described in the "Report".
The 2008 Police Memorial Day-photograph event
Shortly before the annual celebration of Police Memorial Day on May 15, 2008, Commissioner Monegan had dropped off a color photograph at Governor Palin's Anchorage office with a request that she sign and present it at the ceremony. The photograph was of an Alaska State Trooper who was dressed in a formal uniform, saluting. He was standing in front of the police memorial located in front of the crime lab at AST headquarters in Anchorage, partially obscured by a flagpole. The picture to be signed by the Governor was to be used as a poster to be displayed in various Trooper Detachments around the state.
Shortly after he returned to his office from dropping off the photograph, he received a call from Kris Perry, Governor Palin's Director of her Anchorage office who asked [according to Walt Monegan's testimony] "Why did you send a poster over here that has a picture of Mike Wooten on it? Until that moment, Commissioner Monegan never realized it was indeed a photograph of Trooper Wooten. Governor Palin cancelled her appearance and sent Lieutenant Governor Parnell in her place.
So the guy was given a file and photos of Wooten by Todd Palin as confirmed by Monegan during his testimony, yet he did not know Wooten was on the cover of the Poster?? And why would a Trooper like Wooten be chosen for such a photo in the first place for an event where it would be signed by Governor Palin??
In addition to all of the above, Monegan was not cooperating with the Palin administration and in particular with budget issues. Which when looked at from a personal perspective would have been more than enough to boot Monegan as far as her boot could boot him.
Yet, the predetermined investigation found could not find an actual law or statute that Palin had broken, so instead concluded that she violated the "scope of the code"!!
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ALASKA File No. 663-87-0150 1986 Alas. AG LEXIS 171; 1986-2 Op. (Inf.) Atty Gen. Alas. 333 November 13, 1986
The legislative purpose of the Ethics Act is to prevent public employees from using their positions for personal or financial gain. AS 39.52.010(a). The legislature recognized, however, that it is impossible to entirely avoid all conflicts of interest, and it is therefore necessary "to distinguish between those minor and inconsequential conflicts that are unavoidable in a free society (Like having a Lunatic Ex Brother-In Law), and those conflicts of interest that are substantial and material." AS 39.52.110(a)(3).
After setting out initial guidelines, the legislature outlined a number of specific activities which are henceforth prohibited for executive branch employees. One specific prohibition is potentially applicable to Mr. Jordan's case. AS 39.52.120(b) provides, in relevant part:
(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 . . . .
So the statute Palin supposedly violated is not a prohibited activity, but rather a guideline.
Here is another Alaska Case.
CHARLES D. EADDY, Employee, Applicant, v. STATE OF ALASKA, (Self-Insured) Employer, Defendant AWCB Case No. 9034019; AWCB Decision No. 98-0220 ALASKA WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD 1998 AK Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 2803 August 24, 1998
II. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act governs public officers in the executive branch of the state of Alaska. This includes the panel chairman, who is a Workers' Compensation Hearing officer, and the members of the Alaska Workers' Compensation Board, such as panel members Ridgley and Williams.
AS 39.52.110(a) provides, in part:
The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust. In addition, the legislature finds that, so long as it does not interfere with the full and faithful discharge of an officer's public duties and responsibilities, this chapter does not prevent an officer from following other independent pursuits. . . .
The Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act at AS 39.52.120, et seq., provides a list of specific violations of the administrative code of ethics. A summary of the list of possible conflicts follows:
It the goes on to list the specific statutes starting with AS 39.52.120.
Here is a more recent decision.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ALASKA AGO File No. 661-07-0014 2007 Alas. AG LEXIS 28 June 21, 2007
Employee has a "financial interest" in the companies whose stock he owns either directly or indirectly by definition under the Ethics Act. We are concerned with whether his action relating to a company could affect his own interest. Generally he must refrain from taking any action that may affect his interests under AS 39.52.120. When reviewing actions that have been taken or considering potential actions, we can determine that no substantial impropriety has occurred or will occur by applying the factors in AS 39.52.110(b). These factors require considering whether the value off his interest is insignificant and whether the action had or would have only insignificant or conjectural effect on his interest.
and here is another one
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ALASKA
FILE NO. 661-07-xxxx 2007 Alas. AG LEXIS 4 April 3, 2007
II. GENERAL PRINCIPLES FOR APPLYING THE ETHICS ACT
The Executive Branch Ethics Act is intended to ensure that public officers will not base their official decisions and actions upon their own personal or financial interests. A purpose of the Act is to ensure that "public officers conduct the public's business in a manner that preserves the integrity of the governmental process and avoids conflicts of interest."
The Act also acknowledges that public officers should be free to pursue personal and financial interests, and are valued for those interests, as long as the interests do not interfere or conflict with the officers' public responsibilities. (Like getting rid of a dangerous Trooper)
Alaska Statute 39.52.110 addresses the scope of the ethics code established by the Act as follows:
(a) The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust. In addition, the legislature finds that, so long as it does not interfere with the full and faithful discharge of an officer's public duties and responsibilities, this chapter does not prevent an officer from following other independent pursuits. The legislature further recognizes that
(1) in a representative democracy, the representatives are drawn from society and, therefore, cannot and should not be without personal and financial interests in the decisions and policies of government;
(2) people who serve as public officers retain their rights to interests of a personal or financial nature; and
(3) standards of ethical conduct for members of the executive branch need to distinguish between those minor and inconsequential conflicts that are unavoidable in a free society, and those conflicts of interests that are substantial and material.
(b) Unethical conduct is prohibited, but there is no substantial impropriety if, as to a specific matter, a public officer’s
(1) personal or financial interest in the matter is insignificant, or of a type that is possessed generally by the public or a large class of persons to which the public officer belongs; or
(2) action or influence would have insignificant or conjectural effect on the matter.
The Ethics Act requires that we be guided by these statements defining the scope of the ethics code when evaluating a potential conflict of interest. The Act speaks principally to actual substantial conflicts of interest, not the appearance of conflict alone. It requires individual determinations regarding potential conflicts of interest on a case by case basis. Under AS 39.52.110(b), set out above, if a particular circumstance may result in a violation, we also consider whether there would be no substantial impropriety if the public officer participated in the matter. Where a potential conflict exists and the terms of AS 39.52.110(b) do not permit participation, steps must be taken to avoid the conflict.
I rest my case!!
SBD
They need something to keep all the skeletons [Ayers, Wright, acorn, etc.] stuffed into BO's closet. This is the best they can do for now.
I wish McCain would get out there and ask people if they like the "change" that was voted in during the '06 elections. Tell the voters that the dims are in power and the POTUS can't do anything without congress bringing it to him.
PALIN/McCAIN MUST backfire immediately highlighting the maneuver aimed at hyding OSSABAMA’s scary record and relations.
IF they WANT to win they must strike hard
And hounded out of Alaska, along with Hollis Frnech and Kim Ellis.
In order to reach the conclusion that this incident is evidence of corruption, those who have not followed the story or read the actual ruling will also believe that news reports are accurate.
Monagan (in my opinion based on a reading of the report) purposely tried to intimidate the governor when, in May 2008, he dropped off a picture for her to sign and present at the AST Memorial Day ceremony. The picture was to be displayed at all AST offices throughout the state. The picture was of a trooper in full uniform saluting. The picture was of Mike Wooten. Monagan claimed to not have known until receiving a call from the governor’s assistant that the man pictured was Wooten. HOGWASH! I believe this was an attempt to put the governor in her place - to tell her that no matter what she did, Wooten was safe - so safe, in fact, that he was going to be the very FACE of the Alaska State Troopers.
That’s the crux of the whole matter, right there. Read the report, and you’ll draw the same conclusion. Monagan was insubordinate to the governor in the worst way, and she fired him for it.
In the last sentence, I should have said she "reassigned him", not that she fired him. Either way, she took action to show him who was boss.
Check out how Huffingtonpost.com is spinning this...how many idiots will only get their view from there? Disgraceful
Why is it not surprising that Dems are siding with the 2 alleged wife beaters.
I hope when Palin is VP she also abuses her power and names, shames and fires those responsible for the economic crisis.
Unfortunately many still do believe that.
Several years ago some liberal hack dimocrat (I didn’t say what I wanted to say) made a statement that went along the lines of: “Its not the veracity of the charges that are important but the seriousness of the charges.”
Ever since then that has been the sole driving force behind most, if not all, of the liberal legal attacks.
The very VERY VERY bottom line of this report is the Dimocrats thought they had a club to beat on Palin and hence McCain. But, it turned out that it was a brother defending his sister. How was that going to play out in the public’s mind? Who could or would fault a brother trying to defend his sister from an abusive husband?
This path was turning into a disaster and the only way the Dimocrats could salvage anything is to say Sara violated the “spirit” of the law.
I wonder how many Dimocrats have violated not only the “spirit” of the law but the actual laws themselves? I know that list to be massive and extensive and well beyond any server’s ability to list.
If this was their October surprise they sputtered like a little speck of dust in a vast universe!
McCain / Palin 2008 !!!
BTW, pray for a quick turn around with the stock market. After this is overwith the Conservative/Republicans need to stand together and “DEMAND” a full investigation into this financial situation with the understanding an “INDEPENDENT” committee be chosen. Isn’t it amazing how this has been building over the years, but yet this did NOT take place until after the Conventions and almost before the General Elections??? We are being manipulated and duped. Wake up America!!
BE BLESSED FREEPERS!!!
“Governor Palin’s firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.”
I think the point needs to be made that THIS was the finding. The rest was a political hit job of innuendo and presumption. The legislature has no authority to conduct his investigation, only the personnel board. Therefore this “report” was merely a democrat-driven screed as revenge against a reformer and part of an obama dirty tricks campaign.
Yep, just another dem faux scandal. Hey if you can’t find a ral scandal, manufacture one. If the polls aren’t going your way, manufacture ones that are. If you’re afraid your actual record is a negative, manufacture one that suits your purposes. If you cannot win a debate based on facts, manufacture “facts” that will make the impression you want. And on and on.
Also, remember the other faux scandall the dems have invented—Bush’s firing of the DOJ attorneys. That’s still out there. I’m sure dems will try to tie that to McCain somehow before this election is over.
I would certainly think I was being threatened if given a commemorative poster to sign of someone I knew wanted to kill me - by the people assigned to protect me.
Cornered rats do desperate things.
(That doesn’t dissuade my Welsh Springer Spaniel, tho’ — he’s too dumb to realize the danger and will wade into a corner full of rats face-first with a dumb grin on his face. It usually doesn’t take long before they’re all piled up neatly, stone dead. He’s a good ol’ boy...)
Neither Wooten nor Monegan should have been in their respective positions. Yes, Palin had a personal stake in the matter - Wooten was threatening members of her family, and Monegan was untrustworthy. The cutesy little “oh my God, she broke the law” Democrats are a bunch of smartass phonies.
This whole incident is PATENT BULLSH!T cooked up by the PINKOS and costing the taxpayers of Alaska thousands of dollars and waisting everybody’s time. MEANINGLESS CRAP.
No it doesn't. If they want to burn you, they will go to any lengths to do so, even if it means fabricating charges. Government agencies are good at doing that. They will even take down innocent people just to get to the one person they want to get back at. This whole thing was created to damage her politically.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.