Palin Violated Alaska Executive Ethics Statute

[IJ]

Oops.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7662820.stm

Palin Guilty of Abusing her Power

"I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110 (a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act," investigator Steve Branchflower concluded in the panel's 263-page report.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/us/po ... er.html?em

The report says she knowingly “permitted Todd Palin to use the governor’s office and the resources of the governor’s office, including access to state employees, to continue to contact subordinate state employees in an effort to find some way to get Trooper Wooten fired.”

Further, it says, she “knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda.”

...

But the report concluded that “Governor Palin’s firing of Commissioner Walt Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.” It cites the Alaska Constitution, which says “the governor may discharge department heads without cause” and that department heads “serve at the pleasure of the governor.”


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-tr ... finds.html

After his investigation, Steven Branchflower, a former prosecutor hired by a Republican-controlled legislative committee, concluded that Monegan's rebuff of the entreaties played a role in his firing but was not the only reason.

Palin's supporters argued that the report, released less than four weeks from Election Day, was a politically motivated attempt to damage the Republican presidential ticket. The report initially had been due at the end of the month, but the Democrat managing the investigation said its release was moved to Oct. 10 so it would not come on the eve of the election.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jOTk ... wD93O04Q80

The investigation revealed that Palin's husband, Todd, has extraordinary access to the governor's office and her closest advisers. He used that access to try to get trooper Mike Wooten fired, the report found.

Branchflower faulted Sarah Palin for taking no action to stop that. He also noted there is evidence the governor herself participated in the effort.

[Bill Glasheen]

Ian

As both a boss and a subject of 2 corporate takeovers, I have been on both sides of layoffs. C'est la guerre.

But the report concluded that “Governor Palin’s firing of Commissioner Walt Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.” It cites the Alaska Constitution, which says “the governor may discharge department heads without cause” and that department heads “serve at the pleasure of the governor.”

That's all that matters. Everything else is just political static.

And for what it's worth, spouses regularly serve as advisers to governors and presidents. The fact that Hillary was allegedly a smart cookie was a selling point for Bill Clinton. Two for the price of one, or some such slogan. And that "experience" by Bill's side was allegedly a reason why Hillary was qualified to run for the Democratic nomination to the presidency.

As for helping or hurting her, well you could make arguments on both sides here. After all, she's quite proud of her nickname Sarah Barracuda, earned via her hard play on her state championship basketball squad. This is just one more example of the same Sarah. She may be playing hardball, but it's fair play. And it does kind of undermine the whole strawman picture of her being a cute ditz. I don't think so...

As for her reputation, stay tuned for her appearance on SNL.

- Bill

[TSDguy]

I'm not sure people buy into this as her just being tough, I think it is a moral issue. And this is by far the biggest moral issue to actually hit the headlines of every major new org. I think it's a bad, bad thing for her.

[IJ]

There are two issues.

One is whether she was permitted to fire the guy; that was within her rights for any reason, or no reason (although one could argue about judgment issues there).

The second one, the one for which she is potentially in some trouble, is that she pressured him to fire someone for personal / family benefit. This was an ethics violation per the bipartisan panel.

In something of a parallel, Clinton had sex with an intern (not illegal, but bad idea) and then lied about it (perjury). We can argue about magnitude--but those who were upset about Clinton successfully making the debate about sex shouldn't let this become about the firing.

[mhosea]

The second one, the one for which she is potentially in some trouble, is that she pressured him to fire someone for personal / family benefit. This was an ethics violation per the bipartisan panel.

Yes, but they seem to have decided that the intersection with the state's interests and the personal interests of the Palins was insignificant, i.e. that this was entirely a personal matter and the sole motivation was retribution. Seems unlikely. Would you want to be pulled over by this trooper on a one of his bad days? Granted, I haven't heard both sides of the story, but the media hasn't exactly been lining up to defend this guy.

[Uechij]

“That's all that matters. Everything else is just political static.“

Your denial on this is comical.

Legally she had the right, but ethically she was inappropriate. I could legally fire somebody at will employment because they're black, but ethically that would be racist or discriminatory.

Also, if she wasn't wrong in her decision then why clear yourself of all charges before the committees decision?

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jOTk ... wD93NEG1O1

[Bill Glasheen]

“That's all that matters. Everything else is just political static.“

Your denial on this is comical.

Legally she had the right, but ethically she was inappropriate.

Wow... your doublespeak on this is comical.

The panel stated she had the right to do what she did, and chose not to reprimand her in any way whatsoever. Actions talk; bullshit walks.

I don't like the way I was handled in two corporate takeovers. However... I chose not to make a bid deal about it. And you know what happened?

• The first employer is now one of my largest customers. They are paying for me to provide a service I gave them when I was their employee. Go figure...
• The second employer is now my competition, and I am in a position to bury them in the marketplace. I have just been part of stealing their largest customer. They tried to hire me back. I don't think so...

If the trooper in question had chosen to act in a legal and civil manner, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Focus on the facts. This trooper was a very bad (perhaps dangerous) man. There was an appearance of impropriety on the part of Palin. However, the right thing was done. Palin had the balls... er... ovaries to pull the trigger when it became necessary. I don't know about you, but that's what I want in my leader, my doctor, the members of my armed forces, and the friends who have my back.

One thing I have learned from years of working is that buttheads eventually get their due. When you make a BFD about something that is inevitable - whether "fair" or not - nothing good comes of it. A certain amount of emotional intelligence is called for here.

In my case, emotional intelligence taught me that takeovers result in job losses, and somebody has to lose. But not really... I was smart enough to buy stock ahead of time. I lost my job, and made a killing on the stock. And when I smiled and shook hands on the way out, they couldn't believe it. Believe it!

Boo hoo for the a$$hole trooper. There, I feel better now.

- Bill

[IJ]

Here's a question. Suppose *I* am a competitor of Palin's, say, someone who is running against her, from either party. *I* become suspicious she applied pressure for personal reasons (the committee concluded it was NOT the only reason, but a significant reason; this appears to have been made quite clear). If I am in a position to investigate her, should I go ahead and do it? Or should I propose to whomever that this be looked into but I am not in the best position because of a conflict of interest?

Did Palin assume that this individual's boss, and the monitoring structure of the Alaskan police, were incapable of investigating and handling conduct problems on their own? THAT would be quite a serious matter, but it's not one that I've heard. Why is that?

[Bill Glasheen]

Did Palin assume that this individual's boss, and the monitoring structure of the Alaskan police, were incapable of investigating and handling conduct problems on their own? THAT would be quite a serious matter, but it's not one that I've heard. Why is that?

Actually, Ian, I heard just the opposite. As a friend (and Democrat) told me, the mistake Palin made was not kicking the butts of a whole host of people who didn't do their jobs for whatever reason. By keeping this just to the trooper, it made it look personal.

However... there's an old Chinese saying that comes to mind here. The best way to scare a hundred monkeys is to kill one.

- Bill

[mhosea]

Did Palin assume that this individual's boss, and the monitoring structure of the Alaskan police, were incapable of investigating and handling conduct problems on their own? THAT would be quite a serious matter, but it's not one that I've heard. Why is that?

Well, the line they've taken is that the firing didn't have anything to do with the ex-brother-in-law, so, given that, it would be dumb for them to make that argument. At any rate, if I were privately concerned that the the department had developed a culture of self-protection in such matters rather than protecting above all the public's interest in having a police force of the highest integrity, then it would be an excellent reason to dismiss the head honcho and put somebody there with a mind to put the public's interest first.

[IJ]

Did it make it look personal? Or was it? The conclusion of the bipartisan committee was the latter.

As for getting rid of the head guy so she could remove a culture of self protection, if that were true, why hasn't she SAID that, and why hasn't she pointed to the resulting cleanup? Methinks one didn't occur. [/i]

[mhosea]

Did it make it look personal? Or was it? The conclusion of the bipartisan committee was the latter.

False dichotomy. It was both personal and public.

As for getting rid of the head guy so she could remove a culture of self protection, if that were true, why hasn't she SAID that, and why hasn't she pointed to the resulting cleanup? Methinks one didn't occur.

Cleanup? None was necessary. They had some kind of hearing and gave the guy short suspension. It's not like they cleared him, they just gave him a slap on the wrist and said "Play nice, Mike." This is what left the Palins saying "Huh?!" They thought, as do I, that his actions proved he was unfit to be a state policeman.

Anyway, I see no reason to discount that she had two reasons to reassign Monegan, one of which related to budgetary recalcitrance, and the other being how he handled the Wooten case. She's entitled to mention either or neither when people ask her about it. That's what the committee concluded. So, why not mention the other reason? What a funny question. Because it's exactly what guys like you would have wanted her to do, of course! But let's assume she's not quite that dumb. If you had more than one good reason to fire somebody, would you mention the one that was linked to a personal matter? Especially when you have constitutional authority to do it without any reason at all?

[IJ]

"False dichotomy. It was both personal and public."

I was responding to this statement: "Actually, Ian, I heard just the opposite. As a friend (and Democrat) told me, the mistake Palin made was not kicking the butts of a whole host of people who didn't do their jobs for whatever reason. By keeping this just to the trooper, it made it look personal."

My point is, if you have a host of people who need firing, and you pressure someone to fire the one who you have personal issues with, well, that's an oops. I agree this isn't PURELY a personal battle; that's what the committee concluded, that personal reasons were ONE contributing issue. Enough for a violation.

"Cleanup? None was necessary. They had some kind of hearing and gave the guy short suspension. It's not like they cleared him, they just gave him a slap on the wrist and said "Play nice, Mike." This is what left the Palins saying "Huh?!" They thought, as do I, that his actions proved he was unfit to be a state policeman."

Ok, not sure where you're going. Bill implied that Palin need to replace someone so the replacement could do a cleanup of multiple people. I replied that I don't buy it because we haven't heard about the cleanup. If as you state no cleanup was needed, that reinforces my point he wasn't fired to facilitate a cleanup.

"Anyway, I see no reason to discount that she had two reasons to reassign Monegan, one of which related to budgetary recalcitrance, and the other being how he handled the Wooten case."

Neither did the committee, neither do I.

"She's entitled to mention either or neither when people ask her about it. That's what the committee concluded. So, why not mention the other reason? What a funny question. Because it's exactly what guys like you would have wanted her to do, of course! But let's assume she's not quite that dumb. If you had more than one good reason to fire somebody, would you mention the one that was linked to a personal matter? Especially when you have constitutional authority to do it without any reason at all?"

I fail to see your point. IF she had excellent reasons to fire this guy, I'm merely saying it would vastly help her case with those irrascible "guys like [me]" to simply come out and say it. Here are some possible responses:

--I fired him because of a budget dispute. Good idea. Legitimate reason.
--I fired him because he wouldn't fire a trooper I had a personal dispute with. She can deny this, but the investigation finds otherwise.
--I fired him because he wasn't cleaning house at the police dept. This would be great IF his replacement ushered in a "cleaning house." Since I haven't heard that anything happened with other troopers with the replacement FROM THE PALIN CAMP, this sounds improbable.

Since there was a mix presumably of the first two, there's a mixed verdict on the firing. That's what the committee concluded, it's what seems to be the case. Moral is: if there's a conflict of interest, recuse yourself and make sure someone qualified and impartial handles the issue in your place.

[mhosea]

Since there was a mix presumably of the first two, there's a mixed verdict on the firing.

I guess I need to read the report because that's not my understanding of it at all. From the news articles I have read, she was completely exonerated on the firing issue, regardless of any reason. The state's constitution protects her right to do so without reservation. The abuse of power finding surrounded the effort to get the trooper fired, Todd's activities, Sarah's consent, yada, yada, yada. While the case may indeed may have factored into the Governor's reasons for firing Monegan, and the committee seems to have indulged themselves by bothering to point that out, the issue is simply not relevant.

[Bill Glasheen]

Ditto.

I'm shocked at your reaction, Ian. It makes me believe you live in an insular world.

For your edification, the vast majority of us in "the real world" work at the pleasure of our private employer or the shareholder. There is no such thing as job security. For each and every job I got hired for, I signed a document at the outset indicating such. I could have my job terminated without cause at any point. And it happened to me twice after corporate takeovers. That's how the acquirer achieves economies of scale after the merger. If you don't happen to be working or living in the new home office, you'd best hope that you bought lots of stock and your resume is tidy. In both cases for me, I got a new job before the end of my severance pay period and was able to "double dip." That's how the good guys survive. In my case, I got a better job each time I got the nudge.

And for the record... In both my corporate takeover/layoffs, I got free career counseling services from a service bureau. I took advantage of such on the first one. In one of our "group" meetings at the firm, someone jokingly made the remark that it was the meeting of the middle-aged white males. There was a pause as everyone looked around, and then a burst of laughter. Tell me that was an accident... But it speaks to the whining we're hearing from you, Ian. Protected classes have their advocates; unprotected classes get raided. One way or another, someone has to be the one to go. And sometimes that leads to a rather odd kind of discrimination. Oh well... I'm not going to cry over it. But we unprotected types will speak up without shame and with no fear of being intimidated by those pulling protected class cards.

Additionally, companies expand and contract with the economy. Right now there is a recession looming in the horizon. You'd better believe that companies will be making themselves leaner and meaner to survive the economic downturn. In such contraction periods, buttheads are often the first to go. And that's how it should be. GE's former CEO Jack Welch regularly removed the bottom 10% of his management each and every year. That's partly why GE grew to the massive economic power that it is today.

As I have read more about this case, the biggest complaint seems to be that Governor Palin's husband made half a dozen calls lobbying for the removal of the trooper in question. Well would you not do the same for your sister if she was being harassed by a loose canon wearing a badge? Talk about a very dangerous person... I frankly fail to see where there is an ethics violation there, other than MAYBE Governor Palin giving him access to phone numbers and such. Maybe... Fuk it, Ian, I would have done the same - and more.

Ethics schmethics; the right thing happened. No more Blue Curtain, Ian. Dangerous cops have to go. If you are part of the obstructionist process keeping bad seeds in our law enforcement community, then I sure as heck want to see you fired. All those years as a teenager that I put up with being stopped and harassed by police just because I had long hair, or because I sported an "Impeach Nixon" bumper sticker... I did nothing wrong, but a certain sector of law enforcement saw fit to abuse THEIR power. What's up with that, Ian? And what's up with you defending such rogue cops? Why are you throwing ethics violation accusations at the people with the cahones to get rid of these cops and those who protect them? I'm not feeling it, Ian.

You want to talk about an appearance of impropriety? How about the timing of the release of the report? This was supposed to have been released AFTER the election. But it didn't happen that way, did it? This non-violation violation got reported just in time for us all collectively to gasp and change our minds on election day.

I don't think so.

- Bill