Palin Ethics Complaint #13…a Baker’s Dozen (Updated)
27 04 2009Another ethics complaint was filed today against Governor Sarah Palin. That makes a baker’s dozen! Somewhere there’s got to be a lawyer who will charge for the first twelve and do the 13th one free. You know….like a punch card.
Eagle river resident Kim Chatman charges that Palin’s newly formed “Alaska Fund Trust” 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?”
Here’s the full text of the ethics complaint.
April 27, 2009
Acting Attorney General Svobodny 1031 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 200 Anchorage, AK 99501-1994Dear acting Attorney General Svobodny,
Please accept this letter as an Ethics Complaint against Governor Sarah Palin under Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act (Alaska Statute, Title 39, Chapter 52) (AEBEA), stating as follows: 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) A public officer may not solicit, accept, or receive, directly or indirectly, a gift, whether in the form of money, service, loan, travel, entertainment, hospitality, employment, promise, or in any other form, 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.
The AEBEA states 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. It is declared that high moral and ethical standards among public officers in the executive branch are essential to assure the trust, respect, and confidence of the people of this state; and that a code of ethics for the guidance of public officers will discourage those officers from acting upon personal or financial interests in the performance of their public responsibilities. Governor Palin is using her official position for personal gain and to intentionally secure unwarranted benefits to state workers who are poised to derive benefits from the Alaska Trust Fund; a newly formed group whose primary purpose is to collect huge amounts of money from people in Alaska and the Lower 48 for the Palin’s and selected state officials’ personal use for a time in perpetuity, under Alaska law.
Governor Palin is perched to improperly receive an enormous amount of money for herself and her family and position a pool of pre-paid defense lawyers organized to deflect consequences of wrongdoings, among other things. This fund corrupts the integrity of the Governor’s Office, the governmental and public process. It corrupts the people’s right to hold their governor and administration officials accountable. It increases Palin’s conflicts of interests and erodes the faith and confidence of Alaskans in their public officers. This fund violates the intent, purpose and spirit of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. (The Alaska Fund Trust http://thealaskafundtrust.com/)
Sarah Palin accrued legal bills because of her misconduct, her husband’s misconduct, and the misconduct of some of her staffers. The conclusion of the October 10, 208 Alaska Legislative Council Branchflower Report found that Governor Palin abused her power by violating the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act when she allowed her husband and staffers to pressure Public Safety Commissioner Monegan to fire the trooper Mike Wooten. Prior to August 28, 2008 the governor consistently stated that she would cooperate with the independent investigation. After a recording surfaced that shows Palin aide Frank Bailey acted inappropriately Governor Palin agreed to turn over findings of an inquiry by the Alaska Department of Law regarding the termination of former Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan. But upon being selected as John McCain’s running mate, Governor Palin recanted and refused to cooperate with the independent investigator. On September 3, 2008 Palin made the decision to quite publicly file an ethics complaint against herself with the Alaska Personnel Board, a board embedded within several bureaucratic layers that Governor Palin controls. That report concluded that no violations were found.
This served Palin’s interest to mitigate damage caused by the other legislative investigation and served the McCain campaign interests. Eventually, Todd Palin admitted to lobbying state officials to fire Wooten. Governor Palin came back to Alaska after losing her national bid and finally, the Alaska Senate found Todd Palin and nine aides in contempt for failing to show up when ordered by subpoena to testify in the Legislature’s “Troopergate” investigation of the governor.
July 18, 2008: Lawmakers seek outside inquiry of Monegan firing. http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=8701623
July 24, 2008 Lawmakers move to investigate Monegan ouster. http://www.ktuu.com/global/story.asp?s=8733790
July 28, 2008: Hired help will probe Monegan dismissal. http://www.adn.com/monegan/story/478090.html
Aug. 13, 2008: Governor to turn over findings. http://www.gov.state.ak.us/archive.php?id=1407&type=1Sept. 13, 2008: Governor seeks review of Monegan firing case. http://www.adn.com/monegan/story/514163.html
Oct. 8, 2008: Todd Palin subpoena http://www.mahalo.com/Todd_Palin_Subpoena
Nov. 3, 2008: Troopergate’s newest report clears Palin http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/110408/sta_351867809.shtml
Feb. 2009: Senate finds ten in contempt over Troopergate subpoenas http://www.adn.com/monegan/story/681638.htmlFor Governor Palin, Todd Palin and state aides to now personally benefit for this wrong behavior by collecting money through the Alaska Fund Trust goes against every conceivable notion of right and wrong. Their bad behavior is void of punishment as deterrence. Governor Palin and her family and state aides are financially rewarded for breaking laws. Where are the disincentives so Governor Palin, her family and aides can correct their actions by taking responsibility for their misconduct?
According to the Alaska Fund Trusts website: http://www.thealaskafundtrust.com/ Kristen Cole states, “I joined with fellow Alaskans in forming the Alaska Fund Trust to help alleviate the Governor’s legal debt incurred while performing her job as well as eliminate the incentive for future attacks by her opponents” “The Alaska Fund Trust 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.” “For Alaskans, the time has come to end the siege on our government by political tricksters. Enough is enough. With the help of reform-minded advocates from across our nation, we will stand up for what is right. Your maximum contribution of $150.00. Governor, her family, and her colleagues to retire their legal debt at no cost to Alaskans and reduce the incentive for mischief by her opponent.,” Firstly, this fund interferes with Alaskans’ right to address the wrongdoings of their public officials. Although Alaska laws provide various legal methods to redress Alaska’s public officials, the insertion of this trust and its money corrupts Alaska’s governmental and public processes by creating disparities between public officials and averages citizens concerned about official misconduct.
The way it is set up is also rife with conflicts of interests that go against every tenet of the scope and purpose of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. The governor can secure, and inversely not secure, monetary help to her cronies. Governor Palin has at least 500,000 supporters between her Facebook, TeamSarah, and other groups in support of Sarah Palin. If each of them were to contribute an average of $100 it would equate to $50 million. If they contribute an average of $50 it equates to $25 million. If half of them send $10 it equals $2.5 million. That’s personal wealth created for Governor Palin by putting a for sale sign on our Alaska Governor’s Office. That kind of money injected into the complaint process does not provide the opportunity for Governor Palin, Todd Palin and aides to take responsibility for their misconducts. This sort of large pot of newly found personal money will influence and encourage Governor Palin, Todd Palin and public officials to continue to thwart Alaska’s rules of law and conduct and is based on improper motivation. Ultimately, this Alaska Fund Trust does not provide Alaskans with better government and only corrupts it further.
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. Sarah Palin’s conflicts of interests with regards to this fund are significant and material as her interest in the fund is presumed to be more than $5,000. Based on the facts set forth above I’m requesting that the Alaska Personnel Board investigate Gov. Palin’s use of official position for personal gain and the improper solicitation and acceptance of money for the Alaska Trust Fund to give to the Palin’s and selected state officials. This fund does not serve the purposes or interests of Alaska or Alaskans and corrupts public and governmental processes.
The Alaska Fund Trust only serves the purposes and interests of the Palin family and selected state officials, and breaches the scope and spirit of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this.
Sincerely,Kim Chatman Eagle River, AK
And here’s the first response from the Palin administration:
“As we’ve been saying, the number of ethics complaints filed against the governor and her staff — as well as the tortured logic they contain — continue to constitute the most disturbing trend in Alaska politics. It’s obvious the intent with this unprecedented action against the governor is to see her administration paralyzed and for her to declare personal bankruptcy.”
April 28th, 2009 at 1:03 PM
Wow…Poor Snoskred(our beloved moderator). How many comments are you receiving from Cee4Pee’rs that are not making it thru moderation? Because they are spitting mad at this last ethics charge and now they are calling GINO “Joan of Arc”!!! Ummm, do they know Joan of Arc was burned at the stake by her own poeple?
April 28th, 2009 at 1:06 PM
Matha quotes in part: “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”
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Arguably, if SP raced snowmobiles herself (hey, there’s a future career!) would it be deemed an “independent pursuit” that did not interfere with the “full and faithful discharge” of her public duties? Hence, wearing A-Cat gear to race as “Sarah Racer” or “Governor Sarah Racer” independently pursing an athletic endeavor would be OK and not interfere with the full and faithful discharge of her public duties (i.e. signing a law, making a policy decision). A better analogy may be served by using her independent pursuit of running…if she were, as governor to run a 15k and wore Adidas/Nike/Underarmour gear is she committing an ethical violation for wearing logos while on an independently pursuit (racing/running)even though she is Governor Sarah Racer?? No. With the Iron Dog she, at a minimum, can claim she was there in her dual capacity as Governor (starts the race) and as spectator supporting her husband’s team and therefore there was no “effort to benefit financially or otherwise” from this independent pursuit.
—
Of course it’s product placement! But same as Obama wearing Armani or J Crew or Air Nike while playing basketball. Companies drooling to get him to wear/use their items.
___
As to the fact that some think this is an effort on some of our parts, to name call, bash or stick up for Palin as a whole – It isn’t. It is a discussion btw posters with different perspective on the A-Cat ethics violation. I beleive it, simply put, the ethics vio. as to A-Cat is lightweight. Note: Todd Palin can visit A-cat anywhere anytime he wants and as long as he is sponsored by them he will have a legitimate reason for doing so.
—
April 28th, 2009 at 1:06 PM
I’ve posted twice in response to C.Rock, and both times it shows that it is awaiting moderation. Not sure why, but I did respond and hopefully if they are not okay then a mod would explain why.
curiouser : Yes, I do consider it to be a good exercise and it is always helpful if you try to see the other person’s point of view. You may not agree, but it helps if you can at least try to understand where they are coming from. (my biggest problem is that I really don’t have a lot of understanding of where the other side on the Palin issue is coming from)
As for mimicking her facial expressions and vocal inflections…are you NUTS? LMAO, that would require me to watch more videos of her and sorry but there is only so much I can take of THAT!!
Laurie: Not really stirring the pot,
I guess I have always been one to make my own argument stronger by playing devils advocate, even against myself simply to help me express myself clearly as well as make a stronger argument and if it helps me to be more understanding of someone else’s point of view all the better.
Closet Mudpup : I agree with you completely, and I have pretty much run out of arguments.
April 28th, 2009 at 1:18 PM
245 EyeOnYou Says:
(my biggest problem is that I really don’t have a lot of understanding of where the other side on the Palin issue is coming from)
———-
Cheers to you for trying!
As for mimicking her facial expressions and vocal inflections…are you NUTS?
———-
LOL! Been accused of that before.
April 28th, 2009 at 1:29 PM
“A big part of me wants to go register at Team Sarah and other places and make a huge point of this. Just because these are such small minded idiots who most likely do NOT accept gay and lesbian people……”
Well, ya know, they follow their, fearless leader, so, probably, yes…small minded and idiotic.
Palin Campaign Manager: Palin ‘Cringed At The Idea’ Of Reading A Gay-Friendly Children’s Book
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/20/palin-cringed-gay-book/
April 28th, 2009 at 1:47 PM
PalinSucks Says:
April 28th, 2009 at 11:58 AM
“While ACat may have benefitted from her wearing the jacket, if there is no binding agreement to wear it from either party, then she is off the hook because she will say, she just threw it on to wear to the event. ”
“she will say, she just threw it on to wear to the event. ”
She can SAY anything she wants. The truth is well known she was a product placement. The complaint can be tossed but she has been exposed and that was the real intent.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One must not forget Dud and his friend Had a SNOW MACHINE biz so GINO would be well aware of the value of a “Team Arctic” jacket and monogrammed for her…!
The biz was dissolved when dud was mad b/c she was having a affair with his friend/partner.(when she was mayor, I believe)
But yes she WOULD know the “Advertising value” of wearing such a jacket to such a event as gov. just as she puts links to Arctic cat on SOA website! There’s another Ethics violation….any taker’s???
April 28th, 2009 at 1:51 PM
Clearly you all missed this part of EyeOnYou’s post:
(I love playing devil’s advocate)
April 28th, 2009 at 1:55 PM
@let it run–For starters, I’m pretty sure the President buys his own clothes…which is more that I think we can say about GINO’s ownership of personalized Team Arctic Cat gear. Furthermore, it’s not like the First Lady is reaping huge benefits by way of sponsorship of her “business” from Nike or Armani or J.Crew. That’s the core issue of the ethics complaint on that issue.
April 28th, 2009 at 2:07 PM
Ah c’mon – she should just divorce the first Dud and be done w/ the Arctic Cat complaint (and NOT split the business, oh – leave him the kids, too unless she needs to borrow them for parading around, hmmm.. no family pets, Todd keeps the plane because SP is too witless to fly & would crash while trying to apply lipstick, SP keeps the house on the dead lake, they split all the guns).
That’s one down out of 13 – back to a dozen! Whew!
April 28th, 2009 at 2:07 PM
Just got this “update” from SarahPac….
Picking my jaw off the floor here, I’ve never seen anything so unprofessional!
Greetings to our friends and supporters!
As you may know, Governor Palin has been facing continuous frivolous and petty attacks from her opponents. These
baseless attacks have led to more than half million dollars in legal debt for the Governor and her family.
This is the official site for the Governor Sarah Palin legal expense fund: www(dot)thealaskafundtrust(dot)com
Thank you for your continued interest and support.
UNFRICKEN’ REAL!!!! How could someone put THAT on their PAC? Give money to me b/c po-po me, people are picking on me!!
April 28th, 2009 at 2:10 PM
One of the great comments someone posted from HuffPo on the lucky 13 complaint was:
Sarah is a Republican, she can pull herself up by her own d@mn bootstraps!
April 28th, 2009 at 2:22 PM
“Wow…Poor Snoskred(our beloved moderator). How many comments are you receiving that are not making it thru moderation? Because the other side is spitting mad at this last ethics charge and now they are calling GINO “Joan of Arc”!!! Ummm, do they know Joan of Arc was burned at the stake by her own poeple?”
And do they know that Joan of Arc was a good person?
April 28th, 2009 at 2:39 PM
Snoksred, hang in there – HuffPo is getting bombed, too. IMPEACH SARAH PALIN.
April 28th, 2009 at 2:42 PM
let it run Says:
April 28th, 2009 at 1:06 PM
Matha quotes in part: “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”
===========================================
Talk about out of context!! Nice try! You omitted the first part! You know very well what this means.
Like I said, if she were attending as a “spectator”. It is clear that without neglecting her obligation as governor to star the race, THAT would fall under “independent pursuits”. Give me a break!!
Here is the original post;
EyeOnYou Says:
April 28th, 2009 at 11:07 AM
Sec. 39.52.110. Scope of code.
(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 pursuit
==========================================
When Palin is making an appearance anywhere in her role as governor of Alaska, there IS no room in that to include “independent pursuits”.
If Palin were simply a spectator, fine, but in both Arctic Cat clothing instances, she was appearing in her role as governor, representing the state of Alaska.
Her husband Todd AND his partner have HUGE monetary gain from their Arctic Cat sponsorship. 60,000 in snowmachines alone.
April 28th, 2009 at 2:52 PM
“Of course it’s product placement! But same as Obama wearing Armani or J Crew or Air Nike while playing basketball. Companies drooling to get him to wear/use their items.”
__________________________
Sorry, but this is completely different from what SP did. First, when O is playing basketball, it is not part of his official responsibilities. SP was at the race in an official capacity as governor. She would be much more in a gray area if she had attended the race wearing those clothes if she also wasn’t the official starter and acting as governor. She has the right to support her husband, but not her husband’s sponsor and certainly not when she is also acting as governor. She should have chosen on that day whether she was going to be governor or wife and private citizen. It’s the mixing of the two that is unethical.
Secondly, as far as I know, O has not received any payment from the companies whose clothes he may wear and didn’t receive the clothes as gifts. SP’s husband is sponsored by AC and if your spouse is being paid for something, according to the law, you are benefitting. It doesn’t matter if it’s you or someone in your immediate family who is actually getting paid or given stuff. So SP was being paid (indirectly) to promote AC and that is what makes her a walking billboard as she was acting as governor and it is clearly unethical.
IMO, wearing the AC outfit again to the Slush Cup was another ethics violation. She was still promoting a company which pays her family to do so while performing official duties as governor. That’s not allowed, end of story.
New state of Alaska employees have to go to a whole day of training on ethics rules. I realize that these laws are complicated and I am not surprised that so many peeps here are a bit confused about them. What I cannot understand though, is why no one has sat down our brilliant airhead guv and _explained_ a few facts to her. Instead, she actually repeats behavior that someone has filed an ethics complaint when she did it the first time. *sigh* She really is a piece of work.
April 28th, 2009 at 3:05 PM
From ADN: (another ethics complaint in the works?)
http://www.adn.com/money/industries/mining/story/772198.html
“State election regulators are investigating whether Gov. Sarah Palin violated state law when she said in front of TV cameras last summer that she would vote no on a controversial ballot measure that sought stricter limits on water pollution discharges from mines…
Six days before the election last August, someone asked Palin during a press conference for her opinion on Measure 4. She responded: “Let me take my governor’s hat off just for a minute here and tell you, personally Prop 4, I vote no on that.”"
April 28th, 2009 at 3:08 PM
mudkitten Says:
April 28th, 2009 at 2:52 PM
I agree wholeheartedly with your post!
As I’ve said before, the second time she wore the custom Arctic Cat gear, was nothing but a big f…………………u to Diva who filed the ethics complaint and an “I dare you” to everyone else.
I’ve never seen the beat of such childishness in my life! It would be the “bloggers pajamas” (instead of cats pajamas, for you youngsters) if this asinine action is what finally brings her down.
April 28th, 2009 at 3:10 PM
I’m obviously not party to all the complaints but this one is absolutely legitimate. How can it be legitimate when our Governor is actively soliciting donations from the public (mostly from outsiders) to pay lawyers to protect her from….the very people she was elected to serve??!!
When’s the recall?
April 28th, 2009 at 3:13 PM
Mudkitten, I think they have…she just does not give a rat’s ass! How much you want to bet Talis Colberg told her to watch it more than once and she screeched, “You work for me – just DO IT!”
April 28th, 2009 at 4:50 PM
Speaking of Tallis Colberg, I hope he is spending his time right now writing his tell-all book, ’cause he was there in the thick of the McCain takeover and has to know a lot of what was really going on. And know that he has resigned, he is free to write that book and make that money, which he would presumeably not have been able to do as AG. I bet he is glad he bailed when he did – imagine him trying to wrangle his way around the formation of the Alaska F’d-up Non-Trust.
Other dreams? Kristan Cole’s legal bills from dairygate make her a “covered individual” under the trust documents (that she signed with herself). One day, SP chesses her off, and she withdraws nearly all the funds (say, $175,000) and moves to Guam.
Leaving SP with diddly AND squat AND no fund trustee. But, would serve her right. She didn’t sign the document, and placed an incredible amount of power in the hands of Kristan Cole. If Kristan decides to wield it, that could be a problem for Our Sarah. I am actually hoping for this, only from the point of veiw of the sheer drama of it all. I would feel sorry for those folks donating who thought their money was going elsewhere, but … donator beware.
April 28th, 2009 at 4:53 PM
#265 Moose Pucky:
Thanks for reminding us:
Six days before the election last August, someone asked Palin during a press conference for her opinion on Measure 4. She responded: “Let me take my governor’s hat off just for a minute here and tell you, personally Prop 4, I vote no on that.””
That makes sense, now that we’ve learned that she looks to profit from what she wears in public. The State of Alaska evidently hadn’t paid her enough to keep her governor’s hat on.
April 28th, 2009 at 5:39 PM
140 – IsyFleur Says:
April 28th, 2009 at 7:57 AM
Is it even legal for the trustor and the trustee to be the same individual?
****
I am the successor trustee to my mother’s revocable trust and assumed the position after her death. Down where my mom lived (FL), you could have the trust set up so that the “trustee” controlled the trust…as the grantor, not trustee. The trustee came into effect only after her death. The grantor has sole control of every thing in the trust unless a specific event required that the successor trustee step in. In my case, it was my mom’s death.
Having said that – - -
As for this “trust”, this is not a trust – I don’t think it would pass muster by the IRS. Trusts are set up after assets have been acquired, with changes in trust holdings occurring when/as needed. I don;t think a legal defense fund could be set up as a trust, at least not under the rules I have been dealing with.
***
Ok – now there is the first big problem in store for Cole: she cannot “reimburse” SP or any recipient for taxes they owe on disbursements, since under federal law, tax is the burden of the trust’s beneficiaries. Each time Cole gives anyone money, assuming the trust stands as is, each time Cole allocates money to a beneficiary, MORE tax is owed.
Add in the second big problem, the fact that the trust’s income (all donations) is subject to tax on IRS form 1041, so there is going to be federal tax on that too. Not to mention – capital gains taxes on any investments…. Anyone wanting to figure out the IRS angle, go to IRS.gov, then search for form 1041, as well as the instructions for filing that return.
I have a @_&$^)# headache now…this is bringing back vivid reminders of the past few months, dealing with the IRS for tax year 2008 returns, and the last 16 months ascertaining what the trust assets are and dealing with the FL Probate Court over one asset that I found that was never retitled under the revocable trust name and was never mentioned in any trust document.
Anyone in AK got any Stoli? I figure – ahem, totally TIC here – surely since you can see Russia from AK that someone has a ready supply available!!!
April 28th, 2009 at 5:44 PM
mudkitten Says:
April 28th, 2009 at 2:52 PM
Sorry, but this is completely different from what SP did. First, when O is playing basketball, it is not part of his official responsibilities. SP was at the race in an official capacity as governor. She would be much more in a gray area if she had attended the race wearing those clothes if she also wasn’t the official starter and acting as governor. She has the right to support her husband, but not her husband’s sponsor and certainly not when she is also acting as governor. She should have chosen on that day whether she was going to be governor or wife and private citizen. It’s the mixing of the two that is unethical.
Secondly, as far as I know, O has not received any payment from the companies whose clothes he may wear and didn’t receive the clothes as gifts. SP’s husband is sponsored by AC and if your spouse is being paid for something, according to the law, you are benefitting. It doesn’t matter if it’s you or someone in your immediate family who is actually getting paid or given stuff. So SP was being paid (indirectly) to promote AC and that is what makes her a walking billboard as she was acting as governor and it is clearly unethical.
IMO, wearing the AC outfit again to the Slush Cup was another ethics violation. She was still promoting a company which pays her family to do so while performing official duties as governor. That’s not allowed, end of story.
New state of Alaska employees have to go to a whole day of training on ethics rules. I realize that these laws are complicated and I am not surprised that so many peeps here are a bit confused about them. What I cannot understand though, is why no one has sat down our brilliant airhead guv and _explained_ a few facts to her. Instead, she actually repeats behavior that someone has filed an ethics complaint when she did it the first time. *sigh* She really is a piece of work.
~~~~~~~~~~
Just to add to mudkitten and chaim—–>according to Bill M-GINO is gov 24/7 soooooooooooo she’s not allowed to “take off her gov’s hat” period!
April 28th, 2009 at 5:54 PM
159 the problem child IS MY NAME Says:
April 28th, 2009 at 8:55 AM
I still think this is the most problematic part of the trust fund document:
“Each of the beneficiaries of this trust, shall, in each calendar year, have an
absolute and unrestricted power to withdraw from this Trust….”
****
Beneficiaries have ZERO control over any trust. Only the grantor or a trustee can allocate assets in a trust. Beneficiaries may request to receive funds, but they have NO control.
If this language is truly representative of the terms of the trust, boy was the attorney drawing up the trust a dunce!
- – - – - – -
172 the problem child IS MY NAME Says:
April 28th, 2009 at 9:14 AM
The trust company that is running the AFT boasts on its website that Alaska has the “friendliest” trust laws in the country.
PACs, I think, are primarily governed by federal law, and only incidentally by state law.
****
Doesn’t matter – the IRS will be a-knockin’ on this “trust’s” doors I do believe. Taxes are taxes – yes, SP, even GOP’s trusts!
- – - – - – - – - – - -
Ok…I’m now hitting migraine territory…someone PLEASE hand over some hard liquor! I’ll even take some Mexicali tequila – swine flu be danged!
April 28th, 2009 at 6:08 PM
PepperzMom (GA) Says:
April 28th, 2009 at 5:54 PM
Beneficiaries have ZERO control over any trust. Only the grantor or a trustee can allocate assets in a trust. Beneficiaries may request to receive funds, but they have NO control.
If this language is truly representative of the terms of the trust, boy was the attorney drawing up the trust a dunce!
___________________________________
Here is an exact copy & paste of that wording:
(a) Each of the beneficiaries of this trust, shall, in each calendar year, have an absolute and unrestricted power to withdraw from this Trust up to the lesser of the total additions made to this Trust during each calendar year or an amount in cash or other property (including the cash value of life insurance policies, if no other cash or property is available) equal the lesser
of the total additions made to this Trust during each calendar year, divided equally among such beneficiaries, or an amount in cash or other property (including the cash value of life insurance policies, if no other cash or property is available) equal to the maximum amount which qualifies
for the Federal Gift Tax exclusion allowed by Section 2503(b) of the Code (currently $13,000 per donor, but such amount shall be adjusted to provide the maximum amount excludable) presuming that a donor’s spouse, if any, has consented to treat any such eligible gifts as being made one-half by such donor and one-half by such donor’s spouse. The holder(s) of such power are hereinafter referred to as “Donee”. Except as otherwise provided herein, said power of withdrawal shall not be cumulative from year to year, must be exercised separately for each calendar year in which any such addition or additions are made, and shall be exercisable only bywritten notice to Trustee of the amount Donee wishes to withdraw, but no purpose for said withdrawal need be shown. The exercise or failure to exercise of one Donee hereunder shall not affect the rights of the remaining Donee(s). If any Donee is a minor, such power of withdrawal may be exercised by such minor’s natural guardian. To the extent that a Donee fails to fully
exercise a withdrawal right and the lapsing amount exceeds the greater of $5,000.00 or 5% (or the amounts referred to in Section 2514( e) as amended), of the aggregate market value of all trust estates of all trusts of which the Grantor is the grantor and which contain a power of withdrawal
in favor of such Donee (such amount and percentage increasing or decreasing as the allowable amount or percentage is increased or decreased under Section 2041 without causing the taxable exercise, release or lapse of a power) then the withdrawal right granted in this Section 3.2 shall
not lapse with respect to such excess and such Donee shall (on the terms and conditions, and subject to the limitations, of this Section 3.2, except that such withdrawals shall not be limited to or by gifts made to the trust in succeeding calendar years) have the right to withdraw such excess
in succeeding calendar years.
April 28th, 2009 at 6:13 PM
curiouser Says:
April 28th, 2009 at 1:18 PM
Cheers to you for trying!
________________
Thanks!
InJuneau Says:
April 28th, 2009 at 1:51 PM
Clearly you all missed this part of EyeOnYou’s post:
(I love playing devil’s advocate)
________________________
I am guessing the same thing, but it is no big deal. I am not worried because anyone who has seen my postings regularly knows that I am not a troll nor am I am Palin Fan.
It was fun trying to see the other sides point of view, but hard to come up with honest answers that weren’t just personal attacks and BS like most of them post in response to logical discussions of an issue.
April 28th, 2009 at 6:27 PM
PepperzMom (GA)
I agree with you, a PAC is not a trust. This is a trust (perhaps INO). Trust laws vary from state to state. The IRS and PAC laws don’t.
April 28th, 2009 at 7:29 PM
yeah, but IRS laws/regs do cover Trusts! And pecuniary benefits therefrom!