Open Thread – Craziness
8 07 2009What a day at Mudflats Central.
The editorial staff is ripping their hair out.
The fact checkers are having a hissy fit.
The switchboard is going crazy.
Middle management is running around putting out fires.
The writers are sitting at their desks, tapping at the keys, erasing, retyping, deleting and finally, ceremoniously throwing piles of papers into the air.
Even the coffee provider is in a quandary. It’s 80 degrees in Alaska and nothing is air conditioned, but caffeine is needed.
And Human Resources is ready to can the whole lot of them because they’re driving everyone nuts.
And yes, all of the people above are … me.
So, on my way home, I decided to indulge in a frozen latte because it’s 80 degrees. If you’ve lived in Alaska for more than 2 summer cycles, 80 degrees feels like 120 degrees. And the air is muggy and thick with smoke from forest fires in the interior, and cotton wood fluff that makes everyone’s allergies go bananas. So, I pull up to the coffee place, and hit the drive through window. I realize I have no cash. My throat is on fire. I’m sweating. ‘Buf’ the dog is panting up a storm and drooling on the seat. I’ll buy a $20 coffee card. I don’t care at this point. I’m HOT. It’s icky. I want my frozen latte! (being all petulant and grumpy) I hand the coffee girl my Visa and ask for the $20 punch card. She stares at my hand reaching out the window of my car. She doesn’t move.
“Oh. We only take cash or checks.” She chews gum.
Noooooooooooooooooo!
I paused a moment, hoping some magical solution would come to me. I pulled over into one of the parking spaces. Buf and I got out of the car and I turned the entire thing upside down, shaking vigorously in the hopes that some hidden change would fall out. No luck.
Scowling and even more sweaty, I made my way home to find something in the yard that actually made me smile.
Brian the Moose! Haven’t seen him in a while, but there he was. I can’t imagine wearing that coat in this weather, or what sized frozen latte would make him feel better. I’m thinking probably the 10-gallon enormo.
So, the point of all this is… I need to make some lemonade. And then I’m going to pour it over my head. And then I’m going to finish working on a post. But in the meantime, here’s an evening time open thread, since the last one is chock full and now has over 500 comments.
Thanks for indulging your hot sweaty cranky staff today!
P.S. The moderation crew (me) also apologizes for the extra amount of comments that are being sent to moderation. Not sure what’s up with that, but they promise to try to keep up with it!
July 9th, 2009 at 10:53 PM
Look! Sarah “borrowed” from none other than the Attorney General she filed an ethics complaint against…
Renkes, in a prepared statement, cited personal attacks that he said continued even after an outside investigator concluded there was no ethical breach except for one instance. Renkes wrote that his motivation for stepping down was to remove his family “from the vicious politics of personal destruction.”
The state personnel board is considering a separate Renkes ethics complaint filed by Democratic Rep. Eric Croft and former Wasilla mayor Sarah Palin, a Republican.
http://palintology.com/2005/02/06/alaska-attorney-general-gregg-renkes-to-resign/
July 9th, 2009 at 10:55 PM
Thank you for the lesson in finance. I wouldn’t have known where to begin.
Nan
July 9th, 2009 at 10:59 PM
hi team…
ds55 Says: “Palin is still collecting donations for the Alaska Trust Fund, her legal defense fund. Why? Her legal bills are already paid. Where is the IRS when we need ‘em?”
the purpose of the trust is set up so ambiguously that it basically allows her to do whatever she wants – for now. It states: 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.”
right now, this allows her to collect money and do whatever the hell she wants with it. notice how it says nothing specifically about legal defense. also notice how it says that she can collect money for anything “as a result of the fact that she is Governor” AND “as a result of the performance of her duties as Governor.” it is drafted this way on purpose, creating a huge loophole to work with for her trustee (who happens to be in her pocket). trusts are strange things. they must have a purpose and it cannot change once the trust is created. this is going to cause a problem eventually, because the trust is set up for her “as Governor of Alaska.” even after she resigns, however, she will be okay for awhile because her team of hacks will say that whatever they are collecting money for resulted from her performance as governor. but eventually the trust will no longer have purpose and they will need to dissolve it, as based on the law. they aren’t going to do that voluntarily until the issue is forced in some way….
July 9th, 2009 at 11:09 PM
I love it that Levi still gets an instant, angry response from Palin. Sarah hasn’t learned anything from her past mistakes.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:27 PM
Jhop – so it would be kinda nice to be able to force her to close it sooner than later… What can be done to propell that forward? After all she’s given her notice! And then what happens with the money? Does she get it all personally & then have to pay taxes on it that tax year as personal income?
July 9th, 2009 at 11:29 PM
403 JHop Says:
July 9th, 2009 at 10:59 PM
hi team…
———————————-
(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.”
—————————
Based on that one description, and future complaints (in the NEAR future ) will probably come about while she WAS the Governor. So I can see her lawyers saying this happened while she was in Office so it applies. Like you said JHop there will be a time when this no longer applies. Van Flea will push it out as far as her can because to Him she is the Goose that laid the Golden Egg… up till now. The Goose is eventually going to get cooked.
Once she is no longer Gov. and can’t attack her detractors and doesn’t have the power of her Office to do so I would hope that somebody will file some legal brief/document or lawsuit saying that Alaska’s ‘ name ‘ can not be used for her own personal gain. It has no benefit to Alaska and she can’t use the name in that manner. Maybe someone will do it July 26th… the first day she is out of Office.( fingers crossed ) Time to stop the sham.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:35 PM
Okay, picking up from #370
From VP FEC financial disclosure Oct. 3, 2008 – State of Alaska salary: $196,531.50.
Not $125,000 as listed in the Alaska Public Offices Commission disclosure. A difference of almost $72,000.
Not pertinent here, but part of the craziness and miiillliions…
Sept 5, 2008, $84.1 million from the US Treasury went to the McCain campaign.
That was the money that paid for Sarah’s big fun. I don’t care how they justify it, the fact of the matter is that taxpayer money paid for the private jets, hotels, 20 personal assistants, and hair and makeup. She paid nothing out of her own pocket to finance her ambitions.
“The RNC has already conceded that the funds used to purchase clothing for the candidate, her family and others, were campaign funds.”
From the Citizens For Ethics FEC complaint
http://www.citizensforethics.org/files/FEC%20Complaint.pdf
July 9th, 2009 at 11:42 PM
#403 – That sounds to me like the covenants under which it was formed become invalid and defunct the moment that she stops being Governor. I don’t know about trusts, but I do know about 501c3 administration.
No doubt her organizations are getting in front of it now and doing something about it.
Just a thought – If it was a REAL trust, it seems that assets would go to probate for dispensation.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:48 PM
honestyingov is right. except for the july 26th part. i think it will take a lot longer than that, although i hope that i am wrong. her trust was created with such ambiguity that they can literally say anything falls under its intended purpose. anything at all stemming from her performance as Governor. they are going to milk this for all its worth. for example, they can say that she is still paying legal bills for past complaints; that they had to hire new lawyers to determine the validity of the trust now that she resigned; that she had to pay moving costs to clear out of her office and mansion; that she needs to go for a pedicure and massage to make herself feel better because she was so hurt by what happened to her “as a result of the performance of her duties as Governor.” my point is that they will literally prolong this for as long as possible, and based on the trust, they have a lot of wiggle room to do so.
the other thing is, the ethics act is also really ambiguous. i commented on this in detail, with the actual statutes, on one of the threads during the past few days. the act can be interpreted that “former” public officials no longer fall under its jurisdiction – meaning, that any complaint against palin will be dismissed as soon as she resigns. but there is also a clause that says complaints against former officials can still be investigated. so i am very curious to see how much longer the ethics complaints will be entertained.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:58 PM
Jackie: she won’t get to keep the money personally, but i almost wish that she would – then she would have to pay personal income taxes on it. instead, i can only assume that the trust will eventually be dissolved (which can only be done by the trustee, because it is irrevocable) and the money will be placed into a new trust (with a new, but still ambiguous, purpose). a trustee has special duties under the law – mainly, that a trustee has a fiduciary duty to protect the trust itself for its beneficiaries. so her trustee will dissolve it and then just set it up again to help out the palins. it is ridiculous. but once she is no longer governor, i don’t know how strong the argument will be against its validity. i mean, anyone can have a trust set up for any reason (unless it is against public policy). for me, i dont really understand the difference between the trust and her PAC.
i think the trust is illegal, on its face, in her role as governor because she is using her office for personal gain. in fact, after doing a lot of research about this trust, i cant rule out that it was the cause of her resignation. i can imagine a scenario where the pending ethics complaint – which was very well written and seemed meritorious in my opinion – was investigated and the personnel board decided that they could not just dismiss it. i really don’t think there is an argument for dismissal without a formal hearing. the way she is using this right now is very very dubious. but i can see the board (all appointed by palin) saying, “look, we can’t just dismiss this, it is going to come to light because there is a real ethics issue here. you are probably going to have to dissolve the trust as a violation of the law and forfeit, or maybe even reimburse, the funds in a huge public spectacle. but if for whatever reason you were no longer governor, this complaint would not have to be heard because it would be a moot point; you would no longer be abusing your office since you would no longer be in office. then, we can just sweep it under the rug and you can keep your millions.”
and then palin said “peace out b1tches” and went on to ramble about dead fish and point guards. this of course is just me speculating and talking out loud, but i can’t dismiss that it isnt a possibility.
July 10th, 2009 at 12:05 AM
The ethics stuff applies to state employees as a personnel issue. It does not apply at all to a non-employee.
Thinking ahead, here’s some cheerful stuff:
Sec. 39.52.180. Restrictions on employment after leaving state service.
(a) A public officer who leaves state service may not, for two years after leaving state service, represent, advise, or assist a person for compensation regarding a matter that was under consideration by the administrative unit served by that public officer, and in which the officer participated personally and substantially through the exercise of official action.
For the purposes of this subsection, “matter” includes a case, proceeding, application, contract, determination, proposal or consideration of a legislative bill, a resolution, a constitutional amendment, or other legislative measure, or proposal, consideration, or adoption of an administrative regulation.
(b) This section does not prohibit an agency from contracting with a former public officer to act on a matter on behalf of the state.
(c) The head of an agency may waive application of (a) of this section after determining that representation by a former public officer is not adverse to the public interest. The waiver must be in writing and a copy of the waiver must be provided to the attorney general for approval or disapproval.
(d) An individual who formerly held a position listed in this subsection may not engage in activity as a lobbyist under AS 24.45 for a period of one year after leaving that position. This subsection does not prohibit service as a volunteer lobbyist described in AS 24.45.161(a)(1) or a representational lobbyist as defined under regulations of the Alaska Public Offices Commission. This subsection applies to the position of
(1) governor;
(2) lieutenant governor;
(3) head or deputy head of a principal department in the executive branch;
(4) director of a division or legislative liaison within a principal department in the executive branch;
(5) legislative liaison, administrative assistant or other employee of the Office of the Governor or Office of the Lieutenant Governor in a policy-making position;
(6) member of a state board or commission that has the authority to adopt regulations, other than a board or commission named in AS 08.01.010;
(7) member of a governing board and executive officer of a state public corporation.
(e) A former head of a principal department in the executive branch may not, for a period of one year after leaving service as the head of that department, serve on the governing board of a company, organization, or other entity that was regulated by that department or with which the former department head worked as part of an official duty as the department head. A former employee of the Office of the Governor in a policy-making position may not, for a period of one year after leaving employment in that office, serve on the governing board of a company, organization, or other entity with which the former employee worked as part of an official duty for the Office of the Governor.
(f) In this section, “employee of the Office of the Governor in a policy-making position” means a person who is an employee required, because of the person’s position in the Office of the Governor, to file a statement under AS 39.50.020.
Sec. 39.52.190. Aiding a violation prohibited.
It is a violation of this chapter for a public officer to knowingly aid another public officer in a violation of this chapter.
July 10th, 2009 at 12:05 AM
oops, didn’t mean to bold everything. Sorry.
July 10th, 2009 at 12:08 AM
Hi there everyone !
Just a reminder about the Purple Passion Swap. If any of you signed up for this great swap on the forum, don’t forget to check your Personal Messages (PMs) to find out the details of your swap buddy. I realise that not all of you visit the forum on a regular basis, so just wanted to remind you that that is where you’ll find out the all important details. If you need any help at all on the forum – just “holler”
Thanks
Siren
July 10th, 2009 at 12:18 AM
JHop….
I was just reading the new thread that was up and the picture is of the Women protesting last year. I remember there is a link on Immoral Minority for ” Women against Sarah Palin”.
Somebody should try to call them to see if they would like to be part of filing a suit toward shutting down the AFT. Better to have a LOT of names on a Lawsuit rather than just one and they are already organized or were. And as Alaskans they could be the ones to speak up.
July 10th, 2009 at 1:25 AM
CG: See the following and tell me what you think…
Sec. 39.52.310. Complaints.
(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
Sec. 39.52.910. Applicability.
(a) Except as specifically provided, this chapter applies to all public officers within executive-branch agencies, including members of boards or commissions. This chapter does not apply to
(1) a former public officer of an executive-branch agency unless a provision specifically states that it so applies
July 10th, 2009 at 1:31 AM
siren – i responded to your Burma thread. and what is this purple passion thing you speak of? it sounds like a delicious and fruity cocktail.
honestyingov- class action suits have different rules and different issues that go along with them. the real key to being successful is to have one really amazing lead plaintiff. the thing is, you need to have standing. meaning, you have to show how you are hurt or damaged by whatever you are suing about. i am not sure how that would work here. i think the state has to bring suit to dissolve the trust. so if anything, we need to start a campaign to get people to make a big deal about this.
July 10th, 2009 at 1:33 AM
JHop, I’m really enjoying Legal Studies 101.
July 10th, 2009 at 1:37 AM
JHop, my bad – the purple passion swap is an exchange of something purple with another Mudflatter. Swaps are arranged through the forum. It’s a bit like a Secret Santa thing.
July 10th, 2009 at 1:42 AM
interesting. please tell me whenever the next one is or how i can get involved in the future.
and please tell me if i ever overkill legal studies 101. the last thing i want to be seen as is condescending or lecturing.
July 10th, 2009 at 2:30 AM
JHop, most of the professionals here share their knowledge whenever it’s appropriate – and that’s a good thing, because we count on them. I don’t believe too much Legal Studies 101 is possible – given the quality of lawyering that is for sale in Alaska.
I don’t hang at the forum, but generally when there is something big like a swap happening, AKM will mention it in an oyster roundup or somesuch.
July 10th, 2009 at 4:08 AM
for you moose scrappers out there:
http://www.etsy.com/view_listing.php?listing_id=27581294
July 10th, 2009 at 9:59 AM
Those aren’t moose! They look like some wierd caribou/elk/deer mutation.
July 10th, 2009 at 1:06 PM
410 JHop Says:
Jackie: she won’t get to keep the money personally, but i almost wish that she would – then she would have to pay personal income taxes on it.
—————–
JHop, I believe the trust does provide for her, her family and some (covered) staff to use the money however they choose. (See trust 3.a.) I think I remember you commenting that it wasn’t really a legal trust, so, I might have misunderstood you. The trust also will cover any tax liability related to personal distributions (trust, page 2).
I could care less if the trust supports the Palins for the rest of their lives if that is what those donating want to do. The problem, I believe, is that the trust has been misrepresented to be a legal trust when it appear it is not.
This could be one of her biggest lies and no one is covering it.