Voices from the Flats – Public Testimony Today!
8 02 2010Linda Kellen Biegel is the proprietor of the Blue Oasis blog and has done an outstanding job of following up on many issues involving ethics complaints, ethics legislation and how we can hold our elected officials accountable to us, the people who elected them.
While it takes effort to participate, and give testimony, and maintain contact with your legislators, the price of apathy is too high. Thanks to Linda for doing all the work required to understand what’s going on, and sharing it with the rest of us. We owe her a debt which is easily paid by participating to make the system better for everyone.
**************************************
Alaska Legislature – Public Testimony Today Regarding Changes to the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act
By Linda Kellen Biegel
A couple of weeks ago, I did a post on the three bills proposed by members of the Legislature to supposedly “fix” problems with the act. As I discuss in the post, two of the bills, HB 254 (Rep. Bob Lynn) and HB 263 (Rep. Mike Doogan) try to make things more confidential by having complaints dismissed if the complainant exercises his/her free speech rights by even stating that they have filed one. The bills fail to address a much more pressing problem…that the Governor has hiring/firing authority over the very Board that is supposed to hold him/her accountable.
I share a list of reasons why those bills are a bad idea:
1) In Alaska, the general public is not permitted to ask the Attorney General/the Department of Law for an official “decision” on an ethics issue. It can only be done by certain Government Employees, a public officer or their legal representative. The only way the general public can get a LEGAL RULING from the State of Alaska on an issue of ethics is to file a complaint.
2) Ethics complaints from the general public against public officers are based on public information, not employment records, etc., to which the general public does not have access. As there is no airing of information made confidential by Alaska Statute, there is NO REASON for the process not to be completely public.
3) During my experience with the complaint process, I constantly heard the meme from the Palin camp that “If these were ethics complaints against a legislator, mentioning them to the media would have them thrown out.”
According to an amendment to the Legislative Code of Ethics, yes that is true, for now. (covered in number 4)
However, there is a really big difference in how the Legislative Ethics Committee is selected:
The ethics committee has nine members: two senators, two representatives and five public members. The committee is divided into a House Subcommittee and a Senate Subcommittee for the purpose of considering most complaints. Elected officials, who serve two-year terms, are appointed by the leadership of the appropriate body with the concurrence of two-thirds of the full membership of that house. The public members, who serve a three-year term, are selected by the Chief Justice of the Alaska Supreme Court and ratified by two thirds of the full membership of the legislature.
as opposed to the appointing/firing authority of the Governor over the Personnel Board.
The current Board has repeatedly demonstrated unprofessional behavior towards the public, has stalled on holding Palin accountable for The Alaska Fund Trust, and there is a tendency of their hired guns to obfuscate and ignore legal precendent in their decisions.
4) As I read the Attorney General’s conclusion, the two House Bills in the Legislature right now could actually violate free speech rights if taken to court. This could even indicate that the Legislative Ethics provision for complaint dismissal could possibly be thrown out if a case ever makes it to court.
5) I mentioned The Alaska Fund Trust earlier. I have checked into it and STILL nothing has happened with the case or it would have been made public. Did anyone notice that if the report had not been leaked to the public, we would never know that THE ALASKA FUND TRUST IS A POTENTIAL ETHICS VIOLATION (if she spends it)?
What’s the Personnel Board waiting for, the two-year statute of limitations to be up on ethics violations so Palin can spend the money?
To me, this is the single-largest piece of evidence that there are MORE PRESSING problems that need fixing with the Executive Branch Ethics process than a lack of confidentiality.
Perhaps…maybe…a lack of accountability?
Today, there is Public Testimony regarding the proposed changes to the Executive Branch Ethics Act:
(H)ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION REVIEW JOINT COMMITTEE *Feb 08 Monday 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
+ (9 AAC 52) Proposed Regulations Relating
to Executive Branch Ethics (TELECONFERENCED)— Public Testimony —
+ (15 AAC 55.280 – 15AAC 55.811) Proposed
Regulations Relating to Oil and Gas Tax
Credit and Heating Value of Gas (TELECONFERENCED)– Public Testimony –
Executive Session
Anyone can participate in the teleconference at one of the Legislative Information Offices (LIOs) across the state. Click on the link to find one near you, if you don’t live in Anchorage or Fairbanks:
Anchorage Legislative Information Office
716 W 4th Avenue, Suite 200
Anchorage, AK 99501-2133
Main (907) 269-0111
Fax: (907) 269-0229
TDD: (907) 269-0260
Anchorage_LIO@legis.state.ak.us
Fairbanks Legislative Information Office
1292 Sadler Way, Suite 308
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Main(907) 452-4448
Fax: (907) 456-3346
TDD: (907) 456-5076
Fairbanks_LIO@legis.state.ak.us
If you cannot participate in the teleconference, here are the members of the Administrative Regulation Review Joint Committee. Please send your comments to each of them (click the links for their email addresses).
CHAIR: Representative Keller
VICE-CHAIR: Senator Olson
MEMBER: Representative Gatto
MEMBER: Senator Kookesh
MEMBER: Representative Guttenberg
MEMBER: Senator Meyer
February 8th, 2010 at 11:06 AM
Off-topic, but since we’re talking about ethically questionable acts by Alaska State legislators, this article at TPM sort of takes the cake; http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/alaska_legislature_funding_astroturf_effort_to_fight_polar_bears.php?ref=fpblg.
1.5 million in Alaska taxpayer dollars to water down the federal Endangered Species Act to protect gas and oil interests? Poor bears. Ouch.
February 8th, 2010 at 11:39 AM
I think the issue of requiring confidentiality in ethics complaints is huge!
The citizens should absolutely have the right to publicly question the ethics of any action by any legislative or governmental figure. Whether the ethics board is independent or not is irrelevant to that point.
Making a question public does not invalidate the question. That is absurd. Don’t all citizens have a right to know that a question has been raised? They also deserve to know the answer, in each and every case.
I might add, that I believe the politician involved has the right to make statements defending themselves – but should not have the right to name or attack the person filing the complaint.
Shine the light of day on these ethics issues.
February 8th, 2010 at 11:52 AM
Speaking of Linda, I sure would like an official answer from the State of Alaska on why it cost her over $5 grand to get emails that MSNBC was able to get for $300.
February 8th, 2010 at 11:53 AM
I do hope that Alaskans jump in and support Ms. Kellen Biegel’s efforts to keep government in the state open to the public. Otherwise, Alaskans will continue to have the type of government they currently ‘enjoy’ – government by the elected, for the elected, and closed to the public. So far, it doesn’t seem to be working for most Alaskans – but it has made a number of elected officials very wealthy!
I can’t participate in Alaskan politics, but I do definitely support those working to make government more participatory and open to all stakeholders.
Good luck today!
February 8th, 2010 at 12:12 PM
Cronopio, I recall Celtic Diva got a reduction in cost, and said she will post about that. That has been quite a few weeks ago, and I don’t recall her saying yet how much of a reduction she got.
It will certainly be interesting to see how the cost compares, and whether the state appears to have charged more to CD, perhaps as retribution for her ethics complaint??? You have to wonder after reading some of the emails from MSNBC!
February 8th, 2010 at 12:25 PM
Thanks, Linda, for all the time and energy you’ve invested in researching and analyzing this issue!
Every state needs someone as dedicated and adept, as courageous and articulate as you to follow-up on these issues. Few of us may feel up to standards set by you and other Alaskan bloggers, but we all should be doing our part.
By your example, I think more of us be participating now. It seems that the quality of citizen investigative journalists has risen with every crisis. There’s something about a crisis that brings out the best in most of us, and the very best of us as exemplified in you and several other Alaskan bloggers such as Jeanne, Gryphen, Bree, Andrew and so many other worthies that I know I am failing to mention).
Thanks to you for this posting. Thanks for Jeanne for providing a wider forum and an excellent blog in her own right. Thanks to you all!
Without your efforts, the rest of us might not have awakened.
February 8th, 2010 at 1:33 PM
If you aren’t listening….turn on KUDO now! Shannyn will discuss this post after the break. http://www.kudo1080.com and click on the listen live link….
February 8th, 2010 at 1:57 PM
Linda KB is on Shannyn now. Call in people. Ask some questions.
February 8th, 2010 at 1:58 PM
If I understand, correctly, what is being proposed is: if a filed complaint is talked about it will be dismissed regardless if there is a violation.
Huh? The public official’s reputation is more important than the public’s protection?
I don’t see what one has to do with the other. This is faulty logic to let the public official off the hook for whatever violation has occurred and should be rejected on its face.
February 8th, 2010 at 2:02 PM
Drat, hubby came in and I missed Lyda.
February 8th, 2010 at 2:03 PM
Oh, I think it was Linda rather than Lyda that I missed.
February 8th, 2010 at 2:05 PM
Wooo Hooo… Shannyn just used my email example to her on the air.
The one about a reporter putting out a story which creates the cause for an Ethics Complaint by Joe Citizen.
I guess the coffee kicked in and my brain woke up.
I need to think of something else smart before it wears off.
Maybe I will invent the ‘iPalm ‘… Oopps two days late for THAT.
February 8th, 2010 at 2:10 PM
HIG: way to go! Great point, too!
February 8th, 2010 at 3:11 PM
Alaskan Human Rights Policy
“You have the right to complain, as long as nobody can hear you.”
February 8th, 2010 at 4:33 PM
Shouldn’t Albert Kookesh recuse himself from any hearing on ethics complaints?
I know he can’t, but you know what I mean.
February 8th, 2010 at 5:42 PM
Is it over? What happened?
February 8th, 2010 at 7:32 PM
@ 13 Sphincterkaos says:
“You have the right to complain, as long as nobody can hear you.”
—————————————————–
…which brings up this really, really deep philosophical question:
If a citizen files an ethics complaint in the forest but nobody is allowed to hear it, does that mean the ethics violation never happened?
Answer: Yes.
Go Linda!! Stick to your guns on this issue! We’re proud of you!
February 8th, 2010 at 7:36 PM
There is no state benefit in shuttling around the elected executive branch family members. There is no authority to pay for it either. We cannot afford these extravagances. The elected executive official is a member of a private economic unit. That is his/her business. If he/she is uncomfortable traveling without his/her family members and or mom and dad and ten delinquent (or not) children that is his/her private personal economic reality. Not ours.
Furthermore, individuals who are functioning ethically outside of standard ethical expectations and norms can expect a surprising amount of formal complaints. The people of the state of Alaska should not be reimbursing the cottage industry of extravagant legal fees behind which the guilty may wish to hide and which may grow from the remarkably inconsistent ethical lapses as presented within necessary, formal complaints. It is exactly that social friction if you will which causes (some) unethical executives to elevate the institutional behavior so as to inhibit opportunity for excess expenses in this area. It does not meet the publics’ needs to pass this very personal “feedback” back to the electorate. This is not what was envisioned when these ignored laws were written so elegantly years ago.