Sarah Palin’s (un)Ethical Legacy Lives On
I remember back to August/September of 2008 when then-Governor Sarah Palin was the VP pick of John McCain. I was watching the news and Jason Moore of KTUU was covering the Republican National Convention. My jaw dropped when I saw State of Alaska employee, the Governor’s Communications Director Bill McAllister* chatting with Jason Moore about Palin and the Vice Presidential campaign. The reason I was floored had to do with a little Alaska Statute we like to call AS 39.25.160(j). Here’s the applicable piece:
(j) A state employee, whether in the classified, partially exempt, or exempt service, may not campaign on behalf of a political candidate on government time.
The Anchorage Daily News noted the fact that, rather than using private staff, Palin brought four state employees to staff her during the Republican Convention and how they were only to work on “Alaska business”:
Because they are working on state time, they’re working strictly on state business, not campaign business, McAllister said.
“I don’t get into national politics or Democrats versus Republicans,” he said, speaking of his own role.
There was lots of evidence to show otherwise , including the television interview with McAllister. Unfortunately, all the State had to do to get away with dismissing Andree McCleod’s ethics complaint about it was hold up her records requests.
Rightly or wrongly, others who filed ethics complaints were accused of “vendettas.”** However, my biggest concern was that Palin’s refusal to follow established ethical norms and her exploitation of gaps in Alaska legal precedence would set the tone for how business would be done in this state.
I hate to tell you “I told you so,” but…
Anchorage now has a Mayor whose issues involving questionable ethics are stacking up like cord wood.
And it seems the Legislature is more inclined to roll back some ethics limitations rather than expand them:
The Legislature passed SB43, which limits the Open Meetings Act in regards to municipal service boards. This when it was shown back in August that some State boards and commissions consider a sign in the lobby the day of the meeting to be “reasonable public notice.”
The Legislature also has HB193 still in the works which would raise the amount lobbyists could spend on legislator dinners to $50.00 without having to report it.
However, far beyond these two bills, the most recent ruling by the Alaska Legislative Ethics Panel is a case study in bad ethical decisions and poor timing:
The Select Committee on Legislative Ethics adopted a new policy declaring it’s OK to campaign on a state-paid trip so long as the primary purpose of the trip is state business. The committee previously took the position that combining state-paid travel with political campaigning wasn’t allowed, a stance deeply disliked by legislators who argued it was particularly unfair to rural lawmakers.
The ethics committee, which rules on what legislators can and can’t do, is a mix of public members and legislators. Three of the four public members who attended Thursday’s meeting voted against the new policy. But all four legislators voted in favor.
The four legislators who were there and voted for it: Rep. Craig Johnson, Rep. Les Gara, Sen. Gary Stevens and Sen. John Coghill. Les Gara spoke in the Anchorage Daily News article as to why he voted for it:
Gara said banning any mixing of state travel and campaigning meant he was free to go to a Democratic Party fundraiser after a legislative meeting in Anchorage but a lawmaker in town from Nome could not. That’s not fair to them, Gara said.
“There’s not a lot of campaign money in Nome or Chalkyitsik to get elected, and you go statewide to try and appeal to people for things like that,” he said.
However, Gary Turner, one of the members of the general public who voted against this ruling, shared his reasons which are why I am so upset at this decision:
“This gives such an advantage to the incumbent when it is an election season, when you can go ahead and fly for a legislative purpose and combine that with fundraising or with campaigning. The (challenger) would have to pay for such a trip out of his or her pocket,” Turner said.
Gara’s argument falls flat when one realizes that the Anchorage legislators are not committing a violation when they fundraise here (during that mythical 2010 special session) because their constituencies ARE IN ANCHORAGE. Legislators from Rural Alaska have constituencies in their Districts…which is where the bulk of their fundraising should be. If they want to have fundraisers in Anchorage, than they can buy a ticket…JUST LIKE THEIR CHALLENGERS ARE REQUIRED TO DO.
When I sent an email to Mr. Gara asking for further explanation, this is an exerpt of what he sent:
Under the previous interpretation, when you’re on a trip the state paid for (for example, to Anchorage from Nome for a 2 week special session), you, of course have to do state business. That’s logical. But the previous interpretation was you could not, for one second, during the 2 weeks, do any political activity during your off hours in the evening (like speak to your campaign volunteers over the phone, or call constituents even if the election was two weeks away). So here’s the issue the newspaper skipped over.
The question was, should the state be able to regulate your free time in the evening, after the legislative business is over for the day. Let’s say there’s a 3 week special session in Anchorage right before an election, and it’s important for you to contact voters by phone in the evening. Remember, under the previous rule, there was no regulation of the 25 Anchorage legislators, because, as Anchorage residents, the state didn’t pay for their travel. But under the previous rule, the rural legislator who travelled to Anchorage, in contrast, couldn’t work on her campaign or speak to her campaign manager over the phone, and couldn’t respond to a press inquiry about her campaign even though they were writing a story, and her opponent could speak to the reporter writing the story. She couldn’t call constituents in the evening during your free time, even though that’s the stock of a campaign. For 3 weeks should couldn’t do what all the Anchorage legislators could do, and what her opponent could do. She was gagged.
If we follow Mr. Gara’s interpretation to its logical conclusion, this would mean that the entire time the legislators are in Juneau during the session, the non-Juneau residents running for office can’t speak to their campaign personnel on their private phone, correct? From my associations with legislators and staff, I know that isn’t true.
Besides, the real baffling issue here is, why now? Per the ADN article:
But a lawyer for the Legislative Affairs Agency wrote an opinion saying that mixing the two wasn’t allowed under the law. That became the position of the ethics committee. But the opinion proved unpopular with legislators. Ramras, the House Judiciary Committee chairman, asked the ethics committee to get a second opinion.
That second opinion came May 18 from Brent Cole, outside legal counsel for the committee. Cole wrote if the legislator says the primary reason for the trip is campaigning or some other partisan political activity, the state wouldn’t pay for it.
“On the other hand, if the legislator gives as his or her primary purpose travelling to and from the Legislative session, visiting constituents, or engaging in other legislative business, (then) they should not be barred from engaging in other incidental activities like political campaigning or partisan political activity during the trip,” Cole wrote.
Public member “Skip” Cook, who voted against the decision, stated that the Legislature should pass a law clarifying the issue rather than forcing the Ethics Committee to make a decision between two contradictory rulings. Since the Legislature will not be in session again until January, that would have given them plenty of time to craft a good bill. However, Rep. Craig Johnson gave a rather jarring quote to the ADN:
Anchorage Republican Rep. Craig Johnson responded that the political reality is that it would be easier to get a clarification of the law through the Legislature once the ethics committee signs off on it. That is a far easier step than for a legislator to just “put one of our names on it and say now we’re going to endorse what has been previously determined as unethical behavior,” he said.
So was the ”outside opinion” they solicited as the “official” opinion of the Legislative Affairs Committee unbiased? Or, did they know what Mr. Cole’s opinion was going to be when they solicited it? As it is Memorial weekend, I will be contacting Rep. Johnson and other legislators for answers to these and more questions next week.
I have managed to get the opinions of several other members of the Panel who did not vote. I spoke to Sen. Bill Wielechowski (alternate to Sen. Coghill) who said that he “would not have voted” for the Cole ruling. A primary legislative member, Rep. Berta Gardner (Les Gara is her alternate) contacted me as one of her newsletter recipients. She emphasized that she was “absolutely against the ruling” for these reasons:
It is my view that in the matter of using state resources of any sort, the appearance of impropriety can be as damaging as actual bad behavior because it destroys public confidence in government. For this reason, we need to have a firm, bright line between what is acceptable and what is not acceptable and we must all agree to stay on the right side of that line.
The legal opinion does not provide that necessary bright line and creates a poor impression. It says, “If the legislator gives as his or her primary purpose travelling to and from the Legislative session, visiting constituents, or engaging in other legislative business, (then) they should not be barred from engaging in other incidental activities like political campaigning or partisan political activity during the trip.” We can never really know another person’s motives. We can only know his or her actions and behavior.
A legislator who has the opportunity to campaign while traveling on the state’s dime has an unfair advantage over other candidates, regardless of which activity is the motivation for the trip. Campaigning and paid state travel need to be kept absolutely separate.
Rep. Gardner is a wise woman and one smart politician. She gets the “appearance of impropriety” many Alaskans will interpret from this decision, only a few months before a tough 2010 election where incumbents across the country are expected to take hits. Whether true or not, it “appears” that State legislators are giving each other a serious advantage over their competition. It doesn’t help that perception when there are rumors flying that a number of legislators up for re-election and higher office are hurting in the contribution department.
It was pointed out when I was busy writing my piece that the Palin blogs were trying to once again stick their non-Alaskan noses into our politics. Nothing makes me unhappier than when I agree even slightly with the biggest bunch of liars on the web.
As I emailed to Mr. Gara and plan to remind the rest of the Legislature, the Legislative Ethics Panel has just handed the Alaska Tea Party a gift for November…a rallying point they can use for the entire summer to sway independent voters.
My advice: do something about it–and fast.
*Note1: McAllister was a former KTUU employee. Speaking of ethical lapses…there is some email evidence that he may have known he would be hired by Palin BEFORE he told his employer–while he was still ”impartially” covering Palin in Juneau.
**Note2: Palin supporters have no room to talk. They have been far from consistent in their condemnation of ethical breaches. HERE they were positively giddy over the ethics complaint dismissal. Who was the author? Rebecca Mansour, former blogger and Palin employee (the voice of Facebook) who didn’t admit it until her salary was revealed as an expense for SarahPAC.
Eye Rollery, Head Scratchery, Head Bangery indeed. Thanks, Linda, for another insightful post.
Amazing how much control the Palins have in Alaska politics. Everything turns to their favor. Sad situation.
And don’t forget Parnell’s lack of ethics- like pretending that Nancy Dahlstrom didn’t have a pre-arranged job before she resigned. No she just quit, and then Parnell coincidentally offered her a big job
Wink wink.
Fly By quick threadjack
Palin caught plagiarizing her Memorial Day tweets
http://politijab.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=749&p=142902#p142902
end of threadjack, sorry AKM
Good catch, GreatGrey!
GreatGrey…just went to your lovely
blog and found this little gem
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Weq_sHxghcg
it just goes to show how a positive message can be turned around and using the same words (plagiarizing) turn the message completely around to support a narrow, hateful message.
it is my contention that Sarah Palin is still running that kleptocracy in Alaska through a boob named Parnell.
No wonder she had to go to so many colleges in order to finally graduate. They all frown on plagerism.
Betty Bowers and worst mother of the year award
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77E4S87dWMU&feature=player_embedded#!
LOL! Perfect!
Good points. And I love Bennett’s political cartoons. He always makes his point with gentle humor and without meanness or crassness.
A really good editorial on ethics and why now, more than ever before, they’re important.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2010/0528/Why-the-Gulf-oil-spill-demands-more-than-new-regulations
The definition of Legal – a : deriving authority from or founded on law : b : having a formal status derived from law often without a basis in actual fact
The definition of ethical – : of or relating to ethics
2 : involving or expressing moral approval or disapproval
3 : conforming to accepted standards of conduct
Just because it is legal does not mean it is ethical.
your right…just b/c it’s legal, does not mean it’s ethical. I saw this after my post, but they do file unethical charges…I guess they just hope for the best in that regard, b/c it hasn’t worked against palin, in the people’s favor yet.
That’s why it is important to have laws expressly defining what is ethical; that’s how we can make sure behaviors are ethical and legal.
Palin failed to make that distinction. So did the woman she supported as her successor for mayor.
We need to elect candidates that have higher personal standards than the bare minimum required to avoid prosecution.
While clarifying ethics codes is important, we will never be able to legislate morality, which makes it all the more critical to choose representatives who will not lose their “ethical compass” after the election.
Here’s a computer game that is looks like a lot of Alaska govt officials, among other, could benefit from. I’t s by Sandra Day O’Connor. My hero!
Test out your knowledge
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Editorial-Board-Blog/2010/0528/Back-to-basics-by-getting-back-to-civics-education
did anyone bring these conflicts to the forefront at the time? or did they just accept palin’s word? or is this just hindsight is 20/20? if they did bring it up, was anything legally filed? so many questions, but it doesn’t matter…she’s still running the show…has too many fingers in all the pies.
Ideally, I’d like to see all legislative sessions held in a different community, each and every single time they meet. This would be my only compromise to not moving the state capitol to Fire Island, upper Cook Inlet.
Our urban elected officials can campaign in the evenings from McGrath or Ruby or Nome or Fort Yukon or Unalaska or Yakatat…
In my hometown, the ATV Taxi is available in February. And the heating fuel comes from Korea.
Anyway, that’s just what all think.
That’s a concept worth exploring, tallimat!
The Palin woman is the biggest fraud and such an embarrassment to Alaska. She doesn’t represent any of us! She is giving Alaska the worst reputation as well as all the women in the United States! Alaskans are very much aware of her lies, unethical ways in government, being a very absentee mother as well as having a husband that basically ran the government w/or for her during her horrific term as governor. It is OUR responsibility ‘as a whole’ to get the word out to the folks in the lower 48 that actually think she represents them. Her followers need to READ the proof of where we are coming from instead of just believing and following her. The woman is a total FRAUD folks!
What ALARMS ME EVEN MORE is that we do not seem to have a set of legislators who feel they need to plug the holes SP exposed!!
No big move to fix laws or things in our state where she obviously abused the intent!! Maybe they feel they will now follow suit??
Something tells me the US Justice Dept. needs to do a heck of a lot more looking into Alaska and our representatives!!
Shame on them and I will remember this when they come up for reelection, no matter the letter behind their names!!
“What ALARMS ME EVEN MORE is that we do not seem to have a set of legislators who feel they need to plug the holes SP exposed!!”
Me, too. And that we have a group of citizenry who continue to attack Andree McLeod for continuing to try to close some of those holes so that no one else will be able to do what Palin showed us she could get away with.
Jo Ann – I live in Southern California. PLEASE know that we hear you loud and clear, and also (too!) consider $ister $arah to be an abomination. We know that she doesn’t represent your state, or the women and mothers of your state. Or the men of your state. Or the animals of your state. She is a national embarrassment, and the word is getting out. Actually, it’s quite the raging bonfire of information, unfortunately, only via blogs and word-of-mouth so far. Unless you count the bots, whose numbers are dwindling. There just are always going to be some idiots who can’t see the obvious. They’re probably the same people who send in $100 to the televangelists for a “genuine crystal cross” bible bookmark, or a 1″ x 1″ square of a flannel “prayer cloth”. I read the Bible every day, but I sure don’t fall for that snake oil. I’ve lost a few friends over this, but I’ve opened the eyes of many more. The Karma has got to catch up soon. Sarah is crumbling, and her recent FB rants, plagarized tweets, fence-gate, etc. comprise the evidence. Now all we need is the slam-dunk, and I have a feeling $arah may just unwittingly provide that herself.
Sorry – I just realized that I gave $arah undue credit for having “wits”.
Is anyone else reminded of the opening scene from Miller’s Crossing? Casper (Jon Polito) is seated in Leo’s (Albert Finney) office, while Tom (Gabriel Byrne) stands behind Leo’s chair. Casper, a gangster, is talking about ethics (with other gangsters, of course).
Thanks, Linda for staying on top of the ethics issues.
I generally like Les Gara. I’ve emailed him on a couple of things, and despite my being Outside, he has responded with non-form-letters.
On this matter, though, I think his rationalization is pretty shoddy. It’s based entirely on a single type of hypothetical event — a special session (conveniently) shortly before an election. While the scenario he portrays would be inconvenient, and arguably unfair, to legislators compelled to attend such a hypothetical session, it would be pretty simple to just address that single issue, without reverting to you-define-it-yourself ethics.
The weakest form would be to exempt legislative sessions from the no-mix rule. This would have the useful side-effect of fixing the possible gap regarding the annual regular session. While it would still, possibly, permit incumbents to use a special session in Anchorage as a big-town fundraising tool, it has the merit of being one-sentence simple.
A somewhat stronger, but more complicated, rule would exempt legislative sessions, with the exception that appearing at an event that involved fundraising for any person or entity would forfeit the exemption for the entire day of the appearance. That is, the legislator would forgo per diem or other reimbursement for that day.
This would require defining “appearing”, but that’s not too hard: being a speaker or presenter, being a master of ceremonies, being a guest of honor. By prohibiting fundraising for any entity, there is the slight possibility that some charitable organizations would be included; however, I should think that if an incumbent wanted to support such a charity, he or she would be willing to sacrifice one day’s worth of per diem.
I don’t see an easy way to neutralize the advantage of the round-trip ticket, without getting into proportions and excessive bureaucracy. Incumbency always has advantages; I don’t think that additional one is a prohibitive deal, unless special sessions start getting routinely abused.
Sarah Palin is the ultimate teflon person. She so immune that those who touch her get coated too. When is it going to catch up?