The Mudflats

This letter to the editor in the Juneau Empire caught my eye.  It’s a further discussion of resources that we all enjoy being put in corporate hands. I touched on this issue and the inherent conflict of interest of a legislator who not only serves the area affected by this bill, but who sits on the board of the corporation who stands to benefit from it.  You can read that article HERE.

Sealaska should be held to the deal made in ‘72
Juneau Empire

The Sealaska Corp. lands bill would change the character of Southeast Alaska more than any other land use decision since the Long-Term Timber Sales of the 1950s. Those huge timber sales impacted vast areas of land, but at least most of the logging avoided sites that were heavily used by the public and the land remained in public ownership, hunting and all the other uses we enjoy.

The Sealaska lands bill is different. If the bill is passes, hundreds of the most important and beloved sites on the Tongass would be transferred from a public trust to the hands of a for-profit corporation. Many of the sites are immensely valuable, containing millions of dollars of public investment in roads, docks, second growth thinning, recreation cabins and trails. They are arrayed in a dense pattern across the region and they would have few permanent restrictions to ensure public access or responsible development.

The small businesses that rely on these sites would be displaced. Even more incredible, under the law, Sealaska would have the right to select 1,200 more acres at a future time, without the public’s approval. This could easily mean hundreds of more places in corporate hands.

I believe that Sealaska should be held to the deal they made in 1972 and select their lands from within the established selection boundaries. I do not trust Sealaska’s claim that they will be good stewards of the land because I have seen firsthand how Sealaska has managed their previous selections – clearcut right up to the property lines in all directions, with no concern for wildlife and only very minimal protection for fisheries.

Take a look at the map of the proposed selections and contact Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Mark Begich if you have concerns. This is a land allocation issue of momentous importance to the future of Southeast Alaska.

Barth Hamberg, Sitka, Alaska

**********************************

Senator Mark Begich 202-224-3004
Senator Lisa Murkowski 202-224-6665

If there’s one thing that Sarah Palin did during her brief try-out as Alaska’s governor, she showed us where the leaks were. I’ve compared her short time in office to the rental of one of those “blower doors” you can rent and attach to an open door of a building to show you where the leaks are. It basically “sucks the air out of the room” (not unlike the ex-gov herself), and you can put your hand up to light switches or the edges of windows, or outlets and feel a stream of cold air coming through.

One of those streams of cold air revealed by the Palin administration came in the form of email accounts. The state is set up nicely with an email system that has the suffix .gov. Any emails ending in .gov are used to keep a record of state business as part of the public record. It’s our government after all. Remember that “of the people, by the people, for the people” stuff?   Well .gov emails belong to US. And that’s why they’re not supposed to be used for partisan political purposes, or campaigning for your next term in office. And you really shouldn’t be on there talking about fantasy football, or sending steamy messages to your date last night, or talking about the Oscars. During work hours, you’re supposed to be doing the people’s work. And those emails on the .gov account don’t really belong to you and are subject to disclosure to the public via records requests.

That’s why people do personal business on their personal email accounts. But what about running government business on a personal account? What about pipeline negotiations, or board appointments, or accounts of what happened in meetings, or budget issues, or things that people may need to look up at some time in the future?   What about the public, who wants to know what their public officials are talking about, or doing with their time, or what was said on a particular issue like game management, or mining, or oil and gas, or taxes, or any other legislation?  And what about the historical record?  What if you, as a member of the public, fill out a public records request to find out information about something, and you’re told there’s nothing there. And what if there really is something there, but it’s been discussed on an email exchange between Governor@hotmail.com and AttorneyGeneral@mosquito.net? Or Commissioner@yahoo.com and Mayor@gmail.com?

That’s what Andree McLeod was worried about when it came to light that Sarah Palin was doing business with administration officials outside of the state email system. It came to national attention during the early days of the McCain Palin campaign, in September of 2008. That’s when we got the news that a hacker had gotten in to then Governor Palin’s private Yahoo! account, where it was very obvious she’d been doing business.   Other than the fact that a Yahoo! account sounds less than gubernatorial, and is less than transparent, security can also be a problem. All the hacker had to do, was to answer the super-secret “only she would know” question to reset the password. Ready for the question?

Q. Where did you meet your husband?
A. Wasilla High

And that was that. When choosing a security question, it’s usually a good idea not to make it something to which the answer can be looked up in a recently published biography, and that you’ve discussed openly in interviews.

I don’t know what that scene must have been like – the young hacker, sitting in his dorm room, like Matthew  Broderick in War Games, cracking his knuckles, staring at the screen and typing in “Wasilla High” [enter] BINGO! I’m sure it was a thrilling and terrifying moment for the young hacker. The Holy Grail on the first try.

I’m sure  David Kernell, University of Tennessee student and son of long-term Tennessee state legislator Mike Kernell (D) now thinks it probably wasn’t such a great idea. 

[He] faces a four-count indictment accusing him of stealing Palin’s identity, improperly accessing her personal e-mail account, allowing at least one other person to access it and trying to wipe from his laptop evidence of his alleged crimes.

Back in Alaska, government watchdog Andree McLeod sued, saying that it should be illegal for the people’s business to be conducted on private email accounts.  Today, Judge Patrick McKay refused to reconsider his ruling stating that it was not forbidden for state business to be conducted on these accounts.  Material on state business should be submitted for archiving, he said, but the rules allow for some interpretation. Room for interpretation.  Hmmm.  It’ll have to be hammered out in the legislature, apparently.

“We realize that under the current law, e-mails that should be preserved can disappear, thus hiding ‘bad motives,’ but it is not this court’s role to overturn an unambiguous, properly enacted law,” McKay wrote.

McLeod’s attorney, Don Mitchell, said Thursday morning that he’d been out of town and hadn’t reviewed the decision. He has said McLeod could appeal to the state Supreme Court.

The attorney for a University of Tennessee student accused of hacking into the account on Wednesday challenged search warrants in the case. Wade Davies, attorney for David C. Kernell, questioned a magistrate’s authority to issue search warrants for Internet companies outside Tennessee.

McLeod and her attorney Don Mitchell are now considering whether to appeal the decision to the Alaska Supreme Court.

And while an army of Palin devotees lauds this ruling as having come down in favor of the almost-one-term ex-governor, the current governor Sean Parnell (R), has at least said:

When executive branch employees conduct state business through email they must, whenever feasible, use the state’s electronic mail system. In some circumstances, employees may need to use, or may inadvertently use, private email accounts to conduct state business….

This statement may prevent future government business from being Palinized, escaping the state’s archiving process, and slipping away into the Yahoo! cyberspace black hole – at least whenever it is “feasible.”  He, unlike the perennial Palin cheering squad, may realize that this isn’t actually a McLeod v. Palin death match.  It’s about issues of transparency and accountability that affect all Alaskans, regardless of political partyaffiliation.  So, until this can be addressed in the legislature, we can hope for ‘feasibility’ – at least until the end of Parnell’s term.

Other questions of legality will be addressed in a courtroom in Knoxville, Tennessee later next month.  That’s when alleged victim Sarah Palin will take the stand and give testimony under oath.  This ought to be interesting.  I wonder how many attorneys out there wish they were Wade Davies, the Tennessee attorney who will be the one asking the questions.  Sources who know say she may be in for a rough day.

Kernell’s defense attorney, Wade Davies, wants Palin to bring any documents relating to that account – when it was opened, how it could be accessed and why and who was allowed to use it.

“I don’t want to get in the position where at the last minute there are questions about whether (subpoenas) were properly delivered,” Davies told U.S. Magistrate Judge Clifford Shirley on Wednesday when seeking the legal OK to electronically serve witnesses, including Palin.

Federal prosecutors have insisted Davies’ records request of Palin is a veiled fishing expedition. Shirley will hear more about the subpoena debate at a March 24 hearing.

So, grab your Sharpies and circle March 24 on your political calendar.  And then circle April 20.  That’s the day of the trial. More news on the Alaska side of this story as it develops.

[Don't miss Anchorage Assembly Member Harriet Drummond on The Shannyn Moore Show HERE or on 1080am in Anchorage.  She'll be Shannyn's guest in the 11:00 hour Alaska time, Noon Pacific, 3pm Eastern]

He’s back in the news again, our mayor is.  It’s like an ongoing reality show, and every day’s a new episode.

Mayor Dan Sullivan has signed a check that empties almost $200,000  from the coffers of his supposedly financially beleaguered city.  That check will go to the beneficiaries of his father, former Mayor George Sullivan’s life insurance policy. Dan Sullivan is the trustee of this tidy sum. This “life insurance policy” isn’t really a life insurance policy at all though, and the contract that is claimed to exist by the mayor’s office, may or may not exist. And the mayor may or may not be a beneficiary of this trust.  We have not seen a contract, and the mayor will not tell us who is getting the money.  Is it him?  We don’t know.  His daughter?  Not sure.  His wife?  His siblings?  We can only guess.

Does this supposed “contract” actually exist?  The Assembly thought so when they voted to release this money, but nobody seems to be able to produce it.  And if it does exist, does the Assembly even have the legal authority to pay the claim to the Mayor’s family?   The Municipality of Anchorage, after all, is not an insurance company.  And what about the legality of entering into this “contract” with a former mayor who was no longer in office at the time, and therefore not a municipal employee? And what makes former Mayor George Sullivan so special anyway?

Dan Sullivan tells us that his father has “literally given his heart” to the city.

Yes, the late Mayor Sullivan devoted himself to public service, but what about the many others in our community who have done the same? What about those who have served as Anchorage Police officers, Anchorage Firefighters, and other municipal employees?  Some of them risk their lives every day for the safety of others. Many have actually given their lives protecting us. What about those who have served for decades doing hazardous duty?  What do they get?   The answer is that they are compensated for their service, and when they leave municipal employment, they do not get an ongoing life insurance policy. 

And the current mayor, in this fiscal environment where municipal workers are losing their jobs, and public services have been cut, is nevertheless perfectly comfortable writing his own family a check for $193,000.

Keep in mind that in 1982, $193,000 was an enormous sum of money, comparable to half a million or more today. And how do we explain the fact that the premium went DOWN from just over $1,000 a year to about $550 a year?  When was the last time your life insurance premiums went down?   Dan Sullivan and his family paid less than $20,000 over twenty eight years for a payout of almost 10 times that amount. “We wouldn’t even be having this conversation today if someone had done this right in 1982,” said Assembly Member Harriet Drummond.

And when she proposed a resolution yesterday to be read at the Assembly meeting of March 23, which asks that serious legal questions about this situation be addressed, what does he say?  He says this:

It’s unfortunate that Ms. Drummond is playing politics with the death of my father. For 28 years, in good faith, we made payments to meet the obligation of this contract. Five administrations have had no problem with this.

Oh, yes. He went there.

One wonders if this policy had belonged to a certain former Congressman Nick Begich, and the trustee of the “policy” was the previous Mayor Mark Begich, would Dan Sullivan be galloping to his defense accusing Ms. Drummond of “playing politics with the de ath of his father?”   Think about that long and hard, because if the answer to this question is “no,” then the obvious conclusion is that Dan Sullivan is doing that very thing himself.

And as far as meeting “the obligation of this contract” we say…. What contract?   May we see it, please?  Show us the contract.

Finally, I’m going to hazard a guess that the reason these other administrations didn’t have a problem with it is because they didn’t know about it.  And none of them had to write a check for $193,000 that tipped them off.

Here is Drummond’s resolution that will be read to the Assembly on March 23.  We should all be thanking her for standing up and asking the tough questions. 

Submitted by: ASSEMBLY MEMBER Drummond

For reading: March 23, 2010

ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
AR NO. 2010–91

A RESOLUTION OF THE ANCHORAGE MUNICIPAL ASSEMBLY TO AUTHORIZE ENGAGING THE SERVICES OF INDEPENDENT LEGAL COUNSEL TO REVIEW AND REPORT TO THE ASSEMBLY ON THE LEGAL AND CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS, IF ANY, AND THE AUTHORITY OF THE ASSEMBLY, IF ANY, REGARDING PAYMENT OF $193,000 IN MUNICIPAL FUNDS TO THE GEORGE M. SULLIVAN IRREVOCABLE LIFE INSURANCE TRUST, AND PROVIDING FOR AN APPROPRIATION.

WHEREAS, pursuant to Assembly Memorandum No. AM 76-2010, the Assembly was requested by and on behalf of the Mayor to appropriate One Hundred Ninety Three Thousand Dollars ($193,000.00) from the Areawide General Fund (Fund 101) for disbursement to the George M. Sullivan Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust; and

WHEREAS, Assembly Memorandum No. AM 76-2010 declared that disbursement would be made under a life insurance contract; and

WHEREAS, Assembly Memorandum No. AM 76-2010 did not disclose that the George M. Sullivan Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust was administered by the Mayor in his private capacity as the son of George M. Sullivan and Trustee of the life insurance trust; and

WHEREAS, Assembly Memorandum No. AM 76-2010 did not disclose that no life insurance policy was in place and no written life insurance contract existed; and

WHEREAS, AR 2010-33 was passed and approved by the Assembly, on February 16, 2010, authorizing disbursement subject to receipt of proper documentation from the George M. Sullivan Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust; and

WHEREAS, the full circumstances purporting to legally obligate the Municipality to make a payout of $193,000.00 in public funds are more complicated than provided in the summary under AM 76-2010; and

WHEREAS, the payout of $193,000.00 in public funds for life insurance without a life insurance policy in place has raised many concerns in the mind of the public and one or more Assembly Members, including these questions:

· What is the legal basis for asserting the existence of a life insurance policy or contract?

· What is the legal basis for asserting a contractual obligation in the absence of a written contract?

· What is the legal authority of the Salary and Emoluments Commission to authorize an employee benefit after employment has terminated?

· Were the legal requirements, procedures and process under Charter Section 5.08 (c) properly followed?

· What, if any, is the extent of a municipal obligation to make payment of $193,000 in life insurance without a life insurance policy?

· What is the current Assembly’s authority to approve or disapprove a life insurance payment in the absence of a life insurance policy?

· Is this disbursement recognized in the FY 2010 General Government Operating Budget?

· What process should be used under the Ethics Code to ensure that an elected public official does not sit on both sides of a municipal transaction?

· Under what public purpose are public funds being disbursed as life insurance? and

WHEREAS, the current Mayor is also actively serving as Trustee of the George M. Sullivan Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust, creating a situation in which he serves on both sides of a significant financial transaction involving public funds; and

WHEREAS, as Mayor, the incumbent is required to represent and act in the Municipality’s best interests; and

WHEREAS, as Trustee of the George M. Sullivan Life Insurance Trust, the Trustee has a fiduciary duty to the Trust to represent and act in the best interests of the Trust and its beneficiaries;

NOW, THEREFORE, the Anchorage Assembly resolves:

1. Because the events surrounding the creation and administration of a special benefit for the Honorable George M. Sullivan occurred after he was no longer in office and over the course of several mayoral successions without a full and public review before the Assembly, the Assembly authorizes an independent legal review to include the following:

· The authority of the Salary and Emoluments Commission, after the mayor or other elected official has left elected office, to authorize a special life insurance benefit;

· Whether a special life insurance benefit was legally effectuated for George M. Sullivan, when, and by whom or under what actions;

· The legal obligations and risks to the Municipality concerning the special life insurance benefit (prior to payment);

· The authority of the Mayor to request an appropriation when the Mayor also currently serves as Trustee of the George M. Sullivan Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust, without disclosure of the potential for conflict of interest;

· The public purpose under which disbursement of public funds is allowed as life insurance proceeds, without a fair market life insurance policy or premium payments.

· The authority of the Anchorage Assembly to approve an appropriation of public funds for this purpose.

2. The services of independent legal counsel shall be selected by the Internal Auditor, the Municipal Clerk and Assembly Counsel under a small procurement contract not to exceed [$5,000 – $10,000], and an appropriation of [$ 10,000] for this purpose is approved.

3. Until the Assembly is assured by independent legal counsel that payment of $193,000.00 in public funds is legally appropriate, the Mayor, in his private capacity as Trustee for the George M. Sullivan Irrevocable Trust, is respectfully requested to return any funds disbursed under AR 2010-33 to a special account to be held by the Municipality.

PASSED AND APPROVED by the Anchorage Assembly this ______day of ____________, 2010.

______________________________
Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________
Municipal Clerk

“I would have questioned this and voted the same way if it had been the Begich Trust, the Knowles Trust, or the Wuerch Trust. It’s that simple,” said Drummond, who expressed her concern about any mayor being on both ends of a significan financial transaction.

Assemblyman Matt Claman will also be introducing a resolution that will send this whole convoluted mess to the Ethics Commission.  So, stay tuned, settle in and pop the corn.  There is more to come.

Last week, the Alaska Board of Game voted 4-3 to open the Northeast periphery of the Denali National Park and preserve to wolf trapping. What this means is that an area around the National Park, referred to as a “buffer zone” no longer exists. The buffer zone was put into place to help preserve the wolves that live in the park and are a huge draw for tourism and wildlife photographers. In recent years, pack leaders wandered out of the park and fell victim to trapping, raising the hackles of wildlife organizations, conservationists, residents who love wildlife, and the tourism industry.

And now, thanks to the challenged decision-making of our new governor (who is much like the old governor on this issue) the tourism boycott has begun.  Thanks a lot, Governor Parnell.  I’m sure business owners across the state are really excited about this, especially since the economy has already reduced tourism by double digits last summer.

The buffer zone helps to keep these Denali wolves alive, because, frankly, wolves don’t really know where the park boundary ends, and where they need to be to stay safe. These packs, which have been studied since the 1930s, have a natural range and it doesn’t exactly conform to the boundary of the park.  And now the northeast periphery, which was formerly a protected area, is open for trapping thanks to this vote by the Board of Game.

The decision swings in the opposite direction  of what park authorities had asked for. The federal authorities had recommended expanding the buffer zone to protect the wolves that wander outside the park’s boundaries. Those particular wolves are the ones typically seen by busloads of tourists who visit the park every summer.

The wolf population is the lowest it has been since 1987, park authorities say. While they don’t know for sure why the numbers have plummeted, they say there has been trapping pressure on the animals.

There are about 70 wolves left in the 6-million-acre park.

Let’s look at this 4-3 vote.

Sometimes the best way to understand a vote, is to understand the votER.  So, let’s hunker down and learn about the latest appointment to this board, one of those on the “4″ side that voted to remove the buffer zone and increase the trapping of wolves.  Governor Sean Parnell recently appointed a man named Al Barette of Fairbanks to the Board.  Mr. Barette has an interesting history.

He retired from the military in 1993 because of an injury, and now lives in Fairbanks with his wife and three children.  He’s also a business owner.  But his kind of business is not the kind of business that will feel the pinch when environmental and wildlife groups expand the boycott on Alaska travel because of this decision.  He owns the kind of business that thinks this decision is just swell.

He owns the Fairbanks Fur Tannery – the first commercial tannery in Alaska.  He started it in 1993 and business is good, but of course it will be better soon.  Here’s a picture of Mr. Barette on the job.

Then, in 2002 he purchased another business – The Alaskan No. 9 Trap Company.  And, believe it or not, they manufacture The Alaska Wolf Trap.   Business prospects are looking good for that one too.

One of his favorite things to do is to teach young, inexperienced trappers how to do it better, and is often seen discussing equipment and tactics “over the counter” at the Alaska Fur Tannery.

And he is so dedicated to wolf elimination, he was even the recipient of the very first permit to shoot one from an airplane, after then Lt. Parnell’s poorly worded ballot initiative permitting the practice passed.  Thousands of Alaskans, myself included, voted the wrong way on that initiative because it was worded so poorly.  A cynic might say that the obfuscation was deliberate.  Voters had voted against the aerial hunt twice before but this time it passed.

But surely, there are two sides to every story.  Granted that tourists will suffer, and the wolves of course, and wildlife photographers, and those in the tourism industry, and small business owners who will feel the pinch of tourism boycotts…  But someone has to benefit from this other than just Board of Game member Al Barette who will be able to sell more traps, and tan more hides.  There are others who benefit. See my emphasis below.

Alaska wildlife advocate Rick Steiner called the Denali decision a slap in the face to the park service and to its visitors who come to the park to see, among other animals, a wolf.

“It’s an outrageous decision,” he said. “The Board of Game placed the interests of three or four trappers on the eastern edge of Denali over the interests of hundreds of thousands of visitors to the park, and countless public comments from Alaskans asking not only to maintain the existing buffer but to expand it.”

He said the economic impact of the tourists that the wolves draw to the state make wolves “worth orders of magnitude more alive than dead.”

The interest of three or four trappers AND the interest of the man who cast the deciding vote to eradicate the buffer zone.  Conflict of interest?  Sounds like it to me.

Once again Alaskans are caught up in the epic battle of the hunters.  On the one hand are the wolves who bring tourists to the park and are worth their weight in public relations gold.  They have to eat, and they have the misfortune of liking to eat the same things we do.  On the other hand are those for whom the Alaska wilderness of their dreams is nothing more than a moose and caribou farm with us the only predator.  It’s good for people who like to eat wild game, yes.  But the big money comes from those who  come to Alaska, kill something, and leave.  And so the state may as well stack boards with those who can make a pretty penny off trapping.  It’s a win-win situation for them, and a lose-lose situation for the wolves and those who derive joy and economic benefit from keeping them alive.

It’s time to elect a new governor.  Before you cast your vote in November, find out what your candidate thinks about the current mission of the Board of Game, and find out if they are appalled by the current conflict of interest that exists on the Board, and the administration’s war on tourism and small business.

While waiting to cast your vote, feel free to let the governor know how you feel about this.  And remember, the wolves of Denali National Park belong to ALL of us, wherever in the country we live.  So, even if you’re not in the state, you have a stake in this.

Governor Sean Parnell – http://gov.alaska.gov/parnell/contact/email-the-governor.html

CALL  907-465-3500   FAX: 907-465-3532

PLEASE ALSO CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES AND TELL THEM NOT TO CONFIRM BARETTE’S APPOINTMENT. More details on this story to come.