The Associated Press Editorializes and Equivocates About the Palin Ethics Complaints

The Associated Press’ Rachel D’Oro strikes again with a supposedly objective article full of editorializing, moral equivocation, and half truths:

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin says her political enemies are abusing state law with a flurry of frivolous ethics complaints against her, putting her more than $500,000 in legal debt.

Those filing the grievances - there have been at least 18 cases so far - say it’s their legal right to hold the Republican governor accountable for what they see as abuses of power.

The truth is probably somewhere in between.

In between? How is 14 dismissals and one settlement of the 15 cases that have been decided “somewhere in between”? This game of hedging the obvious conclusion is how non-objective journalists pretend to be objective. D’Oro doesn’t want to admit that Palin was vindicated so she writes that “the truth is probably somewhere in between.”

The truth is quite clear. This wasn't an instance of “she was acquitted on a technicality, but we still don’t know who the killer is, so maybe she did do it.” The facts were investigated by the Personnel Board and the law was clear -- she did nothing wrong. Even the one case that was settled stated that she violated nothing in the Ethics Act and committed no “wrongdoing.”*

D’Oro goes out of her way to quote one of the ankle-biters with a case still pending:

“She said she was going to be open, transparent and wanted people to hold her accountable,” said Kim Chatman, an Eagle River resident whose complaint against Palin is among the few still pending. “I took her for her word.”

“Holding her accountable” does not mean making a mockery of the Executive Branch Ethics Act by filing complaints against her for such transgressions as wearing a jacket, conducting a television interview in her office, and giving a speech at a charitable event out of state.

Chatman’s complaint alleges Palin is misusing the governor’s office for personal gain by securing unwarranted benefits and receiving improper gifts through the Alaska Fund Trust, which was established by supporters in April to help Palin pay her legal bills.

Chatman’s ridiculous complaint will be tossed out like the others. The Alaska Fund Trust operates under the strictest limitations I’ve ever seen for a legal defense fund. Read the AFT's website FAQs. The contributions to the AFT “can only be used for legal expenses incurred by counsel on behalf of the Governor, her family, and staff.” It’s as straightforward as that.

When Chatman’s complaint is tossed out can we expect a long write up about it by Rachel D’Oro?

D’Oro provides an editorialized and factually inaccurate summary of Troopergate:

Elected in 2006, Palin enjoyed an unprecedented 18-month honeymoon with Alaska residents and lawmakers alike until last July, when she fired Walt Monegan, the state’s popular public safety commissioner.

Monegan believed he was terminated over his refusal to let go a state trooper who was involved in a contentious divorce with Palin’s sister. Palin cited budgetary disagreements.

The “popular public safety commissioner” Walt Monegan got only 8.69% of the vote last April when he ran for mayor of Anchorage. That’s not exactly fan club worthy. D’Oro was editorializing about Monegan’s supposed popularity. That’s a no-no for reporters who have pretensions to objectivity. (Though I suppose you could say that Monegan was “popular” with union boss John Cyr and the Public Safety union for whom he served as useful idiot.)

She also misstates the facts. Monegan was not fired or “terminated.” He was simply re-assigned. He chose to quit. And Monegan believed at first that his termination had to do with his lack of communication with the governor. That’s what he told his colleagues in his farewell email to them. It wasn’t until he spoke with Palin-hater and gubernatorial loser Andrew Halcro that Monegan dreamed up his allegation that the real reason why he was re-assigned was because he wouldn’t fire Trooper Mike Wooten. Keep in mind that Monegan has always stated for the record that no one ever asked him to fire Wooten. But he later claimed that he felt “pressure.”

He must not have felt too much “pressure” because he didn’t even know what Mike Wooten looked like. Ann Coulter noted in her book “Guilty”:

In the midst of the Palin family’s formal complaints about state trooper and former Palin brother-in-law Mike Wooten for threatening her family, drinking on the job, and Tasering Palin’s nephew, the public safety commission asked the governor to sign a photo of a state trooper, in uniform, saluting the flag for the purpose of turning the photo into a poster. The trooper chosen for this photo was none other than...Mike Wooten!

You’d think that Monegan would at least know what the guy looks like if he felt so pressured to fire him.

D’Oro continues:

State lawmakers investigated, ultimately concluding the governor broke an ethics law that prohibits public officials from using their office for personal gain, although the firing itself was considered lawful since Monegan was an at-will employee.

Days after being named McCain’s running mate, Palin said the legislative probe had become too political and filed a “self disclosure” with the Alaska Personnel Board, whose three members are appointed by the governor. The day before the presidential election, that investigation concluded that Palin violated no ethics laws.

Notice how she details the Branchflower Report’s flawed conclusion, but she doesn’t note that the Petumenos Report for the Personnel Board, which is the entity charged with enforcing and interpreting the Ethics Act, stated that the Branchflower Report’s interpretation of the Act was flawed and therefore its conclusions were incorrect. Not only that, but the Petumenos Report accurately identified the Branchflower Report for what it was – “the findings of one attorney who was not subject to an adversarial proceeding in which his findings could be tested,” and yet Branchflower’s findings were mistakenly treated as if they had weight. They didn’t. But unfortunately they are still treated as if they do – even now after the Personnel Board has made its ruling. (Also, keep in mind that the Personnel Board had access to more evidence than Branchflower.)

The conclusion reached by the Personnel Board was non-partisan, even though the investigator, Petumenos, is a known Democrat and was writing his report during a contentious election cycle.

D’Oro writes that the three members of the Personnel Board “are appointed by the governor.” Notice how she writes “are” and not “were.” She is being careful. She wants to convey the impression that the bi-partisan Personnel Board is somehow in Gov. Palin’s pocket, but she can't outright lie and claim that the current members “were” appointed by Gov. Palin because they weren’t.

The board’s current members were all appointed by Gov. Murkowski (and you know how friendly Sarah Palin was with the Murkowski administration). One of the members originally appointed by Murkowski was reappointed by Gov. Palin. This is not a board “hand-picked” by Sarah Palin. They do not work for Sarah Palin.

Please note that the Personnel Board is a volunteer board. By law they can not be state employees. And by law they must be bi-partisan. They receive no salary. The governor can only dismiss them for “cause.”

The board is independent in every sense of the word. And the real power is with the independent investigators. The governor has no control over the investigators at all. The Personnel Board hires them, not the governor. The decisions the investigators return are based on the law, not partisan politics.

Once again, the key fact here is that Gov. Palin has been vindicated in 14 out of 14 ethics complaints by a bi-partisan independent board whose mission it is to enforce and interpret the Ethics Act. Those are the facts.

D’Oro notes:

Alaska law mandates that ethics grievances remain confidential unless a public accusation is filed or the accused person agrees in writing to make it public. However, most complainants have ignored this requirement and have publicly discussed their grievances without any legal consequences.

“Why is confidentiality so important? So the process does not become a forum for partisan attacks, headline seekers and disgruntled wing-nuts,” Palin attorney Thomas Van Flein said in an e-mail. “This is exactly the type of political gamesmanship the confidentiality clause was intended to prevent.”

Chatman said she spoke with an attorney and learned she wouldn’t breach confidentiality if she talked about her grievance before filing it in late April. She said she did just that, based on a lack of trust in the Palin administration.

“I thought it would be swept under the carpet if the public didn’t know about it,” she said.

So, let me get this straight... Chatman publicized her complaint but that wasn’t breaching confidentiality? What, pray tell, would be breaching confidentiality? How does Ms. Chatman and her attorney define breaching confidentiality?

According to the Executive Branch Ethics Act (AS 39.52.340):

(a) Except as provided in AS 39.52.335 , before the initiation of formal proceedings under AS 39.52.350 , the complaint and all other documents and information regarding an investigation conducted under this chapter or obtained by the attorney general during the investigation are confidential and not subject to inspection by the public.

I’m not a lawyer, but it sounds like Chatman breached confidentiality to me.

D’Oro gives Chatman the final word in her claim that she’s not “breaching confidentiality,” but she doesn’t seem to think that Gov. Palin has any right to publicly be upset by these endless politically motivated attacks, which have cost her over $500,000 in personal legal debt.

D’Oro finds a willing mouthpiece for her own opinion:

Palin was wrong to publicly criticize the complaints before the appropriate government body - the personnel board in most cases - had a chance to analyze them, said Gregg Erickson, a Juneau economist and longtime watcher of Alaska politics. That’s simply bad politics, he said.

“She rises to the bait fairly quickly when they troll these things by her,” he said. “I think it’s a weakness.”

Who is Gregg Erickson? In a Washington Post chat session on August 29, right after Palin was named to the GOP ticket, Erickson was described as “Columnist and Reporter, Anchorage Daily News and Editor at Large, Alaska Budget Report.” So D’Oro interviewed a fellow journalist to get his opinion on Gov. Palin. Sound like good reporting to you? Basically, D’Oro used Erickson as her mouthpiece in order to get across her opinion.

D’Oro does mention, without mentioning, our Webathon:

Even some of Palin’s critics question the validity of some of the complaints, and her supporters have waged a weeklong Webathon to raise money for a legal defense fund set up for the governor, ringing up more than $109,000 by day seven, Sunday.

Gee, nice of you to provide our website address. For the record, D’Oro never contacted us to get a statement about the Webathon, but she was quick to contact Chatman. Fair and objective reporting? Yeah, right.



*By deciding to settle the case concerning her children’s travel, Gov. Palin decided to hold herself to a higher standard than her predecessors. The Personnel Board investigator readily admitted that the regulations for family travel were vague, and the governor was simply following established precedent. The settlement clearly stated:

Nothing in this agreement constitutes an admission of wrongdoing, and none has been found, nor may any inference of wrongdoing be inferred by virtue of the execution of this agreement in any other proceeding.