Ethics investigation finds Palin abused power

You don't see a lot of stuff. So what?

I know.

If the charges against the trooper are correct, there should be an investigation into why he wasn't fired. But as I suspected, there was no wrongdoing here. The person in question serves at the pleasure of the governor and can be dismissed for any reason (or without a reason).

The report alleges an ethical violation, but that is not the purview of the committee to investigate. That is a different body. And that would be, IMO, a very difficult case to make given the charges at hand. The stuff about accessing medical records and the like may be nothing. You wonder why this is so secretive leading up to the elections. Could it be that the appearance of impropriety is more damaging than what's in the record itself? IOW, if they were to tell what's there, people would see there is nothing, and by keeping it secret they can imply it's something serious until after the election.

In the end, being no Palin supporter, I don't really care one way or the other, but it seemed clear from the beginning that there was no violation here. Some of you were simply too biased to see it.

 

Have you read the 300 page report? Neither have I so I suppose I can't comment on things I missed since I haven't read it. Neither should you. BTW, the report is here:
http://media.adn.com/smedia/2008/10/10/16/Branchflowerreport.source.prod_affiliate.7.pdf

Read it.

 

You should read the report and get the facts.

A thorough investigation was conducted and closed, the trooper was reprimanded but not fired. The Palin's were unhappy about the outcome, put their own guy Monegan into the position of Commissioner of Public Safety and kept strongly urging him to re-open the case and fire the trooper. Monegan looked into it as a private citizen concerned about an officer, found no problems with the previous investigation and said the case was closed. The Palin's continued to pursue the matter, Monegan knew they were treading in unethical territory and suggested to Sarah that Todd be the one he talks directly to on this matter. Todd keeps pursuing it, using government resources to find information and eventually Monegan is fired with little to no reason which is Sarah's legal right to do.

The story isn't over yet. The goal of the Branchflower report was to determine if there was any problem over Monegan's firing and concluded that there was not.

It is up to the Alaskan Personnel Board to determine if there are any ethical violations by Sarah Palin and they are still conducting their own investigations into this.

 

That hasn't stopped you before now. It has stopped me. To my knowledge, I have not commented dogmatically on something I don't know.

 

This may come as a surprise to some, but I have a life that doesn't involve minor issues in Alaska politics.

I think here you have said it all.

Exactly. From my understanding, there was no investigation needed. This fellow worked at the pleasure of the governor. He could be fired for any reason or for no reason.

Which is what I said earlier.

 

A guy on TV says with this judgment, Walter Monegan can sue the state of Alaska for violating his civil rights and probably win.

 

This is what Palin should have done instead of firing is boss. Had she of sent his file to the personal board they would have found him guilty (or not) then she would have had better ground to stand on.

I don't know if it was just her ignorance of law or if she ignored staff advice but you are right what she SHOULD have done. I figure it was either ignorance of law or bad advice because she was going to cooperate until McCain's high power lawyers asked her was she "stupid or something? They will hang you if you let this proceed."

She also cound have been arrogant because of her approval rating.

 

But I think you are still missing the point. She doesn't need ground to stand on. The guy works at the pleasure of the governor. She doesn't need a reason to fire him.


Perhaps she knew the facts and didn't need an investigation. I don't know. Sometimes investigations are wastes of time from both ends. Sometimes they investigate when there is nothing there, and sometimes they investigate when everything is already known. The guy she fired could have been the one acting unethically. The police officer perhaps should have been fired instead of reprimanded in which case she could make the case that had those people done right it would have never gotten to her ... that her actions were the result of incompetence further down. There are all kinds of scenarios, none of which any of us here know.

But in the end, the report says she didn't do anything wrong, it seems to me.

 

The report states she didn't do anything wrong in the firing of Monegan, but breached the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act while he was under her employ.

 

For the sake of those of us who are not up to speed with all this...

What was her breach in ethics here?

Not controlling her husband?

Isn't he a private citizen with the right to contact public officals to complain about a public employee?

 

While her husband is a private citizen and has a right to complain about a public employee, he was also making use of government resources to substantiate his complaint and suggested he was acting on behalf of Sarah Palin with his use of the term "we". He did not try to suggest that he was acting independently of Sarah or that he understood there was a potential ethical issue.

Also, Sarah herself and her subordinates would call/e-mail regarding the case and it was Monegan who suggested to them that their discussions would be problematic if Wooten's case went to court and should not be pursued.

 

If I recall correctly, the person making the report doesn't have the authority to declare that.

 

Yes. The scope of his investigation did not include determining if Palin violated the Ethics Act, but it is the first finding of the report.

In other words, Palin was not found to be in misconduct for the reason the investigation was initially conducted, but in the process of that investigation, evidence has arisen to suggest a different investigation be performed for a different potential misconduct.

 

I believe this ruling says even though he is appointed she still needs SOME reason to let him go. I agree, the reason could be "I decided to go another direction" but even people in appointed positions have some rights. That's why the ruling said she didn't break any laws.

However we have another case, Dismissal of the 7 U.S. attorneys that also supports the fact that appointed employee's have SOME rights.

She did receive an ethical violation in this decision which says she needs the reason he was fired to be without bias or personal gain. We can go back and forth and I have acknowledged you were fundamentally right.

Let's put the cards on the table, the problem is her bone head husband went too far instead of letting her handle the situation. If he had of kept his nose out of it she could have fired him and none of this would have happened. As you pointed out, she could have had the personal board look into trooper Wootens employment. There were a lot of options she had to deal with her xbrother in law but Todd went about it the wrong way and had no authority to as much as inquire like he did. Even as governor or president, I can't make a comment about your race or sexual orientation then fire you or you have given me an excuse to say I was improperly fired.

 

Read this part of this article by AP. It said Todd called a meeting in her office but she wasn't there. The question will unfortunately ask who was running Alaska...

 

I don't think it is the governor's job or jurisdiction to handle the HR decisions of low level government employees. I think if she stepped in like you suggest and usurped the authority of the proper channels for handling this type of case, she would have had an even bigger case against her.

The personnel board handles executive employees.

 

The state law allows the governor to fire him in his position for no reason at all.

 

I read the "summary of the report" 68 pages long. It says that Todd Palin, Sarah's husband, spent about 50% of his time in her office somehow deriving power from her position. In order to reach Gov. Palin, the report says, you had to call her husband. While this might comfort some here who believe that a woman should not have control over a man, I don't want to see him pull this trick in the office of the Vice President of the United States.

This whole thing was like a witch hunt conducted against the trooper who had the nerve to divorce Sarah's sister Molly. Unbelievable. They say no crimes were committed but I don't understand why not. Alaska state laws were broken. This was not an administrative detail.

 

Fortunately, it doesn't look like he will get the opportunity. :thumbs:

 

You don't see a lot of stuff. So what?

Tsk, tsk.