A serious H/T is needed here to the Naked Emperor News video news site for compiling the various news clips, and tying the gang of ethics complainants together in a tidy little package with a bow.

[Mata Musing: Naked Emperor is one upping themselves here, as they were also responsible for digging up all of Obama's historic statements on what he *really* wants for America's health care... a single payer system.]

Naked Emperor posted their “EthicsGate” YouTube link, and the Alaskan Bloggers again ganged up to get it removed from YouTube. This would be the same group that whined when Palin fingered them, and are now circling the wagons around the “divorce rumor” source; outed kindergarten/elementary school assistant teacher with a penchant for vicious gossip, Jesse Griffin… aka Gryphen.

There’s a notice/disclaimer on their site:

Well, it may be a “national story” anyway. Because a renegade poster – underbird – put the video back up. To protect Curt and Flopping Aces from any impropriety, I’m merely going to provide the link to the YouTube for now…. which may or may not be working.

I’ll leave it up to Curt if he wants to replace it with an embedded version. I suggest you click on the link quick… as those portrayed are most certainly not happy at being outed.

[Mata Musing: welll, I guess Curt wanted it embedded afterall! LOL]

Just as a reminder … the players in the ethics complaints also appearing in the video. You’ll find them recurring over and over. Refresh your memories by reading the Alinsky Perfected series.

Troopergate’s Legislative Investigation, led by Kim Elton, Alaska Dem Senator… close friends with Obama Sr. advisor, Pete Rouse. Plus former Gov. Tony Knowles, forming a neat political triangle.

Linda Kellen Biegel, Deputy Treasurer of Alaskans for Truth

Kim Chatman, “independent concerned Alaskan”…

Valerie Henning (wife of Zane Henning, who filed a complaint)

Sondra Thompkins, “independent concerned Alaskan”…

And the blogger/radio media cheerleaders who gave them face and air time, Shannyn Moore; Jeanne “Mudflats” Devon (big supporter of Andree McLeod); and Camille Conte (aka CC), chairman of the Alaskans for Truth and host of “Demo Memo” radio show where they discussed revenge strategy on air, trumped up stories together about rape stats that did not reflect the truth.

UPDATE: Aug 3rd, PM

Jeanne “Mudflats” Devon has taken to her own Alinsky brand of ammo for damage control in response to Naked Emperor’s video… by embedding the video herself as bold “proof” the “cabal” fears not it’s public view.

I found it particularly Interesting she uses a player that does not allow that same video to be shared, or allow the user to pick up the embed code. Was that deliberate, in order to keep the video confined to her own adoring following? Or was she unaware that YouTube has a share-friendly version? Who knows… much more important, who cares. But it was a notable observation that belies her “here it is, I’m not afraid!” attempt.

Ms. Mudflats weaves a rather listless and condescending tale – which she calls a parable – of good guy “village scribes” (aka the Alaskan progressive blogging cabal) and “those guys” from the hills.

You know the ones. Every once in a while, one of them wanders through town, all disheveled and wide-eyed and muttering something about how the Ruler of the Land is illegitimate because he was actually born on some other planet, and how his alien socialist kin are going to take over the world, and turn us all into mindless drones, and how we’re all either too stupid to see the real truth, or we’re in cahoots with the aliens on the mother ship. THOSE guys.

I think you get who plays the bad guy here… I suppose the fact escapes her that most conservatives critical of their gutteral “reporting” are just as critical of the on-the-edge birthers. But that wouldn’t make for as interesting of an already long and boring tale, would it?

To make a lengthy “parable without a moral” story shorter (and thereby considerably more palatable), Mudflats uses the classic Alinsky “ridicule” tack as her defense. That boils down to something like this… and I paraphrase her three paragraphs… “sure we know each other… duh”.

Knowing each other was never the issue. What was the issue was orchestration, aiding and abetting to waste Alaskan taxpayers tax dollars to “… be a pain in her [Palin's] butt” (that’s somewhere around the 10 minute mark, I believe…).

It was also uplifting to hear their elected officials encourage the cabal to play dirty – especially considering the irony that is was the cabal who first began to play in the dirt with leaks and smut during the Legislative Investigation. That would be the investigation headed by a guy who just happened to end up in the Obama admin.

Then of course, there’s all that back and forth between the “independent” Kim Chatman with Celtic Diva (aka Linda Kellen Biegel, with already one failed complaint to her name). And how CD – not too bright a light bulb evidently – documents her research on the legal defense fund, passes the data on to Chatman who files the complaint, and then “breaks” the news. All unethically with the confidentiality rules, of course.

Naw… no orchestration there.

It’s a small town. One expects those of like mind to know each other, and be active in the same political organizations.

By the same token, it’s just as large an expectation to assume these same political comrades coordinate their political attacks and agenda. And *therein* lies the story the above video tells.

Now that we have the bottom feeders inextricably linked, the next question is did that obvious local coordination for peevish and expensive complaints get as high as Pete Rouse, David Axelrod and Obama?

I cannot tell you how bored I am with Trooper’gate. And frankly, I’m glad at least one of the two investigations has had some nebulous and inconclusive conclusion.

I say “inconclusive conclusion” because, as Branchwater was quoted in the ADN today:

Branchflower writes that his investigation did not take into account late-arriving statements from several administration officials who, on the advice of Attorney General Talis Colberg, resisted subpoenas. They agreed to provide written statements this week, however, after a state judge upheld the subpoenas. Information from those statements was provided to the Legislative Council separately.

In fact, there were 10 witnesses not included in Branchwater’s investigation. Branchwater promises a separate report. Oh goodie.

I say nebulous since the only count from which they can extract a semblence of a scandalous headline is by Branchwater’s (legally erroneous) determination that Sarah Palin abused her power, in violation of the Executive Branch Ethics Act. How? By *not* telling her husband, Todd, to stop talking, or asking, about Trooper Wooten.

Huh? Okay… lemme ‘splain.

Personally, I’d rather just recant Theresa C’s comment from another thread, and quit there. Dang… the girl nailed it in 14 words!

Governor Palin abused her power because she didn’t put a leash on her spouse??

Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. But of course, to get away with such a short quip, and not be accused of “drinking the kool-aid”, or some other sophomoric hep expression, one has to show how Branchwater managed to turn something so absurd into a headline that screams “Palin Abused Power” in the Anchorage Daily News.

BTW.. here’s the two biggies for reading. I’ll get the hotlinks out of the way now. Go to the source material, and ignore the reporters behind the curtain…

From the beginning. Remember, this was all about supposedly Palin firing Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan because he refused to fire Trooper Mike Wooten… Palin’s ex brother in law. (gawd, I’m bored already…) So keep in mind, this is where it all started. Or refresh your memory by REVIEWING ALL TROOPER’GATE POSTS HERE

UPDATE: To those of you who have rightfully commented below that Monegan was not fired, but had quit after refusing reassignment to the ABC division… yes, I know that. I am, however, carrying on with the oft repeated ADN headlines… i.e. Subpoenas expected in Monegan firing case. Since the Alaskans call this a “firing”, and call the affair “Troopergate”, I stick with their language for consistency. End UPDATE

Note: These PDFs do not allow highlighting text for cut and paste.. thus the jpgs. Saves a boatload of typing

FROM PG 8

Okay… Count 1 is about whether Palin abused her power under the Executive Branch Ethics Law by she, or her administrative staff, pressuring Monegan and/or other government officials to fire Wooten. This is not to be confused with Count 2… which addresses whether the actual “firing” (or actually, offered reassignment) of Monegan was yet another abuse of power…

Confused already? Hey… hang in there. This cost Alaskan taxpayers $100K, plus more that we don’t know about yet. Might as well give this fodder it’s due, yes?

And frankly, we only have to address Count 1. So let’s clear out the other counts here in advance….

On Count 2: Branchflower found that Monegan’s reassignment/termination was “a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.” As for Wooten INRE this charge, he stated that altho “Monegan’s refusal to fire Trooper Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired”, Branchwater said it was “likely” a contributing factor.

For more of those reasons why Palin had a problem with Monegan, read Randy Ruaro’s affidavit.

Woof… strong language by Branchflower there. There was other reasons, but Wooten was “likely” a contributing factor to Monegan’s reassignment?? Shall we ask for the chair? Lethal injection now? zzzzzzzz

Count 3: Hey… this was the one most the Obamabots were hanging onto… did Palin or anyone in her administration violate Wooten’s medical records? Certainly the most serious of charges, IMHO.

So sorry to disappoint. Nope. Nothing improper. Apparently an ex-employee, Johanna Grasso did a “she said” routine – alleging Murleen Wilkers (owner of the Harbor Adjustment Service Co) mentioned the Governor’s or her office had called and asked Wooten’s claim be denied.

Only problem is, Wilkes’ testimony revealed she had frequent contact with the usual representative in the Governor’s office that she does on all claims. And she was not directed to do anything differently, or unusual with Wooten’s claim.

FROM PG 72

This lack of impropriety was confirmed by former Alaskan AG, Joe Cooper (who represented the State in the Wooten workman’s comp case), Cooper’s former supervisor, Chief Asst AG Gail Voigtlander, and Wooten’s own Anchorage attorney in his workman’s comp case, Chancy Croft.

…. so much for that charge.

The last Count 4 appears to have nothing to do with Palin herself, but with the AG’s office. Apparently, Branchwater’s a bit miffed about the delay in the AG’s office providing him with the emails and data he demanded… er, requested… for his witchhunt… er, investigation.

The evidence supports the conclusion that Governor Palin, at the least, engaged in “official action” by her inaction [emphasis added] if not her active participation or assistance to her husband in attempting to get Trooper Wooten fired [and there is evidence of her active participation].

Uh… which is it? “If not” her participation or “evidence of her active participation”??

She knowingly, as that term is defined in the above cited statutes, permitted Todd Palin to use the Governor’s office and the resources of the Governor’s office, including access to state employees, to continue to contact subordinate state employees in an effort to find some way to get Trooper Wooten fired. Her conduct violated AS 39.52.110(a) of the Ethics Act. That statute provides that:

“the legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust”.

Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda, to wit: to get Trooper Michael Wooten fired. She had the authority and power to require Mr. Palin to cease contacting subordinates, but she failed to act.

Or, as Theresa C said, she didn’t keep Todd on a leash… :0)

The problem with Branchflower’s interpretation of the Ethics Law is his overly broad vision of “benefit” and “personal interest” in the statute…. not to mention his lack of regard for precedents that clarify vague legalese. What he constitutes as “abuse” fails to meet the standards required by the Ethics Act. However Branchflower references no precedents. He merely creates his own interpretation of what meets the level of scrutiny.

As Thomas Van Flein states in his five page response (linked above), the Ethics Law “addresses financial conflicts of interest”, as precedents have defined.

FROM RESPONSE PG 2

Other precedents have also clarified “only substantial and material conflicts” violate the ethics law, and distinguishes between minor and inconsequential conflicts of interest that do not. Certainly, not asking Todd Palin to stop asking officials about Wooten classifies as the latter. And since any perceived interest Sarah Palin had in Wooten played little or no (i.e. “likely contributed) role in Monegan’s reassignment/termination, Palin is exonerated.

FROM RESPONSE PG 3

Since Branchwater goes on for pages with multiple events about conversations Todd Palin had with officials in his report, it’s even more interesting that Branchwater finds the First Dude is not in violation of anything… and therefore he makes no finding as to Todd Palin’s conduct. This is because Todd Palin is not an employee of the executive branch.

Uh… but isn’t he supposedly the culprit doing the dastardly deeds, while Sarah is guilty of just not stopping him??

Branchwater doesn’t explain how the six events of the 18 that involved Todd Palin (after she took office) are, as he said, use [of] the Governor’s office and the resources of the Governor’s office, including access to state employees. Frankly, I’m not even sure how six conversations over two and a half years even gets classified as serious pressure. But breaking it down, five of those were phone conversations. One was a conversation with Glass in a government building. However Palin did not bring the subject of Wooten up… Glass did.

There was only one conversation with Walt Monegan in the Governor’s office in all these events. However, if you will remember, Todd Palin was ordered to speak with Monegan by Special Agent Bob Cockrell INRE threats to the first family. Where did that meeting take place? In, perhaps, the governor’s office? And does this single meeting constitute abuse of government resources?

And one more thing that had “access to state employees” charge … is Todd Palin not allowed to speak to elected and administrative officials? Are these officials not available to the public at large?

So why did Todd Palin keep pursuing Wooten?

You’ll remember that the Palins filed a complaint against Trooper Wooten. The Administrative Investigation of that complaint ended March 1, 2006… over nine months prior to Palin taking the Governor’s office. Wooten appealed his meted out discipline with the help of the PSEA, his union. They settled the appeal on Sept 5th, 2006… reducing his 10 days suspension to 5 days. This is still four months before Palin takes office.

The problem here is the AST wouldn’t give the Palin’s any information as to whether the investigation had occurred, ended or if there was any discipline rendered. Alaskan State law prohibits feedback about status and outcome of any complaint against peace officers.

According to Frank Bailey’s affidavit on Aug 27th, 2008 with Thomas Van Flein, the Palins did not find out about Wooten’s complaint investigation, and the reduced suspension, until the summer of 2008… just shy of two years after the complaint was finalized in appeal, and three years after it was originally filed. They learned the results after Wooten’s personnel file was made public in the media.

Throughout that time, all they knew was that Trooper Wooten was still running around as an Alaskan State Trooper. His uninterrupted status lent the impression that nothing had been done. A five day sojourn (the suspension) could have been interpreted as a week’s vacation, for all they knew.

This is also confirmed via a 21 page legal analysis of the Branchwater report, available on the McCain campaign site. I am unaware of the author of this brief, and possibly a member of McCain’s legal team. It is, however, substantive to note that the Palins were unaware of any action on their complaint years ago.

Todd Palin was not aware of the Grimes Report until July 2008, after Monegan left the government. The DPS never informed the Palins that Wooten had been disciplined. All the Palins knew is that Trooper Wooten would repeatedly tell Ms. McCann that no one would ever punish him because he was a trooper, and that Trooper Wooten continued to be assigned to patrol the Palins’ neighborhood, even after he had threatened to kill Sarah Palin’s father.

After the expenditure of $100k of Alaskan taxpayers cash, Branchwater made two recommendations. One, to amend the request for medical and rehabilitation records by any government agency require a relationship be established between the request for the records, and the purpose for obtaining the records.

And second? That those who file complaints against peace officers to receive status and outcome of those complaints. As Branchwater himself said in his report, the Palins’ frustration was genuine, and their skepticism that an investigation or discipline had ever occured was warranted.

Gives a new perspective on all that talking Todd Palin was doing, eh?

FROM PG 80

So what about that impeachment Sen. Hollis French so readily bandied about in the press? Or at least one of the $5000 maximum fines for such serious crimes and misdemeanors as not reining in a hubby, attempting to find out what’s going on with the Trooper who threatened his family members?

Again, from today’s ADN:

The chairman of the Legislative Council, Sen. Kim Elton, D-Juneau, said he agreed with Branchflower’s findings but wasn’t ready to suggest there should be any consequences for the governor.

“We don’t charge people, we don’t try people as legislators,” Elton said. Any further action or disciplinary measures, he said, would be up to Palin’s executive branch, the attorney general or the state Personnel Board.

So here we are – $100,000 later – back to the Personnel Board investigation. Right where the dang thing belonged to begin with….

Okay… INRE the six Alaskan legislators who sued to get an injunctive release (see original post and info here…) back on the 16th of December… alleging the Legislative Council was acting without budgetary authority, and outside Constitutional due process per the Alaskan Legislature.

The Alaskan Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s Motion to Dismiss… on Oct 8th. I was waiting to get the Supreme decision. However none is available as of yet. If the brief I linked above is correct, a decision should follow. (Which I’m actually quite curious on a legal intellectually level to see. Mostly about the Legislative Council appropriating funds without the approval of the entire body.)

In the context of all that still goes on… the Legislative Council witch hunt continues, most or all are responding to subpoenas. And the Personnel Board investigation and investigator are still in action.

Dat’s all folks…. I am so bored with this. After I found out a “guilty” is a $5000 fine, who the heck cares? The Alaskan Legislative Council is spending 20x the amount of the fine just to investigate…. no wonder Palin’s had to rip thru these guys in her gubernatorial term. They most certainly know how to waste the taxpayers’ cash.

But this entire story was meant only to damage Palin as a running mate from the beginning. Were this a story that genuinely lent credible threat to a “criminal” serving as a Veep, none of this would be slipping under the radar. But… like I said… a $5000 fine for a guilty charge??

But… if you need bathroom reading material, or need something to read to fall asleep to…. here’s the quick link to the entire Trooper’gate series.

Remember one of the two lawsuits in Alaska Superior Court – specifically the one filed by legislators? And at issue in that suit is whether the legislative council’s investigation is constitutional (infringing on due process rights), and if they were illegally allocating funds outside their jurisdiction.

Well, the slow hand of justice is still at work… the Anchorage Superior Court judge dismissed the suit… as he should. This is too large an issue for any court less than the Alaskan Supreme Court to decide. And no judge in their right mind will create such a precedence of ruling about state lawmakers budgeting, and constitutional rights of citizens.

So while this is “a story”… it’s actually just notice that the next step of appeal has commenced. Now what really would have been a story is if the Anchorage judge took it upon himself to decide such issues… that would be one ballsy guy in robes….

Pretty self-explanatory here. If you’ve been reading the Trooper’gate series here, you’ll be familiar with the points made in the statement.

Two new developments… First, there is an independent investigator working on the Personnel Board inquiry. Haven’t caught his name clearly yet, and unlike Sen French and Steve Branchwater, he’s not out there making public comments… as is appropriate for the process.

Second, there’s a couple of Alaskan Senators ready to launch a lawsuit against the McCain campaign for what they feel is interference in the Legislative Council’s witch hunt. Will try to grab this if and when it happens.

In other news on the same subject, Senate President and Palin nemesis, Lyda Green, is “absolutely disgusted, embarrassed, and ashamed” by the “intervention” into the biased legislative investigation, and what she describes as “disheartening” attack on Walt Monegan.

As I said in a previous Trooper’gate post… Palin went the extra mile to avoid bringing her internal battles with Monegan into the public eye. However, with his persistent charges that he was terminated for not firing Wooten, she was forced into a corner. He brung it on himself…

And where’s the outrage for their unabashed smearing of Palin? Funny… must have missed that.

I swear, I’m not sure why I’m wasting my time, or yours, with this post. Took about 24 hours off to be with my granddaughter, and re’entered the news world to find the media and Palin hater dogs are off, chasing a new bone of contention on the Trooper’gate/Monegan angle.

First, let me say this in no uncertain terms. I don’t care if Sarah Palin didn’t like which side of his head Monegan parted his hair… she had a right to terminate him for any reason she wished because he served at will.

Now, is this a scandal that she fired him for some personal vendetta, or not? And apparently, it’s becoming more than clear that it’s not. So now the media is off on another entrapment tangent, trying to play the “gotcha” game as to even her legitimate reasons for firing an appointee for sundry differences.

Case in point, Justin Rood at ABC news, whining over Monegan’s planned lobbying endeavor to the beltway to secure funds for an anti-sexual violence program. ABC triumphantly lauds it as “new doubt”…

And what’s the new bru ha ha? Is it related to Wooten? But no….

Instead it is questioning one of Palin’s reasons – citing an event that happened 4 days before she fired him, and his refusal to take another position.

Palin called it an “unauthorized lobbying trip”, and the liberal/progressives, desperately seeking anything to tank Palin’s numbers, point to a travel authorization signed by one of Palin’s staff, Mike Nizich. The authorization states the purpose of the trip is “to attend meeting with Senator Lisa Murkowski.”

Now all you “gotcha” types out there, I wouldn’t get too excited. Let’s follow once again the timeline.

The Palin campaign released many emails… and one of them, dated July 7th (pre’Veep era), from the Governor’s Special Counsel, John Katz, cited two great reasons why the lobbying trip in question would not have been approved by Gov. Palin:

In a July 7 e-mail, John Katz, the governor’s special counsel, noted two problems with the trip: the governor hadn’t agreed the money should be sought, and the request “is out of sequence with our other appropriations requests and could put a strain on the evolving relationship between the Governor and Sen. Stevens.”

The travel authorization is dated June 19th, and a noted purpose only to meet Sen. Murkowski… Monegan had to have known Palin was not seeking the money, nor sanctioned a lobbying trip for that purpose.

It appears that Monegan may have been trying to pull a fast one to advance a pet project, over Palin’s objections.

17 days later the General Counsel sent the email recommending *against* any lobbying trip, (this is still pre’Palin Veep). Obviously written after they found out Monegan’s purpose for the travel was more than stated on the authorization.

What was it Palin said? “Mr. Monegan persisted in planning to make the unauthorized lobbying trip to D.C.” Certainly appears that, despite the Palin’s lack of support for a lobbying trip, Monegan “persisted” in putting in a travel authorization request anyway with a vaguely stated purpose. Hummm… so far, looks like she was right.

The plot thickens in that this was an attempt by Monegan to mask his true intent for the beltway visit… as Hot Air’s Allahpundit points out, the date of Nizich’s signature is June 18th. But the travel authorization is actually dated a day later… June 19th.

Either Nizich did not know what day it was, or he signed a blank authorization document for what he believed was a standard visitation to an Alaskan Senator. So why would he do that? Apparently, the purpose of meeting Murkowski was not made clear on the authorization (if he just dated it wrong), or the verbal intent gave him the impression it would be a generally authorized trip.

According to Ruaro, Monegan asked for — and received — approval for the travel without telling Palin’s staff his reason for going. “As a matter of routine, the travel was approved by Mike Nizich … weeks before the actual purpose was made clear by former Commissioner Monegan,” Ruaro wrote.

“When you receive permission to travel, it does not mean that you receive blanket authorization to discuss or do whatever you would like on that trip,” he added.

BTW, Nizich is one of those on the Legislative Council’s…. er Steve Branchwater’s… list of witnesses. And he is also one of those who will be cooperating with a Personnel Board investigation, and enjoying the Alaskan AG’s office advice that showing up (for the Legislative inquisition) is not mandatory…

In fact, with these released emails, Thomas Van Flein has used them as further evidence in his plea to the Personnel Board to find “no probable cause” for further investigation. Per an AP/Google article:

The e-mails made clear that some Palin staffers believed Monegan and the Department of Public Safety worked outside normal channels. One was written in May by Randy Ruaro, then a special assistant to Palin, to the governor’s budget director, and concerned efforts to pay for and build a crime lab.

“I FEEL YOUR PAIN! DPS is constantly going off the reservation,” he wrote.

In February, Monegan signed a public letter of support for a $3.6 million project designed to keep troubled teens off the street in Anchorage — even though the governor had vetoed the project last year and hadn’t included money for it in her budget this year.

“I am stunned and amazed — do you know anything about this?” budget director Karen Rehfeld wrote to two other high-level staffers when she learned of the letter.

“Think about that:one of the governor’s own cabinet members publicly contradicting her veto decision,” Stapleton said.

Monegan acknowledged he shouldn’t have signed the letter, because it put the governor in the awkward position of defending her veto decision. But he said he thought of the letter as simply making another run at getting funding for a worthy project.

Uh… now how was it Palin described Monegan? “rogue mentality” and “outright insubordination”. Apparently, quite fitting a description.

This latest media nonsense, suggesting Palin lied about her reasons for firing Monegan is nothing more than a bait and switch – parsing words to muddy the scandal’s origins. Remember, this whole mucky muck started with Monegan publicly complaining (with Andrew Halcro’s dutiful aid) about being fired because of retaining Trooper Wooten, Palin’s ex-brother in law. This despite being on the record, under oath, plus in other media reports stating:

“For the record, no one ever said fire Wooten. Not the governor.
Not Todd. Not any of the other staff….”

former Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan
Anchorage Daily News, Aug 30, 2008

Let me also remind you that it is Monegan and Halcro who have been smearing Palin since day one on this supposed personal vendetta. Yet battles over policy and budget between Monegan and Palin are not new emergences of info. In fact, even her staunchest critics have pointed to the battles between Monegan and Palin, prior to her Veep pick.

One criticism is that Gov. Palin had not been more explicit in her reasons for firing Monegan upfront. As I’ve mentioned before, on Aug 13th (again, pre’Veep pick) Alaskan Pride, most definitely no fan of Palin, said:

Palin has been under heavy criticism since firing former Department of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan. However, she also disclosed three reasons why she fired Monegan (I listened to the press conference in part on KFQD and specifically took down this information).

- He was not making headway on achieving key goals such as resolving the trooper shortfall.

- He was not making satisfactory progress on resolving alcohol issues.

- He was not a team player in regards to budget issues.

But recognizing his previous experience in dealing with alcohol issues, particularly in Bush Alaska, Governor Palin did not want to remove Monegan from the administration altogether, but to place him in charge of the Alcoholic Beverage Control board, where he could combine his rural expertise with a full-time focus on alcohol issues. Nevertheless, Monegan elected not to accept the post, and left the administration instead. Monegan continues to maintain he was pressured by Palin’s family and the administration to fire Trooper Wooten. You can view all previous posts on Monegan’s firing HERE.

~~~

Opinion: Sarah Palin could have saved herself a lot of grief if she had simply told us why she canned Walt Monegan last month instead of serving up some New Age Oprah-style drivel about “new energy” and “new direction”. There seems to be a disturbing aura of New Age influence within the Palin Administration.

Even Palin’s most vocal critic, Andrew Halcro, documented the the budget battles between Monegan and the Governor back on July 18th, prior to Palin’s pick as Veep.

Walt Monegan got fired for all of the wrong reasons. Walt Monegan got fired because he had the audacity to tell Governor Palin no, when apparently nobody is allowed to say no to Governor Palin.

Monegan said no, he couldn’t cut his budget because his State Troopers were already being stretched to the limit and public safety suffering. He said no, he couldn’t cut his budget because fuel costs for planes, boats and patrol vehicles soaring, while crime in rural Alaska was putting more demands on the Troopers transportation system.

~~~

When Walt Monegan was appointed, he realized the deep problems at DPS including low morale, understaffed detachments and the lack of a funding commitment to a long term vision.

He also recognized, that along with the strategic plan his department developed and introduced just months ago, there needed to be a commitment of resources to follow through on the public safety needs for Alaskans.

“We want out employees to know that help is on the way; that we are planning to grow our staff to provide both the needed services for this vast state, and the appropriate training necessary to do it”, Monegan wrote in his 2008-17 Strategic Plan.

But the Palin administration wanted Monegan to go in another direction. They wanted him to cut corners on a budget that had already fallen behind over the last decade. Under Former Governor Murkwoski there was significant investment made to try and catch up with growing costs but Palin’s budgets have again started to starve the agency.

To make matters worse, the change to the state’s retirement benefit program adopted by the legislature in 2004 has had a negative effect on the departments ability to recruit new Troopers.

Since there’s ample documentation by even the most ardent nemesis of Palin, why did all this end up resting on Wooten? Politics… plain and simple. But they all forget that the Info Age leaves a trail of evidence. And there is ample evidence that Monegan and Palin were battling on far more important issues than a years ago divorced brother in law.

After tossing all this sheeeeet toward the fan, it’s hard to fathom why Monegan is “dismayed” about this assault on his performance. Alaskan Pride… again an anti-Palin outlet, but actually reasonably balanced in much of his coverage, described Monegan’s reaction:

Reached Monday at his Chugiak home, Monegan said he was dismayed at the attack on his record as Palin’s public safety commissioner. “In my mind, I’ve always been a team player,” he said. Monegan also said that the papers the governor’s lawyer filed are selective and he’s provided other documentation to the legislative investigator, Steve Branchflower, that will provide a more balanced portrayal of his time as commissioner.

Perhaps he should have thought about that before he started dragging Palin thru the mud -teaming up with Halcro to publicly accuse Palin of abuse of power by terminating him. If he went up against Palin’s governance even once, he was worthy of firing. But fact is, it matters not that they may have worked together 20 times… there is documented insubordination for more than one incident. Does he think those other times wipe out his behavior on these?

And oh, by the way… what does all this have to do with it being all about Trooper Wooten?? Isn’t that supposed to be the scandal? Evidently not, if we’re now having media arguments about Monegan’s performance.

Frankly, considering the sequence of events, and the length of time before Palin released emails highlighting the specifics of the Palin/Monegan internal battles, it appears the Governor went to great lengths to *avoid* dragging Monegan’s public record thru the mud.

Instead she was forced into publicizing all their policy, budget and enforcement disagreements… in self defense. Monegan begged for this… by his stubborn refusal to accept his termination, or the other position offered, with grace.

Over at AJ’s The Stratasphere, another commenter is researching the PSEA’s (trooper union) relationship with Palin’s nemesis, Andrew Halcro. While it’s interesting, I already have no doubts that Halcro is actually the one with the vendetta. And I truly have no desires to intentionally engage in smearing the AST’s union.

Without a doubt, with Palin shaving back the State budget, I’m quite sure that the PSEA was far from happy with Palin. But do I believe these disagreements would trigger them to engage in a Palin smear campaign? No… I don’t. In fact, strikes me as it would behoove them to see that Palin moves on to the Veep offices in the beltway.

Additionally, to the PSEA’s credit, they went the legal ethics complaint route by filing the paperwork with the AG for official review by the Personnel Board. So I personally don’t think there is some hidden conspiracy lurking.

I could be wrong… but I still say this is a local battle of the disgruntled (Halcro, Monegan, French, Elton and Lyda Green) against Palin. It is French who is determined to carry on with the witch hunt. And it is Halcro who continues to feed media scandal headlines with his theories.

But time will tell all…. a Personnel Board decision of probable cause, plus some incomplete Legislative Investigation that does nothing but muddy the political waters…. and that’s all it was ever intended to do.

It’s official that Todd Palin will refuse to respond to the Legislative Council’s subpoena to appear. And, of course, the other expected event in tandem with that was Attorney Thomas Van Flein sent a letter yesterday to Indy Counsel Steve Branchflower letting him know just that.

For those of you who have kept up on the Trooper’gate saga via my posts, his reasons for Todd Palin’s refusal to appear are already familiar. i.e. no authority, unConstitutionally vague in what they want him to bring in for documentation, a violation of Constitutional due process, etal. You can read the three page letter in the link above for the specifics. But it’s a familiar shopping list already. The new addition to the list? It’s “unduly burdersome” for Palin to appear…. Todd’s a pretty busy “First Dude” at the moment, campaigning with wife Sarah.

But this really isn’t news… just the anticpated steps that would ensue considering the legal stance the AG’s office has adopted. But, I got politely called on the carpet for being not up to date by a disappointed reader on the side… LOL. So Donald? This one’s for you!

As I pointed out in my Sept 15th post on Trooper’gate, Senior Asst. AG Michael Barnhill was promising to fight the Legislative Councils subpoenas unless they agreed to accept his interpretation of the Personnel Board Act.

So all in all.. the only thing that’s new is that, as predicted, there will be many that will refuse to appear before the Legislative Council…. and Todd’s the most prominent on the list to say “no way, Jose” to French and company.

And right now, the AG’s office has their back for ignoring the subpoenas.

This, of course, has Andrew Halcro, the lead Legislative Investigator cheerleader, being driven up the wall. His latest posting is a rant, accusing Senior AG Talis Colberg of being in over his head… alluding to him as incompetent by saying: “Plucked from the relative obscurity of drawing up wills in Palmer to managing one of the biggest legal staffs in the state, Colberg’s latest actions show he is certainly not ready for prime time.

Perhaps Halcro might want to check further… in that the AG representative taking the lead is not Colberg, but Michael Barnhill. Instead, Halcro demonstrates amazing chutzpah, attempting to dictate to the AG’s office the law. He cites the Alaskan statute on subpoenas… never comprehending that these issues, combined with the AG’s vow to fight subpoenas, and combined with two lawsuits questioning the legality of the French/Branchwater witch hunt in Superior Court, can most definitely delay any testimony with plenty of legal authority.

Halcro’s out of his expertise. His bio via his website:

Occupation:
Director of Business Development, Avis Alaska 2007-present
Candidate for Governor 2006
President, Avis/Alaska (Statewide Family business owned and operated since 1955) 2002-2006
Director of Marketing, Avis Alaska, 1990-2002
Fleet Manager, Avis Alaska, 1985-1990
Administrative Assistant, Avis Alaska, 1984-1985
Airport Rental Agent, Avis Alaska, 1982-1984
Car Wash Manager, Avis Alaska, 1980-1982

Hummm…. I’m missing him being a member of the Alaskan Bar in there….

Now.. the news I *am* waiting for?

1: Who French will pick to represent himself, Kim Elton, Branchwater, the Legislative Council, etal in their lawsuit that was filed by the GOP lawmakers in Alaska Superior Court this week.

2: Who will pay for that legal representative for the above… the taxpayers? And does the Legislative Council have the authority to allocate funding for that?

3: Will the Superior Court put a halt to the legislative investigation?

4: Will the Personnel Board choose to throw out both Palin’s and PSEA/John Cyr’s ethics complaints? Or appoint an investigator?

Now *that’s* news….

I mentioned in my last Trooper’gate post INRE the GOP lawsuit that I didn’t think there were two suits, as Amanda Carpenter mentioned in her Townhall article. I hadn’t seen a second filed brief…. I guess I’m one of those doubters of media reports until I see the legal documentation.

Well, I also said I’d do a mea culpa if warranted. And here it is… TWO mea culpas, in fact. The first is that I was wrong, and there are two lawsuits.

The second mea culpa is that, not knowing the names of all the Alaskan legislators, I have the two briefs backwards. The 14 page brief in the first Trooper’gate post is the filing from the five Fairbanks citizens against Steve Branchwater…. not the GOP lawmakers I had read about first. So many names in this story…. boggles a girl’s mind sometimes! sigh….

Today I found what I needed… the 27 page brief filed by the GOP lawmakers, Representatives Wes Keller, Mike Kelly and Bob Lynn, and Senators Tom Wagoner and Fred Dyson.

Named defendants in this suit are Senators Hollis French and Kim Elton, investigator/counsel Steve Branchwater and the entire Legislative Council.

In this brief, there are far more quotes from Hollis French to various media documenting his pre’judgment of Gov. Palin’s guilt than I was aware of. He’s been a very busy media mouthpiece…

There are more specifics on the illegal actions of the Legislative Council… acting without authority on the commencement and funding of the investigation is more clearly delineated, including Sen. French’s interference in the investigation specifics itself. Also touched on was it’s method of conduct, violating Constitutional due process rights of Gov. Palin and all involved. This includes everything from using a biased investigative process and counsel to McCarthy’esque tactics as “tip lines”, and subpoenas for private citizens in secret depositions, testifying to hearsay and rumors.

Another was the mention of subpoening Todd Palin – a private citizen – requiring him to produce records.

The lawsuit suggests the Legislative Council is also violating the Separation of Powers, as they are not authorized to investigate in arenas that are not related to advancing legislation. (this mirrors federal Constitutional powers as well) Nor was impeachment discussed… or the procedure for seeking impeachment properly followed.

Van Flein is now being bolstered by some of McCain’s bigwigs now, acting as consultants to the Anchorage attorney in the high profile action. Naturally the Newsweek article presents it in such a way that it looks like Palin is trying to avoid any scrutiny by ignoring the legality of the Personnel Board complaints authorized to investigate ethics charges against the Executive Branch, as per Alaskan law. But coming from Michael Isikoff, I can’t be too surprised. One day these guys will get a clue….

So mea culpa…. just straightening out the record. I promised I would. And wanted to do it johnny-on-the-spot.

Senator Elton, the Council chairman, responded to the lawsuits via an email yesterday afternoon:

The Judiciary, the third branch of government, is now part of the drama surrounding the Legislative Council’s investigation into “the circumstances and events surrounding the termination of former Public Safety Commissioner Monegan and potential abuses of power and/or improper actions by members of the executive branch.”

Five legislators now are asking the courts to stop an investigation unanimously endorsed by the Legislative Council several weeks before Gov. Sarah Palin was elevated to the Republican national ticket as a vice presidential nominee.

The suit filed in the Superior Court of the State of Alaska seeks “declaratory and injunctive relief in the investigation,” according to the attorney hired by Reps. Wes Keller, Mike Kelly, and Bob Lynn along with Sens. Tom Wagoner and Fred Dyson. Named in the suit in addition to the Council were: Sens. Kim Elton, chair of the Council; Hollis French, project director for the investigation; and Steven Branchflower, the investigator hired by the Council.

“While the suit is a distraction,” Sen. Elton said today, “I’m comfortable with the notion that the court will review the substance of the suit and find the Council acted properly and that the decisions made during the course of the investigation so far are appropriate and well within the mandate of the Council.” He added the investigation will continue pending a ruling from the court.

“The silver lining in this action initiated by the five lawmakers,” Elton said, “is that some of that debate now has been kicked to the judicial branch which, unlike the legislature and the governor’s office, is more insulated from the red-hot passion of presidential politics.”

Elton also noted that an attorney will be hired to represent himself, French, Branchwater and the Legislative Council – all the named defendants. Wonder if they have the right to appropriate those funds too….

See all previous Trooper’gate posts here

The mudslinging battles in the two investigations of Sarah Palin just got even muddier… Per the Portland Examiner today, five GOP lawmakers have decided to take legal action in the attempt to halt Sen. Hollis French’s legislative witch hunt.

The Personnel Board investigation will go on as planned.

JUNEAU, Alaska (Map, News) – Five Republican state lawmakers filed suit Tuesday to end the bipartisan investigation into Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s firing of the public safety commissioner even though the vice presidential candidate once said she welcomed the probe into allegations of abuse of power.

The lawsuit called the investigation “unlawful, biased, partial and partisan.” None of the lawmakers who filed the suit in Anchorage Superior Court serves on the bipartisan Legislative Council that unanimously approved the investigation.

Continue reading Steve Quinn’s AP article here

Per an ADN (Anchorage Daily News) article today, Kevin Clarkson, Anchorage attorney for the five GOP lawmakers, sent an email to ADN, giving notice on his filed brief. [Clarkson was interviewed on Mark Levin's talk radio show this afternoon]

But first, I might say I disagree with Ms. Carpenter that there are two filed complaints. I believe there is only one. Reading the link to the brief, it appears the plaintiffs are the five GOP Senators – Robert Bettisworth, James Dodson, Seth Church, David Eichler, Thomas Temple and Alan Simmons – and filed *as* citizens of Alaska, being nailed for expenditures that are illegally appropriated. (None of which, I will add, are members of the Joint Legislative Council)

Now I can’t be sure as I have not seen any additional filed briefs. But who has the standing to file the lawsuit on behalf of the citizens of Alaska – and if any could, it would be their elected officials. And if I’m wrong, I’ll be the first to issue a public “mea culpa”…. LOL

But my first inclination is that the brief is covering the lawmakers, and the lawmakers as citizens…. not two separate complaints asking for declaratory and injunctive relief.

Reasons cited for this action are not a surprise to me… unconstitutional via Alaska’s Constitution under procedure for possible impeachment (under Article II of the Constitutions), jurisdiction and due process.

Again, read the brief link provided above. But there’s a highlight that make me roar…

First, Clarkson alleges Steve Branchflower was not licensed to practice law in Alaska until August 5th. He apparently has some dual residency specifics as both SC and AK. Branchflower, of course, was appointed by Hollis and his merry band, the Legislative Council officially on the 31st of July, and in the news August 1st. ooops….

Back to some other more mundane, but pertinent issues now.

I mentioned in the most recent Trooper’gate post that this particular Alaskan legislative investigation was blazing some new procedural trails. The lawmakers appointed Branchflower (prematurely to his legal practice possibly), and are guiding his investigation by voting on witnesses. Other traditional legislative investigations – per federal law – are only pertinent if they are in connection with legislative development, and the lawmakers are not involved in the process.

Evidently, reading Clarkson’s brief, Alaska is no different.

Secondly, as also mentioned in some previous Trooper’gate posts, this investigation will cost the Alaskan taxpayers $100K. Well, guess what… the Legislative Council has no budget appropriations power to allocate these funds for the investigation. These funds must be appropriated thru the standard procedural legislative process before the full body.

… another oops

Clarkson’s brief goes on to state that the priority jurisdiction belongs to the Personnel Board, per Alaskan law. And if you’re a regular reader of this Trooper’gate series, you’re way ahead of the western MSM on these facts. Clarkson states in his brief:

The parallel investigation of the underlying facts by a partisan legislator serves no purpose other than to highlight the inquiry as a poorly disguised political attack.

Amen to that…

Something else I’ve mentioned several times is that this legislative process may violate Palin’s (and others they plan to investigate) Due Process, per the Alaskan Constitution. And Alaska, on the heels of the McCarthy witch hunts, was very specific in naming legislative investigations in their Declaration of Rights – Due Process in Article I.

Per Clarkson’s brief:

Legislatures are properly and inherently biased and therefore not well suited to serve as neutral adjuticative bodies. Delineating the Constitutional rights of Alaska’s citizens in the shadow of the McCarthy era, the State founders were acutely aware of the dangers of allowing partisan legislators to sit in judgment of their fellow citizens or political adversaries. To insure against that possibility, the Constitution itself guarantees that “the right of all citizens to fair and just treatment in the course of legislative and executive investigations shall not be infringed”. [Alaska Const Article I, Sect. 7]

The same basic concern over the abuse of legislative power inspired the Alaskan Legislature to act again, 50 years hence, to create the Alaskan Personnel Board as the neutral adjuticative body to resolve government ethics disputes, including disputes involving the Governor, in a fair and unbiased fashion. The Personnel Board, not the thinly-veiled “independent” adjuticated inquiry spearheaded by Senator French is the proper forum to conduct a neutral review.

Can I get another *Amen* here! I’ve been shouting this since the onset of this nonsense. Now if those of us that are informed can catch the media up on reality….

For the “declaratory relief”:

The plaintiffs want the courts to rule that the Branchflower investigation is beyond the statutory power of the Legislative Council, and thereby unConstitutional.

For “Due Process” declaratory relief violations, Clarkson points out that Sen French has not only retained control over the investigative process, but is not conducting the process in an unbiased fashion based on his press statements. This, of course, violates Palins due process rights as it is not being handled with “fair and just treatment”, as the Constitution states.

For the injunctive relief”:

Stop Branchflower from spending State money that was appropriated outside the means of the standard procedure, there therefore not within the Legislative Council’s statutory authority. In other words… “freeze”! Funds already spent are outside of any lawful remedy. (Could Branchflower be eating his legal fees already???) The are asking for a temporary restraining order against Branchflower incurring any further costs.

And oh, BTW, the plantiffs are asking for Branchflower to pay for the legal costs incurred for this lawsuit… kewl.

…. okay, added afterthought here. I don’t want to blame Branchflower for Hollis French’s vendetta and lack of legal authority. He’s just a guy accepting a job… even if he is a Monegan buddy. So I’ll be more benevolent, and recant the above as an instinctive evil “heh heh”… and hope that Branchflower sues the begeezus out of French to recoup his legal fees.

It’s been a slow whirlwind of activity on the dual (and dueling) investigations of Sarah Palin, known as Trooper’gate. So I’ll catch you up on both the legislation investigation (aka, the “witchhunt”) and the Personnel Board investigation (aka the authority via Alaskan State law to hear complaints under the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.)

The brief version so many like to have? (which I never recommend, since you should read and form your own opinions…) The legislative investigation has piled on yet one more event in their process that has the AG eyeing them and their methods of investigation warily. So he’s threatening to block their subpoenas unless they change their ways. In the meantime, the PSEA complaint filed with the Personnel Board may have a long row to hoe if they want to tie their medical records “leak” to Palin. And was it a “leak” at all, or merely common knowledge?

Now, the more indepth version with links…

As a brief recap (see more in depth in previous posts… the category linked above), a Personnel Board investigation can’t begin until they receive formal complaints. And as the Head Witch Hunter, Hollis French pointed out on Sept 1st, there were no complaints and therefore the Personnel Board was a moot point. Therefore, he believed the legislative investigation held priority standing.

It was, however, almost simultaneous with his statement that Palin’s Anchorage attorney, Thomas Van Flein, was filing her ethics disclosure/complaint with the AG’s office… thus kickstarting the procedure as per the Ethics Act. Palin’s disclosure dealt with the charges that she set her administration on Monegan, pressuring him to fire Trooper Wooten.

Sept 3rd, John Cyr – Executive Director of the PSAE (the AST union who negotiated Wooten’s suspension reduced from 10 days to 5 days with Col. Julia Grimes) – filed a separate complaint with the AGs office, also to appear before the Personnel Board. The PSEA complaint focuses on what they consider to be an invasion of privacy of Wooten’s personnel file, specifically his workman’s compensation claim. This, Cyr claims, is a violation of AS 39.25.080 in the Alaska State Personnel Act.

Both these complaints/disclosures – tho not briefs – present their case to the AG stating points of law and discussing evidence they have that makes them believe there is a case. The three-person Personnel Board deliberates if the evidence is sufficient to warrant the appointment of an independent counsel/investigator to pursue further…. much like a Grand Jury.

They can also take the facts at hand, and dismiss the charges.

Reading the six page complaint by the PSEA is, of course, recommended. And bear with me here as it’s not a cut/paste friendly document, so this will be summarizing. In my prior posts, I only mentioned it was forthcoming, but had not been yet made available to the public.

The PSEA complaint names as their subjects of investigation Frank Bailey (Palin’s special asst, and now on paid administrative leave for acting without authority), Brad Thompson (Director in the Risk Management in the Dept of Administration), Mike Monagle (brace yourself for a mouthful here… the Administrator for the Fisherman’s Fund Advisory and Appeals Council and the Second Injury Fund sections of the Dept of Workman’s Comp division…. whew…)…. and/or the Governor.

BTW, each violation (assuming one is found guilty of more than one) carries a fine of up to and no more than $5000, and disciplinary action. Heavy duty crime here, eh?

The heart of the complaint lies with the Frank Bailey recorded phone call with Lt. Dial that Cyr suggests would only be known from Wooten’s workman’s compensation file. BTW, in an old WaPo article from Aug 30th, the Alaskan AG had already been doing a review of these charges and found that in all, this phone call was the only one that was determined to be improper.

In July, Palin’s chief of staff told Monegan he was being fired because the governor wanted to “go in a different direction,” Monegan said.

Monegan went public, alleging that his firing was connected to his failure to remove Wooten. The state legislature launched its investigation, and the governor asked the attorney general’s office to conduct an internal investigation.

Barnhill said the review, made public two weeks ago, found that half a dozen officials had made about two dozen phone calls regarding Wooten. But only one call was determined to be improper, a tape-recorded conversation between Palin’s chief of boards and commissions, Frank Bailey, to a police lieutenant.

The others named in Cyr’s PSEA complaint are those that seemed to be in the chain that presumably gave Bailey this information. However note, the Governor is the last (least?) named. From any routing slips for Workman’s Comp files with the filing, evidently Palin is not named as the source requesting the file (or this would be an easier charge to believe, right?)

Instead, this is a complaint to see if Bailey’s personal conversation in question can be linked back to Palin. Todd Palin … who is not an elected official… is not the subject of an Executive Branch Ethics investigation. It must also be noted that Bailey is on record, under oath, that he did not act on any authority of the Governor, nor was requested to act on her behalf. Rather makes linking the two somewhat moot, yes?

So what’s up with a workman’s comp file? Remember, that on Feb 7th, 2008, Wooten signed a release of his entire employment file, including complaints and personnel records, that expired May 1, 2008. Also, the Governor’s office provided a disclosure that Palin had nothing to do with the litigation, and that all records involved with that litigation were procured per state law on discovery procedures.

So how does this all fit in with accusations against both Sarah and Todd Palin? In April of 2007 (approx 4 months after Sarah took office), Todd Palin said he had met with Wooten’s boss one time only, to give her pictures taken of Wooten, out on a snowmobile, when he was supposed to be out on workman’s compensation leave. Whether this was an avid snowmobiler, Todd Palin, having a chance run in with Wooten in the woods, or other methods of obtaining these photos, is not stated. The private investigation of Wooten by the Palins was done years earlier, during the heat of the original complaints mid 2005.

But would it really require scrutiny of a personnel file for the family members, friends and acquaintances to know Wooten was off regular duty on a workman’s comp claim? Or could it be something as simple as “hey Mike, how come you’re not working?” in passing conversation, and thereby commonly known? It’s not necessarily something most strive to keep private. Perhaps the nature of the injury, yes? But collecting a claim?

Now, remember one of the several reasons Gov. Palin’s gave for firing Walt Monegan was over AST recruitment, and that bad behavior by any could reflect on the department as a whole. It remains the task of the Personnel Board to determine if this, combined with an abuse of a workman’s comp claim by an AST, is related and sans violation. But some of those named in the PSEA complaint are part of both the Workman’s Comp division *and* the Admin Dept’s Risk Management department.

An obvious question comes to mind… is an Alaskan trooper, found in violation of collecting workman’s compensation funds under false pretenses, fair game for investigation by these departments? And when an administration discovers these violations and/or corruption, should they be bound to report them to the proper division? Or, because of the past relationship with Wooten, should they have turned a blind eye?

Senior Assistant Attorney General Michael Barnhill had comments on Sept 11th about communications between the Governor’s administration, and Wooten’s superiors on what may be a violation of Wooten’s workman’s compensation claim… and even more importantly, how they fall in context for the Personnel Act that Cyr quotes in his PSEA ethics complaint.

Barnhill took exception to statements made by Sen. Hollis French, the Democrat who heads the Senate Judiciary Committee. French was quoted early this month as saying that if the governor’s office obtained confidential information from Wooten’s personnel file “it would be a violation of state law.”

Under state law, personnel records of state employees are confidential except for names, titles, dates of employment and compensation. Under standard operating procedures set out by the Department of Administration, which maintains many personnel records, routine access to confidential documents “is limited to those employees who must use state personnel records in order to perform their regular ongoing assigned job duties.”

But nothing in those regulations prevents the governor from assigning staff members to review personnel files, Barnhill said.

It is, in fact, French’s unethical prosecution of his legislative investigation that had Barnhill threatening to block the legislature’s subpoenas bac on Sept 11th. [Note: same article as linked above]

In a letter made public Thursday, Senior Assistant Attorney General Michael Barnhill promised to go to court to block the subpoenas “unless the current manner of pursuing the investigation changes.”

At the same time, Barnhill outlined a potential compromise: If lawmakers agree that the governor has legal authority to designate staff to review confidential personnel files, the staff members will voluntarily speak with the Legislature’s investigator _ no subpoenas necessary.

~~~

“Conducting these depositions under an improper threat of potential prosecution is unfair,” Barnhill wrote.

If the lawmakers agree in writing with his interpretation of the Personnel Act, he said, the attorney general’s office “will drop its objections and the depositions may proceed without subpoenas.”

Sen. Kim Elton, who chairs the Legislative Council, was on a plane and could not be reached for comment Thursday. An aide, Jesse Kiehl, said: “He’s read the letter. I don’t believe that we have written back.”

Barnhill acknowledged that if any administration officials improperly disclosed information from Wooten’s personnel file, that could violate the law. But, he said, he knows of no evidence any did so.

As of the Anchorage Daily News today, however, there are some administrative members that have agreed to testify anyway. But after reading the details of the reasons of why the AG’s office wanted to block the subpoenas, the ADN prefer to lead their readership’s opinion by using the language instead that “the Palin administration was threatening to quash the subpoenas.

Troopergate showdown may be avoided. The Wall Street Journal Washington Wire blog reported Sunday that at least two of the witnesses who received subpoenas Friday plan to testify. This word came after news last week that the Palin administration was threatening to quash the subpoenas.

On Sunday, Annette Kreitzer, Gov. Palin’s commissioner of administration, said in a telephone interview that she has agreed to testify, probably as soon as this coming week. “My understanding (is) it’s not just me but everyone,” Ms. Kreitzer said, clarifying that by “everyone” she meant the four witnesses who worked directly in her unit at the Department of Administration.

Nicki Neal, another witness on the to-be-subpoenaed list, also agreed to speak to investigators without a subpoena.

And speaking of those subpoenas, just who’s in charge of this witch hunt anyway? Is Steve Branchflower an “independent” counsel, or merely a puppet of French and the Alaskan lawmakers? And how does this process compare to what we know of other legislative investigations at the federal or state level?

As for who’s in charge, we should have had a heads up when on Friday we read that the legislators “voted” to subpoena Todd Palin and twelve other witnesses.

Well, one smart cookie at Townhall, Amanda Carpenter, picked up on that bizarre event and started putting two and two together within the next 24 hours.

Investigator Steven Branchflower admitted he had ceded control of his subpoena list to Sen. Hollis French (D.) during Alaska’s Joint Judiciary Committee September 12 hearing that was scheduled to approve subpoena requests. French is a partisan who has endorsed Palin’s Democratic presidential ticket rival Barack Obama for president and is actively supporting his candidacy.

Lawmakers approved 13 of Branchflower’s subpoena requests that day, which included one for Palin’s husband, Todd. Four other subpoenas were approved for aides Branchflower believes participated in a meeting called by Palin’s former chief of staff Mike Tibbles where Wooten’s firing was allegedly discussed.

Rep. David Guttenberg (D.) asked Branchflower why he was requesting subpoenas for only those people attending the meeting and not Tibbles himself.

Branchflower said he would “have to defer that question to Mr. French.”

Have a listen to the complete audio exchange yourself…

What’s so danged bizarre about this is that most federal and/or state legislative investigations have independent investigator/counsels that are appointed either by the Atty General’s office, or some Board that answers to the AG’s office (as in Alaska’s situation). It was in the wake of the expiration of the Independent Counsel’s Act (June 1999) where both sides of the aisle felt that the law perpetuated unfair and biased witch hunts. Even Ken Starr himself came out in favor of sunsetting the law when due for expiration.

Even at that, in other federal and/or state legislative investigations, which were appointed by the AG, the legislators were not involved in the investigation itself… not the witness lists, not nada… nothing.

So how is it French and company pick the indy counsel, then tell the indy counsel who to interview, who not to interview, and remain so involved in the process? And why is it a letter from Palin’s attorney to the independent counselor, requesting witness lists disclosures etal, is responded to by Sen. Hollis French, and not the independent counsel himself?

As Dem Rep. David Guttenberg says in the audio… “something’s fishy here”.

It is, for these reasons, that the legislative investigation has been revealed to be a politically motivated witch hunt from early on. And while lawmakers do have the right to investigate as part of their oversight responsibilities, they are also required by the Alaskan State Constitution not to deny fair due process to those under investigation, as stated in their Declaration of Rights.

Then there is the matter of their efficiency, which makes this being political in nature even more suspect. Despite the appointment of Steve Branchflower as independent counsel back on Aug 1st, they had yet to interview any of those central to the investigation even a month later. In that time, French himself has been quoted in the media as it being tandamount to possible impeachment, and “very damaging”… all without interviews.

Yet the media still only focuses on the legislative investigation, and ignores the Personnel Board process. Gee… wonder why?