The Trooper’gate story moves forward. And the latest is an AP article by Matt Voltz documenting Alaskan GOP Rep. John Coghill requesting removal of Sen. Hollis French as the lawmaker in charge of the Trooper’gate legislative investigation.
UPDATE 9-8-08: Per today’s Juneau Empire, Coghill’s letter of French’s obvious bias in the media fell on the deaf ears of the Alaskan Legislative Council. “Democratic Sen. Kim Elton responded that he is sure that partisan politics can be kept out of the probe.” To make a long story short… The Dem council member leader has assured Coghill that French’s belief that Palin is guilty, as he’s stated oft time in the media, will not affect his leadership of the witch hunt.
Nope… guess it won’t. All Elton did was to confirm that the witch for a guilty Palins was sanctioned…. thank you very much. That’s all we needed to know in order the confirm the nation’s focus should remain on the legitimate Personnel Board process.
END UPDATE
A Republican lawmaker wants the Democrat overseeing an investigation into Gov. Sarah Palin’s dismissal of her public safety commissioner removed because he seems intent on damaging her vice presidential candidacy.
Democratic state Sen. Hollis French “appears to be steering the direction of the investigation, its conclusion and its timing in a manner that will have maximum partisan political impact on the national and state elections,” state Rep. John Coghill said in a letter dated Friday.
Coghill, from North Pole, is on the Alaska Legislature’s Legislative Council, the body that appointed French to oversee the investigation. The letter was sent to the council chairman, Sen. Kim Elton, D-Juneau, whom Coghill asks to convene a meeting to discuss whether French should be replaced.
Coghill said the council instructed French, an Anchorage Democrat, to keep politics out of the investigation.
“He just failed that, in my view,” Coghill told The Associated Press Saturday.
Elton did not immediately return a message left at his office.
~~~Coghill wrote in the letter that French was quoted in media reports that the results of the probe were going to be an “October surprise” that is “likely to be damaging to the administration.” The comments lead Coghill to believe the investigation is lacking in fairness, neutrality and due process, he wrote.
Coghill said he was not approached by the McCain-Palin campaign to draft the letter, but that he called the campaign to “apprise” them of the letter.
“I’m on my own in this one,” he said.
It sure has taken a long time for anyone to notice the obvious political quest driving this joke of an investigation. Especially since Alaskans are paying $100K for this witch hunt.
In the meantime, the genuine (and, IMHO, preferred) legal procedure for investigating ethics violations under The Ethics Act thru the Personnel Board is also commencing.
Believe it or not, Daily KOs is waking up, however belated, to the fact there are two investigations ongoing. And, to their credit, they have also noted that Palin specifically waived all confidentiality that is normally applied to Board ethics investigatons INRE her complaint. So they are scratching their heads as to why the advertised Board meeting is confidential.
Since there are two complaints… Palin’s INRE the termination of Walt Monegan, and John Cyr of the PSEA (Wooten’s Trooper union, who helped get his suspension reduced) INRE Wooten’s medical records, it could be that the meeting may be dealing with both. Although Palin is on record for the proceedings to be open, we have not seen the complaint from Wooten’s union. We do not know if they have waived confidentiality as well. Since the Board may be dealing with both simultaneously, this may be one reason. However, according to the Daily KOs post, they were not sure how the waiver of confidentiality applied to Board meetings.
However, per AS 39.52.340, the subject of the investigation can waive confidentiality protection in writing, as Palin has done. In the case of the 2nd complaint, Palin is not likely to be the only subject of the complaint.
While we’re on the Personnel Board… I wanted to find out how they worked, as they are the legal procedure authorized for ethics complaints against public officials. I ran across a Dec 2005 decision of the Board INRE a complaint against a public official involved in negotiations with the gas line, and his personal investments constituting a conflict of interest. While the case itself has nothing to do with Palin, there is some interesting backgroun information on the Ethics Act incorporated that I thought I would share.
II. The Ethics Act
The Legislature created the Ethics Act to provide standards of appropriate behavior for public officials and a way for citizens to enforce those standards. [Emphasis mine] In order to avoid unnecessary interference with legitimate governmental decision-making, the Ethics Act distinguishes between minor and inconsequential conflicts of interest, which do not violate the Act, and material and substantial conflicts of interest, which do.8
After reading the above, it’s plain that that this process was designed to have citizens… not lawmakers… investigate and enforce the Ethics Act. It also tells me they were quite mindful of not having their lawmakers being tied up in the business of prosecution, and ignoring their stated tasks.
This thought is confirmed in the ensuing section from the same Board decision above.
III. The Role of Independent Counsel in Determining Whether and How to Investigate an Ethics Complaint
The Personnel Board, Attorney General’s office, and designated ethics supervisors generally are responsible for applying the Ethics Act. When an ethics complaint is filed against the governor, lieutenant governor or attorney general, the complaint is referred to the Personnel Board, which retains Independent Counsel to perform the duties ordinarily performed by the attorney general.11 Independent Counsel reviews the complaint to determine whether it contains factual allegations which, if true, would constitute a violation of the Act.12 If so, Independent Counsel is charged with investigating the complaint to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that a violation of the chapter has occurred.13
The Act does not specify how an investigation is to be conducted or whether all complaints must or should be investigated in the same manner. Independent Counsel must exercise independent judgment to determine whether an investigation should be opened and, if so, how to investigate. In making this decision, Independent Counsel must carefully balance the obligation to enforce the Act with the need to evaluate complaints in a manner that does not unnecessarily interfere with ongoing government business.
Since this is the State’s mandated way of handling ethic complaints, just what is the purpose of this legislative investigation? And if they were interested in the truth, why didn’t they file the complaints and start this process in the proper fashion from the onset?
Again, to quote directly from Alaska’s Constitution in Article I: Declaration of Rights on Due Process:
§ 7. Due Process
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. The right of all persons to fair and just treatment in the course of legislative and executive investigations shall not be infringed.
Considering that French refused Palin’s attorney, Thomas Van Flein, any reasonable discovery, such as witness lists, etal… and add to that they were planning to ignore the State’s legal process to determine if Palin engage in violations of ethics, was French violating Palin’s Constitutional rights of due process?
I’m no attorney, but it sure looks like French is going the extra mile to avoid the Board investigation… Had Palin’s attorney not gotten wise, Palin could be tried by a body that’s had more than it’s fair share of corruption investigation from the feds… how ironic.
Perhaps the best reason for following State procedures was stated in the above reference final Board decision of the public official, being investigated for his negotiations while simultaneously being vested in the companies involved.
On one hand, it seems wholly appropriate to read complaints broadly to effectuate the purposes of the Ethics Act and investigate complaints which may state a claim, even if the claim appears unlikely to succeed. On the other hand, those responsible for interpreting and applying the Ethics Act should guard against frivolous complaints and attempts to use the Act as a political or strategic tool to attack policy decisions with which they disagree, but which are not unethical. This is especially so at the highest levels of government. If not administered carefully, the Ethics Act could create a system that harms the public by distracting government officials from their public duties in order to respond to complaints and investigations.
Considering the nature of the complaints, and the man at the heart of the complaints, Mike Wooten, any investigation appears to be nothing but political. Having the Alaskan lawmakers instead of the Personnel Board make that call is anything but fair and just due process.
Vietnam era Navy wife, indy/conservative, and an official California escapee now residing as a red speck in the sea of Oregon blue.
A couple more recent developments…
Not WRIGHT for America (http://www.notwrightforamerica.com) has layed out smoking gun proof about how Hollis French has lied about his role in the investigation. French just said yesterday (it’s quoted in the AFP article) that the investigation is independent–they hired a supposedly independent investigator, Stephen Branchflower–and French said he has not influenced the investigation in any way. But he admitted previously to telling Branchflower to deny requests from Palin’s lawyer!
Isn’t telling someone what to do “influencing” them?!
There’s also a question of whether Trooper Mike Wooten’s alleged death threat against Palin’s father was confirmed by the internal investigation. The Anchorage Daily News says yes, The Washington Post says no. This is a key detail.
As usual the blogs are doing yeoman’s work on this. Riehl World View (www.riehlworldview.com) exposed how French is on the record as an Obama supporter! Stay tuned, I think French’s days are numbered…
Gyspy, as I pointed in out earliest posts about Trooper’gate, French has *never* been neutral… nor the investigative process. And it started with hiring Branchwater… whom I also pointed out in the first posts is far from removed from Monegan and the issues via his relationship.
The only thing new here today is that perhaps legislators, and media, just *might* be picking up on it… finally. I mean, when the Daily KOs finally gets it that there are TWO investigations, one created JUST for this kind of ethics violation, this is genuinely news. Ask the average viewer. They think the legislative investigation is the whole enchilada, and think it’s THE way to go….
However I do disagree about your suggestion that French is unduly influencing the investigation. The Indy Counsel works *for* the Alaskan legislature. French, as the head of the investigation for the legislature, is Branchwater’s client. They are obligated to act on their behalf, and on their orders… even if they aren’t wise orders.
Granted, as I pointed out in my 9/3/post INRE the exchanged letters French ignored traditional ex parte behavior by responding directly to Van Flein’s letter to Branchwater (his employed legal counsel). However French – as representative of Branchwater’s employer, the Alaska Congress – is fully within his rights to do so. He’s not out of line. He’s just ignoring the legal risk at providing the opposition with verbal and written “fuel”, so to speak.
You are doing good work on your NotWrightforAmerica blog. But may I make a suggestion? You are missing the larger point here. There are two investigations. One is the legal procedure, and designed to represent and enforce the people’s will (Personnel Board/Ethics Act).
The other is the legislative investigation which, by the nature of it’s secretive and politically motivated charges, is not on a par with the Personnel Board.
The goal is to emphasize the legal process more, and the political process less. i.e…. two investigations, one more politically neutral and legally sanctioned more than the other.
I might also suggest that you create a “read more” link at the bottom of your posts to get people to your site. We have many “reader posts” who do that as well. No problems in spreading the word, guy. It’s always a good idea to keep the truths moving in as many avenues as possible.
MataHarley-
Thanks for the suggestions. Not WRIGHT for America is actually not my blog but I do know Tim Brugger, who is the editor. I will pass your suggestions along to him.
I think you are right about the legal/political investigation distinction.
However, I have to differ with you on the independent counsel. The whole reason for it is to have someone investigating who can realistically say to be independent. This is destroyed when the person who hired the independent investigator starts calling the shots, as appears to be the case here.
Thank you for your work on this. I’ve been reading your updates faithfully since I found them last week.
I have a question, which may have been answered but I missed it. If things do not go Palin’s way, what is the punishment? Impeachment? Jail? Probation? I’ve not read anything about it.
Oyster, I would guess that the penalty would depend on what they determine. Past Board decisions have included financial penalties, suspension. If you listen to Sen. French, he’s says impeachment as a “worst case” scenerio for his legislative investigation.
The medical records charge is something different. The man directly linked to that is Bailey, not Palin, at this time. So one would think that they’d first have to find Palin associated with that action, and would accommodate with any penalties as abetting. Bailey would face the maximum penalty on that, and I don’t know what state or federal laws come into play for punishment.
Must still disagree, Gypsy Man, INRE the actual “independence” of an independent counselor. Two realities for you to mull over.
1: The Independent Counsel is hired by the Alaskan legislators, and serves at their will. It’s somewhat unrealistic to assume your “employer” cannot have some say in the direction of the investigation.
2: Taking that further, Scalia noted the difference between traditional and independent legislative investigations in a dissenting opinion on the now defunct Independent Counsel Act. A traditional investigation focuses on the crime, then finds out who is involved.
An Independent Counsel is instructed to investigate a particular individual and find any crimes he or she may have committed, not just the most serious crimes or the crimes he or she was appointed to investigate.
Not unlike a witch hunt, eh?
I have never been a fan of legislative investigations and the independent counsels. It seems like a separate judicial system on it’s own, and devoid in basic rights of due process.
Both the legislative and independent counsels should be replaced with someone from outside the State who does not have a dog in the fight. She did shake things up and surely has some enemies within the legisative ranks. I mean you don’t just get away with having a State prosecutor indicted without raising the rankles of some of those Washington big wigs, who were taking pork barrel money and directly benefitting themselves. I am sure that she was a pain in the neck of those who could not have business as usual. So the witch hunt begins, to bad, we always destroy those who bring reform. Which is exactly what Washington needs.
Tick. Tick. Tick.
Needless to say, the investigation has been botched unbelievably for political gain. Which is in turn going to hurt Alaskan Democrats.
BTW, MataHarley, you’re in Oregon. As am I. If you see my e-mail as put forth on this post, contact me.
To answer one of the other commenter’s questions, the punishment would be impeachment, if that’s where the Legislature decides to go, which I doubt. In his haste to smear Palin in the media even before the investigation is complete, French has mentioned this twice.
There’s also a new development–Kim Elton, the one who wrote the letter keeping French on as investigator, turns out to be an Obama supporter also. Not WRIGHT for America has posted a photo of French and Elton with Obama signs, which was apparently provided by http://carlosechevarria.blogspot.com/ (Let’s Get it Right).