Sarah Palin

Alaska Legislative Report: Sarah Palin ABUSED Authority in Firing of Alaska Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan

October 10, 2008 /
Sarah Palin and Walter Monegan

A committee investigating Gov. Sarah Palin found that she unlawfully abused her authority in firing Walter Monegan, right, the state’s public safety commissioner. Photoshop courtesy of the New York Times

A State of Alaska legislative report today finds that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin unlawfully abused her authority in the firing of Walter Monegan, Alaska’s public safety commissioner.

The 263 page report is here (PDF file)

The findings:

Palin-legislative-report-fi


Key Graph:

The report, which was commissioned and released by a bipartisan state legislative panel made up of 10 Republicans and 4 Democrats, said: “The evidence supports the conclusion that Governor Palin, at the least, engaged in ‘official action’ by her inaction if not her active participation or assistance to her husband in attempting to get Troooper Wooten fired [and there is evidence of her active participation].”

So, is this report as devastating as it looks upon a first read?

Perhaps.

The story although it is new to the lower 48 states is old news in the small state of Alaska where Sarah Palin has remained popular while the charges wee flying. Alaskans know that Alaska trooper Mike Wooten, Palin’s former brother-in-law is not a sympathetic or even likeable fellow.

But, when you start flinging around charges of “ABUSE OF POWER” voters do take a second look.

For this reason, months ago, Flap although a supporter of Sarah Palin cautioned that Team McCain might be reluctant to select her until this FLAP ran its course.

GOP Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, currently tied for third among possible Vice Presidential running mates for John McCain on Intrade, faces a probe into whether she abused her office in order to fire Department of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan.

Will the investigation ordered up on Monday by the Alaska Legislature derail her chances to be named by John McCain?

Probably

The timing could not have been worse for any Palin chance at the Vice Presidency.

John McCain is rising in the latest polls and while Sarah Palin is a rising GOP star she is relatively inexperienced as compared to Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty and former Governors Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. Plus, Palin is from Alaska where a GOP United States Senator has been indicted on corruption charges – just this week and their lone Congressman (also a Republican) is under FBI investigation.

John McCain and the national GOP will choose a safer candidate – at least for now.

Sarah-Palin-and-Troopergate

Photoshop Courtesy of The Page

McCain didn’t and now will have to explain the legislative committee findings – rather than concentrate on winning a Presidential election.

On the other hand, Sarah Palin’s so-called abuse of power is based on her INACTION of reining in her husband, Todd Palin who stated in signed affidavits that his wife, the Governor, DID tell him to give the whole matter a rest.

So, say what, if there is NOT clear and convincing evidence of Palin’s active participation in the flap? Read pages 65-67 of the report and see if you buy the conclusions of the legal consultant, Stephen Branchflower, hired to draft the report for the Alaska Legislative Council.

Stay tuned for the Palin and Team McCain response.

Update:

Here is a response by McCain-Palin before the report was issued. Guess they knew it was coming.

Previous:

Sarah Palin Watch: The Obligatory I Didn’t Do It

Sarah Palin Watch: Alaska Supreme Court Clears The Way for Troopergate Report

Vice President Ambitions Derailed for Alaska Governor Sarah Palin?

Technorati Tags:

16 Comments

  • DG

    October 11, 2008 at 5:20 am

    Does anyone see a connection between Sarah Palin’s relatively “minor” abuse of executive power in Alaska and her statement during her debate regarding expanding the office of the Vice President? Hmmmmmm…Is this a theme?

  • Ling

    October 11, 2008 at 9:40 am

    Tell you the truth, I liked her better before she was chosen as VP nominee. She seemed like this earnest crusader who was clearing out the corruption in Alaska. But looking at her image in the media now, that seems like another person altogether. Probably the media’s fault, I think…

  • Flap

    October 11, 2008 at 11:36 am

    Ling,

    I have to agree with you.

    Palin will weather this storm and come back stronger in 2012 after another term as Alaska Governor and probably a term in the US Senate.

  • AttyKoppel

    October 11, 2008 at 5:20 pm

    Much confusion has been generated by the legislative report’s seemingly inconsistent findings that Palin abused her power, but that there was nothing “improper” about Monaghan’s firing. The finding validating the firing appears to be premised on decisions holding that at will employees may be terminated without good cause or for any cause..

    Branchwater may have overlooked the Alaska Supreme Court’s recent recognition of the “public interest” exception to the “at will” employment contract rule. See the November 2, 2007, opinion in Miller v. Safeway and its discussion of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in all contracts, including at will employment contracts.

    ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

    I am a seasoned attorney and an Obama suppporter, and not a reluctant one at than, but I like McCain although he his behavior in the last few months troubles me. I am a Vietnam Veteran. I have voted the straight Republican ticket for over 30years, but there is no way I will vote to put Palin in office. My comment is a two edge sword, as it casts some doubt on the report to the legislative council.
    It seems that the MSM is confused, Fox News is confused, and the people are confused over how Branchwater could have found that Palin abused the power of office in pressuring Moneghan to fire Trooper Wooten, but Branchwater also found that her firing of Moneghan was a proper and lawful exercise of Palin’s constitutional and statutory authority. Permit me to explore the issue.

    The inconsistency may stem from Branchwater’s possibly incomplete understanding of Alaskan employment law. See the discussion around page 66 of the report regarding Alskan law of wrongful termination. Branchwater appears to believe that any employer’s, not only but including the Governor of Alaska’s, firing of an “at will” employee is proper and lawful in the sense that the court’s will not set it aside. Check the date of the legal decisions he cites in support of his finding and then look at the Alaska Supreme Court 2007 decision in Miller v. Safeway. Miller held that even an at will employee may not be fired for reasons in violation of public policy.

    “The objective prong of the covenant (of good and fair dealing that is implied in every contract, including an unwritten employment contract) is breached when an employer fails to act in a manner that a reasonable person would consider fair, which includes treating similarly situated employees disparately, terminating employees on unconstitutional grounds, and terminating employees in violation of public policy.” Miller v. Safeway. (Parenthetical statement added by me for clarity.)

    There may be some Alskan rule of which I am not aware that explains Branchwater’s failure to discuss the impact of Miller. Some states uphold a firing for reasons against public policy so long as it is not the sole reason but other legitimate reasons led to the firing. That may be the case, as I see that Mr. Branchwater refers to the fact that the Monaghan’s refusal to fire Wooten was the sole reason for the Commissioner’s termination.

    Hopefully this answers more questions than it raises.

  • AttyKoppel

    October 12, 2008 at 2:43 am

    I tool a look at the post from “Beldar” and was not that impressed. True, the arguments are well written and beautifully represented, but the logic was a bit superficial and sophmoric. Anyone with a temperature abover 80 degrees would have recognized the logical inconsitency between finding that Palin violated the ethic law by pressuring Monagan and the finding his actual firing was proper and lawful.

    Another ten minutes with the aid of google confirmed the suspicion I mentioned in the final paragraph of my earlier post. “Some states uphold a firing for reasons against public policy so long as it is not the sole reason but other legitimate reasons led to the firing. That may be the case, as I see that Mr. Branchwater refers to the fact that the Monaghan’s refusal to fire Wooten was the sole reason for the Commissioner’s termination.” Alaska does indeed apply the doctine of “mixed motives”.

    “In mixed-motives cases, the employer “must show that its legitimate reason, standing alone, would have induced it to make the same decision. ” See Alaska Law Review at http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?24+Alaska+L.+Rev.+287#H2N2 . While Branchflower doesn’t make any reference to the rule of mixed motives, his discussion of the reasons for his conclusion illustrates that he was aware of the the Governor had valid motives for firing Monegan. See the finding that Monegan’s refusal to fire Wooten was not the sole reason for his termination and there was evidence that he was not a team player and the Governor had loss confidence in him.

    While it isn’t clear that Brachflower was that conversant with “mixed motive” termination law, and he failed to mention it and the public policy exception to the at will rule for some reason, perhaps the press of getting the report together in time for the Judicial Council’s meet, which would have been difficult given the last minute filing of the witness affidavits, I now see where there really is no internal inconsistency in the two findings.

    Palin abused her power, but the termination still was proper and lawful because, in addition to being motivated by Monegan’s refusal to fire Wooten, Branchwater found that he would still have been fired solely on account of valid motives; the loss of confidence and not being a team player.

  • AttyKoppel

    October 12, 2008 at 11:50 am

    I would add to my comment on the “Beldar” post. I don’t doubt that he is a very good attorney, but even the best can only do so much when pressed to advocate a losing argument.

  • Flap

    October 13, 2008 at 6:47 am

    @7

    I believe Beldar has been practicing law for over thirty years in Texas. Your comments that his analysis are superifical leads me to believe you are not an attorney.

    Prove it to me (you can e-mail me your bar number) and we can resume this conversation.

  • Flap

    October 13, 2008 at 3:22 pm

    How did i know this was going to turn out to be an insult contest rather than a discussion.

    There is no reason to continue this discussion with you since you have your own blog that does nothing but bash Sarah Palin.

    Good luck with that.

    By the way, you did not link your blog on your first few posts #5,7 and 8 here because it hadn’t been created yet.

  • AttyKoppel

    October 13, 2008 at 4:14 pm

    How did i know this was going to turn out to be an insult contest rather than a discussion. (You began by insulting me, when you implied that I lied about being an attorney.)

    There is no reason to continue this discussion with you since you have your own blog that does nothing but bash Sarah Palin. (Fine. Don’t even take a shot at trying to disprove me. Its much easier not to pay attention to anyone that isn’t like minded.

    Good luck with that. (Thank you.)

    By the way, you did not link your blog on your first few posts #5,7 and 8 here because it hadn’t been created yet. (Brilliant! This is my first experiment with blogging.)

    AttyKoppels last blog post..Alaskan Independence Party VP calls United States military forces "occupation troops"

  • Flap

    October 15, 2008 at 2:31 pm

    Sorry your comment was sent to spam.

    I have worked for and with many attorneys over my career and I rarely have met one who resorts to ad hominem attacks like you.

    Guess it is the last resort when you cannot even get your facts straight.

    Good luck with the blogging.

    Update:

    Now, your blog blog post has been deleted. Guess the experiment failed?

  • AttyKoppel

    October 15, 2008 at 2:54 pm

    You began the attack by accusing me of lying.

    If my facts were wrong, you wouldn’t be afraid to discuss them.

    Thank you for poiting out that something appears to have been deleted. It is still up and growing. I may have done something to make it seem to have disappeared, when I was adding html code.

    Thanks for wishing me well.

    BTW. You won’t believe this, but I was asked to do a post an McCain that I began, but tabled as in doing the research I determined the underlying facts haven’t been proven to my satisfaction. At least not yet and I don’t think they will be. The subject is McCain’s alleged complicity in the abandonment of missing POWs. It hits very close to home.

    AttyKoppels last blog post..John McCain vetted Palin better than known