You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Ethics’ category.
In case the Troopergate matter was forgotten, Sarah Palin has been found guilty of ANOTHER ethics violation. This violation related to the fund she established to help with legal fees. It wasn’t nearly as egregious as the tax credit matter, but equally unethical.
The letter below is being sent to every legislator in Alaska. Please urge the legislators to appoint a legislative committee and hold Sarah Palin accountable to the taxpayers in Alaska.
December 16, 2011
Re: Appointment of Legislative Review Committee
One million two hundred thousand dollars is the cost to Alaskan tax payers for the making of Sarah Palin’s Alaska. Two million dollars is the income Sarah Palin received as a result of starring in and serving as the executive producer of Sarah Palin’s Alaska. The outrageous thing is that in making the show and earning two million dollars Palin was taking advantage of legislation she signed into law before she resigned as Governor. By profiting during the two years after she served as Governor from this film, Palin clearly and irrefutably violated violation of A.S. 39.52.180. That particular statute of the Ethics Code prohibits the Governor of Alaska, for a period of two years after leaving office, from profiting from a matter that was under consideration while she was Governor. “Matter” expressly includes “proposal or consideration of a legislative bill…or other legislative measures…” A.S. 44.33.236 is a piece of legislation considered during Palin’s short term as Governor, which she approved and signed into law, and which allows a film company to receive a tax credit of the very type Jean Worldwide received for the making of Sarah Palin’s Alaska. Several facts make the award of this tax credit even more offensive than the mere fact that Sarah Palin violated the ethics code by profiting from legislation she approved while Governor.
- During the time Palin served as Governor, she met with film companies and discussed the possibility of making a film in Alaska. (See tab 5) Alaska tax payers paid for Palin’s expenses for her trip to California to meet with these companies.
- Palin resigned from her position as Governor within two weeks of the date the film tax incentive program became operative. (See tab 5)
- Sarah Palin’s Alaska should never have qualified for the film tax credit because the film was political in nature. Sarah Palin admitted this in a public interview. (tab 1). Twenty three specific examples of political comments were cited to the film office to bring this matter to their attention (tab 1) and they ignored the information. (tab 2)
- Sarah Palin’s Alaska should never have qualified for the film tax credit because it was against the best interest of Alaskans. The film promoted unhealthy eating, allowing children to ride in motor vehicles unrestrained in contravention of Alaskan laws, and the film promoted pregnancy of unwed teenagers. (tab 1)
- John Burns, the Attorney General, denied the ethics complaint, asserting that “legislation” was not “legislation,” even though the statute in question was specifically amended to include “legislation” before Sarah Palin relied upon this tax credit legislation to make millions of dollars. (tab 4)
- Two additional films have already applied for film tax credits that feature Sarah Palin or members of her family. (tab 5) Sarah Palin and Todd have recently been reported to be shopping the idea of another show featuring Todd Palin on his snowmobile.
Governor Sean Parnell has been contacted regarding this ethics complaint. Randy Ruaro, his Deputy Chief of Staff, has identified the appointment of a legislative review committee that could be appointed by the Alaska Legislature as the appropriate way to address this problem. He cited Art. II, Sec. 11 of the Alaska Constitution. (tab 6)
It is time to hold Sarah Palin accountable for the ethics violation of A.S. 39.52.180. She was found to have violated the Alaska Ethics code in the Troopergate matter, but later claimed she had been vindicated.
The people of Alaska deserve better. I implore you to consider the appointment of a bipartisan legislative committee to consider this ethics violation. Thank You!
Sincerely,
Malia Litman
This article is Part III of the discussion of the Texas Emerging Technology Fund (TETF). The previous articles are here. In these articles the unequivocal facts indicate that Rick Perry, through the Texas Technology Fund has diverted tax payer money to his supporters. The State has produced virtually no accounting, and state auditors have cited over 20 infractions of common accounting practices regarding the fund. The Governor’s office hung up on me when I tried to get basic information relating to any revenue paid to the state by recipients of millions of dollars in state funds. E-mails were not returned. It has been one week since I made phone calls and placed e-mail inquiries to the Office of the Governor, the Emerging Technology Fund, and to the Governor’s press office. No information has been provided, no return calls have been placed, no return e-mails have been forthcoming.
This final article documents just a few of the outrageous payments of money to specific donors of Rick Perry. Undoubtedly there are many more examples, but it is difficult to connect the donors and recipients of the money, as the recipients are companies, and it is difficult or impossible to determine the identity of all the people associated with the recipients of the millions of dollars given out by the Texas Emerging Technology fund.
1. Charles Tate has donated a total of $424,000 to Perry. Tate had investments in ThromboVision, which was awarded $1.5 million from ETF on 4/20/07. ThromboVision declared bankruptcy on 9/2/10. Shortly before the declaration of bankruptcy, Charles Tate donated $100,000 to Perry’s campaign on 5-25-10. ETF did not know about bankruptcy filing until it was reported in the news. .
Tate also had investments in OrthoAccel Technologies, which was awarded $750,000 on 2/2008 from the ETF.
Mr. Tate also started the Texas Life Sciences Center for Innovation and Commercialization which vets applicants for ETF. Hence Mr. Tate himself, has become an integral part of the process of approving companies who are awarded millions of dollars of tax payer monies. Perhaps Governor Perry thought it would be convenient to consolidate the process of applying for state money and the awarding of state money in the same person to limit the expense associated with reviewing an application. After all, who better to know whether Mr. Tate’s companies should be awarded tax dollars, than Mr. Tate himself?
2. Charles Miller has donated $125,000 to Perry and also had investments in ThromboVision.
3. Phil Adams has donated $315,000 to Perry. Adams also went to Texas A&M with Perry. Adams had investments in Terrabon, which was awarded $2.75 million from ETF on 7/30/10.
Adams has also employed Perry’s children, given Perry Big 12 tickets, and provided transportation and lodging for games.
4. James Leininger has donated $265,000 to Perry and is investor in Gradalis, which was awarded $1.75 million from ETF on 2/2009.
Leininger has also taken Perry on hunting trips, paid for Perry’s airfare, room and board and given Perry tickets to Spurs game.
5. John McHale has donated $50,000 to Perry and is an investor in Gradalis.
6. Joe Aragona, general partner at Austin Ventures, donated $80,000 to Perry. His donations included the $25,000.00 award of 6/29/2006.
Austin Ventures was invested in, and had board members on, NanoCoolers, which received $3 million on 3/2009 from ETF. The company closed 8 months later on 11/2009.
7. William McMinn has donated $152,000 to Rick Perry. McMinn had investments in Carbon Nanotechnologies, which was awarded $975,000 from ETF.
8. David Nance has donated $80,000 to Rick Perry. Mr. Nance had only $1,000 of his own money invested in Convergen, it received $4.5 million from ETF in 2009.
The regional panel that reviewed Convergen’s application turned down the company’s $4.5 million request when it presented its proposal on Oct. 7, 2009. But Mr. Nance appealed that decision directly to a statewide advisory committee (of which Mr. Nance was once a member) appointed by Mr. Perry. Just eight days later, on Oct. 15, a subcommittee unanimously recommended approval by the full statewide committee. On Oct. 29, the full advisory committee unanimously recommended the approval of Convergen’s application. When asked why the advisory committee felt comfortable recommending Convergen’s grant, Lucy Nashed, a spokesperson for Mr. Perry, said that the committee “thoroughly vetted the company.” “Lucy” was one of the people in Governor Perry’s office that did not return my calls or e-mails, even though the Director of the ETF sent me an e-mail confirming that she would be calling me back.
9. Charles Amato has donated $32,000 to Perry. He had investments in Seno Medical Instruments, which received $2 million in ETF money.
This detailed analysis demonstrates a pattern or routine of Rick Perry and the Texas Emerging Technology Fund of giving away taxpayer money to supporters of Rick Perry. Thus Rick Perry used tax payer money to support his campaign for Governor, and now President. No wonder Rick Perry has so much money for his campaign. No wonder Rick Perry has been elected Governor of Texas for three terms. In Texas we have the best government that money can buy, and that’s a pathetic government.
As applicants to the Texas Emerging Technology Fund present their applications to Rick Perry, they likely feel like they are watching an excerpt of Jerry McGuire.
The only difference between Rick Perry and Cuba Gooding Jr. is hair.
This is the second in the series of articles on the Texas Emerging Technology Fund. The background of this fund is set out in this article. The entirety of the following post is based on the report from John Keel, CPA, of the State of Texas State Auditor’s Office. It was completed April 2011, and is know as “An Audit Report on The Emerging Technology Fund” Report No. 11-029. This report was compiled by a Certified Public Accountant from the State Auditor’s Office. It was not the result of a political adversary of Rick Perry, but an official state audit of a fund promoted and “overseen” by Rick Perry. The following are the Overall Conclusions of the Auditor:
“The Emerging Technology Fund (ETF) should make significant improvements to promote greater transparency and accountability.
Issues in a number of areas impair the ability to administer the ETF in the best interests of the State. It is important to hold recipients of funds accountable. Auditors identified the following weaknesses:
Decision making related to the ETF and recipients of funds is not open to the public.
The ETF conducts limited monitoring of recipient’s performance and expenditures of funds.
The Office of the Governor does not report the value of the State’s investments through the ETF on its financial statements.
The ETF does not administer its contracts with the seven Regional Centers for Innovation Commercialization (RCICS) and the Texas Life Science Center for Innovation and Commercialization…”
As of Aug. 31, 2010 a total of 153 grants and awards totaling $342,336,567 had been awarded to recipients.
The ETF application is considered confidential while an application for an award or grant. Ten other states with similar programs that auditors surveyed allowed significantly more public access to meetings and documents related to the award of public funds. (pg. ii)
The code of ethics policy for the Advisory Committee does not prohibit Advisory Committee members from accepting compensation from or investing in ETF recipients. (pg iii) ( This means that a person on the Advisory committee who recommends a company receive millions of dollars from the EMT could be the CEO of the company.)
The majority of annual reports required in 2007, 2008, and 2009 were NOT submitted.(pg iii)
The office of the Governor did not report the value of all investments held by the ETF on its annual financial report or on its annual report to the Legislature; the only investment that was reported was from the single award from which the ETF has profited. (pg. iii)
The ETF has not developed substantive criteria for the RCICs and the Texas Life Science Center to use when receiving and evaluating applications. (pg 3)(This means there are no standards to determine which companies receive grants, or any guidelines to determine how much money will be awarded.)
Because there is a lack of consistent documentation of votes and recusals, it can’t be determined whether board members appropriately addressed conflicts of interest. (pg. 3) (This means that there is no way to determine if the very people considering an application had a financial interest in the approval of the grant.)
RCICS and Texas Life Science Center do not follow consistent processes for evaluating and receiving applications. (pg 5)(This means that there is no uniformity in how an application is evaluated.)
Meetings of the Advisory Committee of the ETF are not open to the public, and the Advisory Committee does not even document its decisions in meeting minutes.
The Advisory Committee has been inconsistent in terms of which applications it will accept for review. (pg 7)
There is no documentation of how members voted, which members recused themselves, or any disclosures made. (pg 8)(This means that there can be no accountability for any action taken.)
The advisory committee has no written policies and procedures for how it receives, reviews, or recommends funding. (pg9)
While others may nominate people to serve on the Advisory Committee, it is the Governor who make the final determination regarding all appointments to the Advisory Committee.(pg 11)
There are no policies for the ETF application process. This has led to uncertainty in various areas. (pg 13)
The ETF doesn’t perform a credit check on award recipients, or a criminal background check. (pg 13)
Auditors were unable to determine from the documents available for the 21 applications tested whether the ETF Office performed any due diligence or independently verified the information provided by the applicant, such as intellectual property or financial information. (pg 15)
The ETF has not ensured that ETF recipients comply with requirements to submit reports. (pg 18) (This means there is no accountability by the recipients of the millions of dollare given by Texas.)
Three recipients declared bankruptcy or ceased operations in 2010 but failed to submit even one annual report. (Pg. 18)
In 2007 60% of recipients didn’t submit reports due.
In 2008 67% of recipients didn’t submit reports due.
In 2009 59% of recipients didn’t submit reports due.(pg 18)
The ETF does not require recipients to submit (1) financial information in their annual reports or (2) supporting documentation for expenditure of funds. Thus the ETF can’t verify whether recipients make expenditures only for authorized purposes. (pg 20)
The Office of the Governor is not reporting the value of the ETF investments as assets, and it is not reporting the net increase or decrease in the value of these investments on its annual financial reports.
One RCIC reported to the ETF that it spent $59,731 on “Meals and Entertainment” in fiscal year 2010. RCIC is not required to separate funds for the ETF and its operating funds. (pg 28).
Several conclusions are evident from this audit:
1. There is no criteria for the award of money from the ETF, and therefore Rick Perry is able to give state money to any company he chooses.
2. There is no documentation of any value received by Texas for any of the companies who received state money through the ETF, with the exception of a single company.
3. There is no attempt to independently assess the financial viability of a company receiving an award from the ETF, and thus a shell company could receive a gift of money from the ETF and immediately declare bankruptcy after the funds from the state are disbursed. Supporters of Rick Perry could be in a position to receive payment directly from the award of money by the state to their company through the ETF with the only benefit to the individual and/or Rick Perry, and the State of Texas might not realize any benefit!
4. There is no accounting required of a recipient of ETF funds, and thus any misuse of state money would likely never be reported.
5. Members of the Advisory Committee which recommend approval of an award may be financially connected to the applicant company and they are not required to disclose or report the conflict.
6. Rick Perry has ultimate control over any and all funds awarded by the ETF.
7. There is no expectation by the ETF that any funds will ever be paid back to the State of Texas.
8. Because Rick Perry is given the power to appoint every member of the Advisory Committee, “at his pleasure” Rick Perry controls the recommendations of the Advisory Committee “at his pleasure.”
9. There is a complete lack of accounting to the citizens of Texas, and the country, for the monies given to companies.
10. While Texans are deprived of basic services of Government, including education and fire fighting services, the State of Texas is giving away millions of dollars to Rick Perry supporters. This year alone Texas cut funding for public schools in Texas by 2 Billion Dollars. Dallas alone will suffer cuts to its education budget of 87 Million Dollars, which is less than half of the funds given away to Rick Perry supporters through the ETF
It is no wonder that Rick Perry is serving in his tenth year as governor and is the longest-serving chief executive in Texas history. Given the financial backing Perry has achieved using taxpayer money, he will likely continue to be re-elected for as long as he desires. Now the entire country is saddled with the effects of Rick Perry’s corruption.
He is among the top political fund-raisers in the country through his “vast network of wealthy supporters eager to bankroll his presidential ambitions.” In three campaigns for governor, Mr. Perry has raised $102 million, including more than $39 million during his successful 2010 bid for re-election. The Republican Governors Association, of which Mr. Perry is chairman, raised a record $22.1 million during the first half of this year. If allowed to occupy the White House, imagine the wealth he could transfer to his supporters at the expense of U.S. taxpayers.
“H” provided this link tonight which is an article about the lengths the Texas agencies will go to hide the facts that document the effects of global warming in Texas. It should come as no surprise that it is an agency that ultimately reports to Governor Perry that is trying to hide the truth. Thanks “H” for the link!
This is first in a series of posts dedicated to revealing the truth behind the Texas Emerging Technology Fund. The breadth of the corruption facilitated by Rick Perry is so extensive that multiple articles will be necessary.
I. INTRODUCTION
“The Emerging Technology Fund (TETF) was created by the Texas Legislature in 2005 at the urging of Gov. Perry to provide Texas with an unparalleled advantage in the research, development, and commercialization of emerging technologies.”
TETF grants are awarded in the following three areas:
• Research Superiority Acquisition — funds for Texas higher education institutions to recruit the best research talent in the world.
• Commercialization Awards — funds to help companies take ideas from concept to development to ready for the marketplace.
• Matching Awards — funds create public-private partnerships which leverage the unique strengths of universities, federal government grant programs, and industry.
In order to receive a TETF payment, the first step is to contact one of seven Regional Centers of Innovation and Commercialization (RCIC). RCICs receive applications for TETF awards each calendar quarter from companies within their regions and help guide companies through the application process. Applications are reviewed quarterly and TETF awards are granted throughout the year. Companies across the state have won TETF awards.
During the three fiscal years from Sept 1, 2007 through August 31, 2010 the TETF made 113 awards in the total amount of $259, 543,000.00. During the same time period, while Texas was giving away over $259,000,000 to companies employing supporters and donors of and to Rick Perry, Texas received $6.4 billion in federal funds from the Recovery Act money allowing Texas to retain $9.1 billion in its Rainy Day Fund. During this same time period Rick Perry advocated secession of Texas from the U.S. He also advocates less involvement of the federal government in state affairs, unless of course he is asking for money. Texas was the state most dependent upon stimulus funds to plug nearly 97% of its shortfall for fiscal 2010, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. On the very same day Governor Perry asked for the funds, he set up a petition titled “No Government Bailouts.”
During that same period, Texas was also unable to financially sustain much of its volunteer fire departments. During the same time frame Texas was ravaged by 21,000 deadly and devastating wild fires which have burned 3.6 million acres.
II. MAKE UP OF THE TETF
Section 490 of the Government Code of Texas establishes the method for appointment to the TETF Committee. Section 490.051 provides that a committee of 17 people will be appointed by the GOVERNOR. The Governor appoints the presiding member of the committee. (Sec. 490.053). The length of service for each member is at the “pleasure of the governor.” (Sec. 490.540). The Committee only makes recommendations ( 490.056). The final approval of any money to be paid from the fund is made by the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives (Sec. 490.056)
III. EQUITY POSITION OF TEXAS
Texas Government Code Section 490.005 requires the Governor to provide “a brief description of the equity position that the Governor, on behalf of the state, may take in companies receiving awards.” It was obvious that each of the companies receiving the award of money from the TETF would not be successful. The majority of new businesses fail in the first four years. However the express provisions of Section 490.000 contemplate the sharing of profit if it should occur, and repayment of the monies awarded by the state, creating the relationship between the state and recipient, of an investor in a business enterprise. If other investors realize profit from the company, then the state of Texas should likewise be a beneficiary of the success of that company. The TETF was clearly formulated with the expectation that the fund would be used to support companies that had a very promising future, and would likely result in a return on investment to Texas. Section 490.203 expressly states:
“An entity receiving funding or another incentive under this subchapter shall guarantee by contract with the governor’s office that the entity will perform specific actions that are expected to provide benefits to this state.”
“If an entity fails to perform an action guaranteed by contract under subsection (a) before a time specified by the contract, the entity shall return the funding received by the entity under this subchapter.”
No company in the history of the fund has ever returned the money given by the state, and the state has never demanded the refund of any funds.
IV. ONLY ONE COMPANY, CARDIOSPECTRA, INC. HAS RETURNED ANY MONEY TO TEXAS.
The January 2011 Annual Report to the Texas Legislature covers a period of three years. This report identifies 120 different companies that received millions of dollars from the TETF. The amount of money awarded to the 120 different companies varied between $500,000 to $ 50,000,000 which was awarded to TAMU. The average amount awarded was $1,000,000. The total amount of all awards was $259,543,000.00.
For each of the 120 companies identified in the annual report there is a reference to the “intended outcome,” and the “actual outcome.” Of all the companies listed that received money from the TETF only one company is reported to have paid any money back to Texas. At pg 26 of the report, “CardioSpectra, Inc.” is reported to have been bought by another company for $25,000,000 in cash, and a promise to pay an additional $38 million upon the achievement of certain milestones. The state of Texas was paid $2,277,792 in cash upon the sale, and stock “valued at $1,984,749.” Thus Texas received only 9% of the proceeds from the sale of CardioSpectra Inc. More importantly, less than 1%, or .008% of the companies funded by Texas paid back ANY of the monies given to them. This would be an indication of, at best, gross incompetence on the part of Texas employees running the TETF, or more likely, corruption.
V. LACK OF TRANSPARENCY FROM THE TETF FUND
The TETF identifies itself as having 7 employees. They are:
1. Jonathan W. Taylor, Director
2. Yvette Sanchez-Ramirez, Executive Assistant
3. Patrick Boswell, Investments Manager
4. Bryan Poe, Investment Analyst
5. Ashley Randall, Investment Analyst
6. Emily Vorlant, Investment Analyst
7. Laurie Rich, Special Advisor
On Oct. 6th, 2011 I called each of these people. The purpose of the call was to simply confirm that CardioSpectra Inc. is the ONLY company that received money from the TETF to ever pay any money back to Texas. I spoke with Jonathan Taylor and he said he didn’t know the answer. I asked him as the Director of the fund, who would be in a better position to know. He responded by defiantly saying that any such information would have to come from the press office. When I asked him if that wasn’t part of his job description, he hung up the phone on me. I have spoken to two different people in the press office for the Governor’s office ” Lucy” and “Veronica”, and each explained that they didn’t know the information and would get back to me. I then followed up with Ms. Ramirez, Mr. Boswell, and Mr. Poe to ask the same question, and each were unwilling to discuss the matter with me. I left voice mail messages for Ms. Randall, Ms. Vorlant, and Ms. Rich, none of which have been returned three days later. I have sent an e-mail to each of the people listed above, setting out my request for confirmation that CardioSpectra Inc. is the only company in the history of the TETF to return any money to the state. The only response I have received to those simple e-mail requests is to advise me to talk with the Governor’s press office.
The inevitable conclusion is that there is only one company in the history of the TETF to pay any money back to the state in the history of the fund. In the span of over 5 years only one company returning money on the state’s investment is pathetic. In articles that will follow, there is clear lack of accountability of the TETF for over $200,000,000.00 of tax payer money that has been given away. It is criminal that at a time when Texas is in desperate need of funds for public education and basic services, like fire fighting, that the state of Texas, under the guidance of Rick Perry is GIVING away money. Later posts will also establish that the TETF has been used to give money to companies associated with donations to Rick Perry. The obvious conflict of interest and corruption is transparent, blatant, and inexcusable.
Re: Ethics Complaint against Sarah Palin Dated June 2, 2011
AGO File No. AN2011101972
Dear Mr. Burns:
I am in receipt of your letter dated July 29, 2011 which denied the Ethics Complaint previously filed. I am also in possession of the documents sent by your office with a cover letter of August 17, 2011 in response to my Freedom of Information Act request. As a result of those documents it is my understanding that Sarah Palin has waived confidentiality of any information regarding this matter.
As a starting point I hereby request that you disqualify yourself in this matter due to personal bias, or potential bias in this matter. It is clear from the documents produced that you have a personal relationship with Sarah Palin and/or her attorney. Secondly you were appointed by Sean Parnell, who became governor upon the resignation of Sarah Palin. It also appears you have been a fisherman in Bristol Bay for many years, so the implication is that you may have a personal relationship with Todd Palin.
You have a second potential conflict of interest. AS 39.52.190 expressly establishes that any public officer is prohibited from aiding another in the violation of the Ethics Laws of Alaska. If it is determined that Sarah Palin in fact violated the Ethics Code of Alaska, and that you aided her by dismissing a complaint rightfully filed against her, you may have personally violated the Alaska Code of Ethics.
This matter would be more fairly considered by an independent, bipartisan, investigative board, and then there would be no indication of bias or undue influence on your part.
I hereby request production of all documents covered by my Freedom of Information Act request, without the withholding or redacting of any such documents. In particular you have withheld and/or redacted the following documents:
1. E-mail from Julia Bockmon dated June 7, 2011 to you, James Cantor and Joanne Grace re my Ethics complaint against Sarah Palin dated Jun 7, 2011 which was listed as having “High” importance.” The copy provided to me is redacted with the following explanation: “Summary and Analysis regarding June 2, 2011 Ethics Complaint against S. Palin Attorney-Client Communication and Deliberative Process and Attorney Work Product.” Who is the attorney and who is the client, upon which you base this asserted privilege? Surely you are not asserting a privilege on behalf of Sarah Palin as anything sent to your office would constitute a waiver of that privilege. Moreover you are a public servant of the people of Alaska, and as such any “deliberative process” undertaken by your office regarding an Ethics Complaint should not be “protected” from production. It is also my understanding from documents that were produced that Sarah Palin, through her attorney, has waived any privilege they might have otherwise been asserted. Certainly the production of the “Confidential” Ethics Complaint (the one made the subject of this letter) by Sarah Palin’s attorney to conservatives4palin, which was published on the internet, would also constitute a waiver of any privilege.
2. Documents identified in the “Protected Records Log” that were both withheld in their entirety dated July 15, 2011 with a Bates stamp range from 00057-00059, and 00071-00074, which were described as “Summary analysis, and recommendation regarding the Jun 2, 2011 complaint and the July 7, 2011 supplement, and Exhibit B to the July 15, 2011 Memorandum: Draft Letter to M. Litman regarding Ethics Complaint against Sarah Palin dated June 2, 2011. Any assertion of privilege is inappropriate and unfounded.
I am hereby asking for your reconsideration of the Ethics Complaint previously filed for the following reasons: (1) the dismissal of the Ethics Complaint was contrary to the clear and express provisions of the statute, and (2) additional information has come to my attention, which if an investigation had been performed, would have resulted in this ethics complaint being even more compelling.
1. The Dismissal of the Ethics Complaint was Contrary to the Express Provisions of AS 39.52.180 (a).
As you stated in you letter of July 29, 2011 the statute involved originally expressly excluded … “legislative bills.” In 2007, during Palin’s term as Governor, you explained that the statute was amended “to include, rather than exclude, work on legislation.” (Your letter at page 2) Thus after the amendment AS 39.52.180(a) stated:
“ (a) A public officer who leaves state service may not, for two years after leaving state service, represent, advise, or assist a person for compensation regarding a matter that was under consideration by the administrative unit served by that public officer, and in which the officer participated personally and substantially through the exercise of official action. For the purposes of this subsection, “matter” includes a case, proceeding, application, contract, [OR] determination, [BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE] proposal or consideration of a legislative bill [BILLS], a resolution, -[RESOLUTIONS AND] constitutional amendment [AMENDMENTS], or other legislative measure, [MEASURES;] or …”
There is no dispute that this statute (1) applies to Sarah Palin as the Ex-Governor, (2) That the Ex-Governor signed the tax credit statute into law during her short term as Governor (AS 39.52.180 (a) ) (3) that during a period of less than two years after Sarah Palin resigned as Governor she received compensation as the Executive producer and for staring in Sarah Palin’s Alaska (4) the compensation paid to the Ex-Governor for making the film was $2,000,000, and that (5) the film company involved, Jean Worldwide, received a tax credit of $1.200,000.00 at the expense of the citizens of Alaska.
According to your letter, your only justification for dismissal of the complaint is that the term “matter” does not include “legislation” after it is enacted. In particular, you state, “Once a bill is enacted, consideration of the legislation, the “matter” is concluded. Future work that involves application of the statute to later activities is not “regarding (the)matter.” It appears you are rewriting the law. Your attempt to interpret the statute to impose some arbitrary time period during which the “legislation” signed by the Governor would be considered to be a “matter” is without justification, without legislative history, and contrary to the express language of the statute. Your analysis is ludicrous! To suggest that “legislation” is not “legislation” after it is signed by the Governor, and becomes law, is nonsensical. If a proposed law never became law there would never be a situation where the Governor or a member of the Executive Branch would benefit or receive compensation from the “law,” as there would be no law. To take your position to its logical extreme, if Sarah Palin signed a law during her term as Governor to award a tax credit of $1,000,000 to anyone who gave birth to a 6th child in Alaska, and then within the two years after she resigned she had a sixth child in Alaska and received the tax credit, that would not be a violation of the Ethics Act, because the legislation was “concluded” and the birth of the child was a “later activity.” Any Governor who received compensation after leaving office regarding “legislation” they approved while in office would ALWAYS be a matter that was “concluded” at an earlier time. According to your interpretation, if a Governor resigned she would never be in a position to be involved in any way with legislation since the “matter” was concluded. This construction of the law would make the law nonsensical. Your stated interpretation of the law is inconsistent with the express wording of the statute, and if your interpretation of the statute were adopted there would NEVER be a violation of the Ethics act that pertains to “legislation” because you interpret “legislation” to be something other than “legislation.”
By taking the position that this law does not apply to Sarah Palin then you are necessarily telling the citizens of Alaska that the law applies to everyone equally unless you say otherwise. The citizens of Alaska could have received compensation of 5.2 Million Dollars (double the 2 Million Dollars that Palin received, and refund of the 1.2 Million Dollar Tax Credit from Jean Worldwide) for this violation. The citizens of your state deserve a hearing on this matter by an unbiased committee.
2. New Evidence
Since the filing of the Ethics complaint additional information has come to light that should be considered in evaluating this claim.
1) Documents enclosed indicate that during the short time that Sarah Palin served as Governor, she traveled on state time, using state funds, to meet with film companies in California (see attached). Obviously she was contemplating the making of a film for personal gain, before she left office. Obviously if she had been involved as Governor in the making of this film, she would not have been allowed to receive compensation. By enacting this law and resigning from office, Sarah Palin was able to profit from Senate Bill 230 as an actor and Executive Producer of Sarah Palin’s Alaska. This is precisely the type of conduct that AS 39.52.180 (a) was intended to prevent.
2) The Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (DCCED) regulations governing the Film Office and the film incentive program were drafted, issued for public comment and became effective on June 18, 2009. Sarah Palin announced her resignation as Governor, just two weeks later, on July 3, 2009. Until now many people failed to understand the timing of Palin’s resignation. It appears that we now know the reason for her sudden resignation.
3) It now appears that Sarah Palin and her daughter Bristol, are each planning to appear in additional films that have applied for tax credits, taking further advantage of Bill 230. Helping Hands is the Company that has applied for the tax credit for the film featuring Bristol Palin. Jean Worldwide has also applied for an additional tax credit but the documents that have been provided to me as a result of my Freedom of Information Request to the film office have been redacted so I am unable to confirm if Sarah Palin will be featured in this film or if she might be the Executive Producer of this film. I suspect that is the case given the fact that it is the same company, Jean Worldwide, and based on the report that Palin will be featured in a television show to be known as “Big Hair.”
Bristol Palin will be featured in a film, for which a tax credit has also been requested. That company applying for that tax credit is Helping Hand, and it appears they have applied for such a tax credit.
I incorporate all the facts and assertions in my Ethics Complaint of June 2, 2011 that has been identified by your office as AGO File No. AN2011101972.
In light of the fact that Sarah Palin is considering running for President of the United States, it is essential to the safety and security of our entire country that people know the truth about any Ethics Violations of Sarah Palin during or after her short time as Governor of Alaska. On behalf of the entire electorate in the United States I seek the truth, and ask that this Complaint be considered by an independent bipartisan legislative panel.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Malia Litman
*********************************************************************************
The above Complaint and Request for Reconsideration is a true and accurate representation of my belief that a violation of the Executive Branch Ethics Act of Alaska had occurred.
_________________________________ _____________
Signature Date
Sub scribed and sworn to before me this ___ day of ____ in the year _____
_____________________________ ____________________________
Notary Public’s Signature
State of Texas Notary Public’s Printed Name
Commission Expires: _________________
Complainant: I understand that a person commits the crime of false accusation if the person knowingly or intentionally initiates a false complaint. I understand that I may be asked by the committee or the subject of the complaint to testify at any state of the complaint proceeding as to my belief that the subject of this complaint violated the Ethics Act.
cc. Anchorage Daily News
cc. Sean Parnell, Governor of Alaska
cc. Senator Lisa Murkowski
cc. Senator Mark Begich
cc. Alaska Law Journal, Duke University
*******************************************************************************************************************
These letters were mailed today. The response will determine if Sarah Palin’s Alaska remains a proper title for her television show.
If your reaction to the name “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” was to think that Sarah Palin owned and controlled Alaska, you would be right. Normal rules of ethics and logic don’t apply in Sarah Palin’s Alaska. There is only one rule in Sarah Palin’s Alaska. It is that Sarah Palin controls all government entities. Throw away logic and reason, fairness and morality. Remember that the Empress rules in Sarah Palin’s Alaska. Here are some specific examples that I learned about the hard way:
1. ANCHORAGE POLICE DEPARTMENT PRESS RELEASE
Logically, I would presume that if you were the Chief of Police in the Anchorage Police Department, you would be ethical and moral. I would not expect you to be incapable of making a mistake but once a mistake had been brought to your attention, I assumed you would strive to correct your mistake and set the record straight. I was wrong.
The APD issued its press release to the National Enquirer, at the request of Sarah Palin’s attorney. It was shown to be inconsistent with the Anchorage Police Department’s own records. Specifically, they reported that there was no evidence in their possession that tied Todd Palin to a prostitute. I brought to their attention that they had cell phones and a lap top in their possession from Shailey Tripp and Kashawn Thomas, that were never examined, but in their possession. APD Chief Mew refused to clarify the Press Release.
The Press Release stated that the arrest of Shailey Tripp, the one charged with running a house of prostitution, was the result of police investigation, and was not the result of a tip from someone in her building who reportedly saw Todd coming and going from the building. When I pointed out to the APD that their own records identified Mr. Fortier, by name, as the person in the building who reported the illegal activity, Chief Mew refused again to issue a modification or retraction of the Press Release.
2. TROOPERGATE
A bipartisan legislative panel determined that Sarah Palin violated state ethics law that prohibits public officials from using their office for personal gain. The specific words were:
“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.”
The Palin administration was “shockingly amateurish; disturbingly so.”
Yet, when Sarah Palin explained these findings her account was completely the opposite. She said:
“Well, I’m very, very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing … any hint of any kind of unethical activity there,”
There were no consequences for the unethical activity of Sarah Palin in the Troopergate Matter, and no consequences for Palin stating to the press that she had been “completely vindicated”.
Sarah Palin’s Alaska received a $1.2 Million tax credit at the expense of the Alaska tax payers. The law that created the tax credit expressly excluded films made for political purposes. Palin herself admitted that the show was political in nature. I personally cited 23 examples of political matters directly discussed in the show. I thought the Alaska film department would revoke the tax credit if I brought this information to their attention. I was wrong again.
The state of Alaska requires a hunting license for anyone who hunts in Alaska. The Fish and Game Department confirmed that Sarah Palin did not have a hunting license in 2008. When she took the national stage at the Republican Convention in the fall of 2008 and talked about hunting in Alaska, the Fish and Game department didn’t seem to care. I thought Sarah Palin was required to follow the laws like other Alaskans. I was wrong again.
5. ETHICS VIOLATION- COMPENSATION DERIVED FROM “LEGISLATION” THAT WAS NOT “LEGISLATION”
Many people reported on the appearance of impropriety when Sarah Palin’s Alaska derived $1,200,000 in tax credit as a result of a law enacted during Palin’s administration. Sarah Palin starred in the production and was the Executive Producer of the show. Sarah Palin was paid $2,000,000 for her involvement in making the show. The Alaska Ethics Code that applies to the Governor expressly prohibits the Ex-Governor from making money for two years after leaving office, from “legislation” that she was involved with during her term as Governor. Within the first year after she resigned Palin made $2,000,000.00 from a show that was reimbursed for part of her salary as a result of the “legislation” she signed into law during the time she was Governor. The Alaska Attorney General, the one appointed by Sean Parnell who became the Governor after Palin resigned, denied the Ethics Complaint reasoning that “legislation” was not the same thing as “legislation.”
Now I have a clear understanding of the reason the “reality” show was named “Sarah Palin’s Alaska.”
Later today I will be posting a copy of my letter to the Alaska Attorney General asking for reconsideration of his decision that “legislation” under the Palin administration is not in fact “legislation.” Given the history above, I have no expectation that the AG will do the right thing. Most people have forgotten about the fourth finding in the Troopergate matter that :
“Alaska’s Attorney General, who was the conduit for requests for information from the executive branch, failed “to substantially comply” with the investigator’s request to Mrs Palin to answer by email questions from the inquiry. That was a different AG, but it was the Attorney General’s office in Alaska, and it is a perfect example of the ability of the Alaska Attorney General to ignore the law and avoid accountability to anyone. If Mr. Burns ignores this request for rehearing (A Copy of which will be posted later today) he will confirm that Alaska is still owned by Sarah Palin.
The Alaska Statute known as AS 39.52.180 provides as follows:
“AS 39.52.180. Restrictions On Employment After Leaving State Service.
(a) A public officer who leaves state service may not, for two years after leaving state service, represent, advise, or assist a person for compensation regarding a matter that was under consideration by the administrative unit served by that public officer, and in which the officer participated personally and substantially through the exercise of official action. For the purposes of this subsection, “matter” includes a case, proceeding, application, contract, determination, proposal or CONSIDERATION OF A LEGISLATIVE BILL, a resolution, a constitutional amendment, OR OTHER LEGISLATIVE MEASURES, or proposal, consideration, or adoption of an administrative regulations.
It is undisputed that Palin was the Executive Producer of the TLC Show, Sarah Palin’s Alaska. It was filmed in the summer after Palin’s resignation, which was clearly less than two years after leaving state “service.” She was paid around $250,000.00 per episode. During her short term as Governor it was Sarah Palin who approved the legislation that allowed a tax credit to be given to any company filming in Alaska, and using Alaska residents. Jean Worldwide received a 1.2 Million Dollar Tax Credit as a result of the legislation that was under consideration by Sarah Palin, and signed into law during her half term as Governor. The Alaska Attorney General has summarily dismissed this complaint saying that “…we do not interpret…the definition of “matter” to preclude all activity for two years involving an enacted law. Once a bill is enacted, consideration of the legislation, the “matter” is concluded.
Even people without a law degree can understand this statute and appreciate that it was enacted to minimize the appearance of impropriety. For the Alaska AG to say that this legislation signed into law by Palin was not a “legislative measure” or that she did not consider this “legislative bill” is ludicrous. Moreover there is no time period that limits the actions of the Governor during their term. The only relevant time period is the two years following the end of her term, or in this case her resignation. Thus, Palin was prohibited by statute from accepting any financial remuneration that was derived from the passage of any law during her term as Governor. She could make the reality show, but TLC should not have received a tax credit for it.
Here is the complete AP story if you are interested in reading what is reported. Please go to the citations herein and decide for yourself if you think the Alaska Attorney General’s opinion made any sense, or if “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” was chosen as the name of the series because Palin owns government officials in Alaska.
The associated Press picked up the story and reported the facts. Although the facts include the dismissal of the complaint, the writer confirms the facts that gave rise to the ethics violation. I hope the Attorney General realizes that the truth will come out that the claim was valid. This is the story that I had made reference to in comments on previous stories but was unwilling to disclose the nature of the information. Unlike Palin’s attorney, I kept the story and Palin’s violation of the Ethics law confidential.
Recent Comments