The Light Bulb went on in Troopergate

From the ADN on Troopergate.

http://www.adn.com/monegan/story/552393.html

"

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.

Tell that to Senator Hollis (Impeachment) French next time he opens his mouth to the press.

Update: Opinions

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ALASKA File No. 663-87-0150 1986 Alas. AG LEXIS 171; 1986-2 Op. (Inf.) Atty Gen. Alas. 333 November 13, 1986

The legislative purpose of the Ethics Act is to prevent public employees from using their positions for personal or financial gain. AS 39.52.010(a). The legislature recognized, however, that it is impossible to entirely avoid all conflicts of interest, and it is therefore necessary "to distinguish between those minor and inconsequential conflicts that are unavoidable in a free society (Like having a Lunatic Ex Brother-In Law), and those conflicts of interest that are substantial and material." AS 39.52.110(a)(3).

After setting out initial guidelines, the legislature outlined a number of specific activities which are henceforth prohibited for executive branch employees. One specific prohibition is potentially applicable to Mr. Jordan's case. AS 39.52.120(b) provides, in relevant part:

(b) A public officer may not

(4) take or withhold official action in order to affect a matter in which the public officer has a personal or financial interest . . . .

So the statute Palin supposedly violated is not a prohibited activity, but rather a guideline.

Here is another Alaska Case.

CHARLES D. EADDY, Employee, Applicant, v. STATE OF ALASKA, (Self-Insured) Employer, Defendant AWCB Case No. 9034019; AWCB Decision No. 98-0220 ALASKA WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD 1998 AK Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 2803 August 24, 1998

II. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

The Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act governs public officers in the executive branch of the state of Alaska. This includes the panel chairman, who is a Workers' Compensation Hearing officer, and the members of the Alaska Workers' Compensation Board, such as panel members Ridgley and Williams.

AS 39.52.110(a) provides, in part:

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. In addition, the legislature finds that, so long as it does not interfere with the full and faithful discharge of an officer's public duties and responsibilities, this chapter does not prevent an officer from following other independent pursuits. . . .

The Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act at AS 39.52.120, et seq., provides a list of specific violations of the administrative code of ethics. A summary of the list of possible conflicts follows:

It the goes on to list the specific statutes starting with AS 39.52.120.

Here is a more recent decision.

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ALASKA AGO File No. 661-07-0014 2007 Alas. AG LEXIS 28 June 21, 2007

Employee has a "financial interest" in the companies whose stock he owns either directly or indirectly by definition under the Ethics Act. We are concerned with whether his action relating to a company could affect his own interest. Generally he must refrain from taking any action that may affect his interests under AS 39.52.120. When reviewing actions that have been taken or considering potential actions, we can determine that no substantial impropriety has occurred or will occur by applying the factors in AS 39.52.110(b). These factors require considering whether the value off his interest is insignificant and whether the action had or would have only insignificant or conjectural effect on his interest.

and here is another one

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ALASKA

FILE NO. 661-07-xxxx 2007 Alas. AG LEXIS 4 April 3, 2007

II. GENERAL PRINCIPLES FOR APPLYING THE ETHICS ACT

The Executive Branch Ethics Act is intended to ensure that public officers will not base their official decisions and actions upon their own personal or financial interests. A purpose of the Act is to ensure that "public officers conduct the public's business in a manner that preserves the integrity of the governmental process and avoids conflicts of interest."

The Act also acknowledges that public officers should be free to pursue personal and financial interests, and are valued for those interests, as long as the interests do not interfere or conflict with the officers' public responsibilities. (Like getting rid of a dangerous Trooper)

Alaska Statute 39.52.110 addresses the scope of the ethics code established by the Act as follows:

(a) 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. In addition, the legislature finds that, so long as it does not interfere with the full and faithful discharge of an officer's public duties and responsibilities, this chapter does not prevent an officer from following other independent pursuits. The legislature further recognizes that

(1) in a representative democracy, the representatives are drawn from society and, therefore, cannot and should not be without personal and financial interests in the decisions and policies of government;

(2) people who serve as public officers retain their rights to interests of a personal or financial nature; and

(3) standards of ethical conduct for members of the executive branch need to distinguish between those minor and inconsequential conflicts that are unavoidable in a free society, and those conflicts of interests that are substantial and material.

(b) Unethical conduct is prohibited, but there is no substantial impropriety if, as to a specific matter, a public officer’s

(1) personal or financial interest in the matter is insignificant, or of a type that is possessed generally by the public or a large class of persons to which the public officer belongs; or

(2) action or influence would have insignificant or conjectural effect on the matter.

The Ethics Act requires that we be guided by these statements defining the scope of the ethics code when evaluating a potential conflict of interest. The Act speaks principally to actual substantial conflicts of interest, not the appearance of conflict alone. It requires individual determinations regarding potential conflicts of interest on a case by case basis. Under AS 39.52.110(b), set out above, if a particular circumstance may result in a violation, we also consider whether there would be no substantial impropriety if the public officer participated in the matter. Where a potential conflict exists and the terms of AS 39.52.110(b) do not permit participation, steps must be taken to avoid the conflict.