I didn't read the whole thing in detail. I skimmed it, but I did notice a few things:

The summary of the first finding on pages 65-68.

Her attorney general didn't cooperate with the investigation (pages 74-76).

But in general, the report is a perfect illustration of what she's really like as a politician when she's challenged. When it had no cost, she claimed she was going to cooperate with the investigation. When it turned out she couldn't control it, she and McCain fought it every step of the way (since August 29).

Again, she had the right to fire Monegan. She didn't have the right to do the other stuff - she broke the law in doing so. (Like Bush had the right to fire the US Attorneys, but he didn't have the right to break the law in the process.)

Time will tell whether the report has any impact on what happens to her and her administration.

Cheers,
Scott.

You're trying very hard to shoot the messenger (Branchflower) without considering all the rest of the context.

http://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/10/10/the-release-of-the-branchflower-report/

=== begin cut ===
By this time it had become pretty apparent that the vote would pass, and sure enough as the list was read, we realized the ruling was unanimous. I have to say I wasn’t expecting that.
=== end cut ===

If it were a report from an out of control political hack, as you seem to think, why was the ruling on the report unanimous?

Sorry that I haven't had time to follow everyone's posts in detail today. Life is like that sometime. ;-)

Enjoy.

Cheers,
Scott.

Morning, Box.

Yes, it was a vote to release the report. My point was, if it really was a hatchet job, do you think they would have done that? It was done in their name, after all.

Yes, you pointed out sections you disagreed with. That's fine. I'm not a lawyer so I can't say whether your interpretation is plausible. You're entitled to your opinion. :-)

AFAIK, Mudflats is written by an Alaskan.

If you don't like my take, how about ADN's? http://www.adn.com/troopergate/story/552799.html

If I don't seem to have much passion on this topic, it's because 1) I'm not invested in it and I don't want to spend much time on it, 2) It's not going to matter anyway because she's not going to win a national office (at least not this time), 3) I'm not persuasive enough to change your opinion.

So, don't let me get under your skin about this, 'K? Enjoy your weekend. :-)

Cheers,
Scott.

Hi Box,

=== begin quote ===
Now you know that one of only 240 people totally piss your boss off you have the Gall to have her sign a photo of this guy for "OUTSTANDING TROOPER" and you are surprised when you get fired?
=== end quote ===

There's Wooten's side of that in pages 154 - 158. I don't think that he was trying to get her riled up, he sounded happy that she was going to be at the event - why would he antagonize her? My impression of him, from TV interviews and my skimming of the report, is that he *went out of his way* to follow the rules about disciplining Wooten and tried to impress upon her, Todd, and others, that the process had run its course and there was nothing else he could do. But they just kept pushing...

9-10 weeks before he was fired / demoted / transferred / whatever you want to call it, she was praising him at a conference (p. 151-153). Later, they came up with the excuses about the budget, the trip to DC, etc. Coupled with the fact that at his firing, that they didn't give him anything other than keep repeating "different direction" (pages 171-180) tells me that Monegan had a stronger case about his actions over those 18 months than they did. He may have been a poor manager - who knows. But I don't think there's anything in the record about his actions regarding Wooten that shows anything other than care and respect for the law.

=== begin quote ===
Put yourself in that situation, an underling comes to you with a picture of someone you hate, and they know it, wanting you to endorse the person. Fucker would be gone in a heartbeat. Cmon now, how do you justify that kind of behavior
=== end quote ===

See above.

She could have fired him for any reason at any time. When questioned about it, she and her campaign have given several reasons. If there was no problem with the firing, why has the story changed? E.g. see Josh's summary, from August:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/211769.php

Just to close things out, here's what I believe about this whole affair:
0) Palin could fire Monegan at any time, for any reason. If she was pissed off about the picture, she could throw him overboard without any criticism from me (other than the pettiness of it).

1) I don't believe that Wooten is as evil as the Palins paint him. I do believe he *may* have shown bad judgment on several occasions, but there were circumstances that paint the events as not being as bad as Todd and others state (e.g. family being around at the moose killing; his low-power taser demonstration; etc.) I trust that Wooten was treated as others on the force were treated during the investigation unless there's evidence otherwise, but I have no evidence either way. Unless we can make comparisons to disciplinary actions against others in similar circumstances, we'll never know.

2) An elected executive should *never* use their power to force subordinates to intervene in personal matters. She and Todd had no business inquiring about Wooten and trying to get him fired. It's an abuse of power. End of story.

3) Palin, and McCain, have shown contempt for a legal investigation through their interference with it. It reflects badly on them and it's more evidence of the danger they would be in the White House.

4) I don't really expect any further action from the Alaska legislature on this. But I expect that this case, and the way she's handled it, will damage her chances for re-election in Alaska. How much? Who knows.

My $0.02. You can have the last word.

Cheers,
Scott.

The Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act is part of the law of Alaska. Do you mean "criminal" instead of "legal" perhaps?

Either way, as I read it, violation of Alaska Statue 39.52.110(a) is covered here:
http://www.legis.state.ak.us/cgi-bin/folioisa.dll/stattx07/query=*/doc/%7B@16088%7D?

["this chapter" is 39.52.*]

=== begin cut ===
Article 05. ENFORCEMENT; REMEDIES

Sec. 39.52.410. Violations; penalties for misconduct.

(a) If the personnel board determines that a public employee has violated this chapter, it

(1) shall order the employee to stop engaging in any official action related to the violation;

(2) may order divestiture, establishment of a blind trust, restitution, or forfeiture; and

(3) may recommend that the employee's agency take disciplinary action, including dismissal.

(b) If the personnel board determines that a nonsalaried member of a board or commission has violated this chapter, it (1) shall order the member to refrain from voting, deliberating, or participating in the matter; (2) may order restitution; and (3) may recommend to the appropriate appointing authority that the member be removed from the board or commission. A violation of this chapter is grounds for removal of a board or commission member for cause. If the personnel board recommends that a board or commission member be removed from office, the appointing authority shall immediately act to remove the member from office.

(c) If the personnel board determines that a former public officer has violated this chapter, it shall

(1) issue a public statement of its findings, conclusions, and recommendation; and

(2) request the attorney general to exercise all legal and equitable remedies available to the state to seek whatever relief is appropriate.

(d) If the personnel board finds a violation of this chapter by a public officer removable from office only by impeachment, it shall file a report with the president of the Senate, with its finding. The report must contain a statement of the facts alleged to constitute the violation.

Sec. 39.52.420. Disciplinary action for violation.

(a) In addition to any other cause an agency may have to discipline a public employee, an agency may reprimand, demote, suspend, discharge, or otherwise subject an employee to agency disciplinary action commensurate with the violations of this chapter. This section does not prohibit the review of a disciplinary action in the manner prescribed by an applicable collective bargaining agreement or personnel statute or rule.

(b) An agency may initiate appropriate disciplinary action in the absence of an accusation under this chapter or during the pendency of a hearing or personnel board action.

Sec. 39.52.430. Actions voidable.

(a) In addition to any other penalty provided by law, a state grant, contract, or lease entered into in violation of this chapter is voidable by the state. In a determination under this section of whether to void a grant, contract, or lease, the interests of third parties who could be damaged may be taken into account. The attorney general shall give notice of intent to void a state grant, contract, or lease under this section no later than 30 days after the personnel board's determination of a violation under this chapter.

(b) In addition to any other penalty provided for by law, the state may require a state loan received in violation of this chapter to become immediately payable.

(c) Any state action taken in violation of this chapter is voidable, except that the interests of third parties and the nature of the violation may be taken into account. The attorney general may pursue any other available legal and equitable remedies.

(d) The attorney general may recover any fee, compensation, gift, or benefit received by a person as a result of a violation of this chapter by a current or former public officer. Action to recover under this subsection must be brought within two years after discovery of the violation.

Sec. 39.52.440. Civil penalties.

The personnel board may impose on a current or former public officer civil penalties not to exceed $5,000 for a violation of this chapter. A penalty imposed under this section is in addition to and not instead of any other penalty that may be imposed according to law.

Sec. 39.52.450. Payment of twice the financial benefit.

The personnel board may, in addition to the civil penalties described in this chapter, require a current or former public officer who has financially benefited a person in violation of this chapter to pay to the state up to twice the amount that the person realized from the violation.

Sec. 39.52.460. Criminal sanctions additional.

To the extent that violations under this chapter are punishable in a criminal action, that sanction is in addition to the civil remedies set out in this chapter.

=== end cut ===

It doesn't look like she's off the hook yet. http://www.newsweek.com/id/163465

=== begin cut ===

McCain campaign spokeswoman Meg Stapleton dismissed the [Branchflower] report as the product of "a partisan-led inquiry run by Obama supporters." But there could be more land mines ahead. Some weeks ago, the McCain team devised a plan to have Palin file an ethics complaint against herself with the State Personnel Board, arguing that it alone was capable of conducting a fair, nonpartisan inquiry into whether she fired Monegan because he refused to fire Wooten, who had been involved in a messy custody battle with her sister. Some Democrats ridiculed the move, noting that the personnel board answered to Palin. But the board ended up hiring an aggressive Anchorage trial lawyer, Timothy Petumenos, as an independent counsel. McCain aides were chagrined to discover that Petumenos was a Democrat who had contributed to Palin's 2006 opponent for governor, Tony Knowles. Palin is now scheduled to be questioned next week, and the counsel's report could be released soon after. "We took a gamble when we went to the personnel board," said a McCain aide who asked not to be identified discussing strategy. While the McCain camp still insists Palin "has nothing to hide," it acknowledges a critical finding by Petumenos would be even harder to dismiss.

=== end cut ===

Cheers,
Scott.