Post #297,925
10/13/08 2:02:01 PM
|
There was no legal violation in the report
They are trying to say that there were ethical violations...but they couldn't even get anything from there to stick.
|
Post #297,929
10/13/08 3:55:51 PM
|
Eh?
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.
|
Post #297,930
10/13/08 5:02:07 PM
|
what did the personeel board rule and when did they rule it
thar process has not started. The bitchfest was with a council with NO jurisdiction, that has been clearly pointed out to you before
thanx,
bill
if lemmy and god had a wrestling match who would win?
|
Post #297,931
10/13/08 5:02:40 PM
|
Do you see who has to determine the violation?
The personnel board. Same folks that Ms Palin has been recommending look into this matter all along. The folks that wrote this report CANNOT determine if she has violated the ethics laws. Its not within their power or scope of responsibility.
They can SUGGEST that they think she MAY HAVE done something here...but they can do nothing else.
So, this report cannot say that she broke the law...the group investigating does not have the authority to do that.
|
Post #297,934
10/13/08 5:43:15 PM
|
thats not how it works when a democrat accuses you
if lemmy and god had a wrestling match who would win?
|
Post #297,936
10/13/08 6:28:50 PM
|
They spent so much time talking about it
they had to come up with something...even if it was nothing...which it was.
The trooper still has a job and an "at will" employee was dismissed. SCANDAL.
|
Post #297,937
10/13/08 6:41:27 PM
|
The investigator reported his findings.
What is done with the findings is out of his hands.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #297,939
10/13/08 7:09:49 PM
|
That wasnt the shouting above here
She committed an offence!! was what you were declaiming earlier, why doncha admit that the "investigator" and "findings" were a political act by a committee without jurisdiction?
nah, that would fair and balanced :-)
only a few weeks before bob barr or ralph nader wins the election.
thanx,
bill
if lemmy and god had a wrestling match who would win?
|
Post #297,940
10/13/08 7:36:47 PM
|
As you said, we've been through that before.
You seem to have forgotten that I argued with you about the legality of the investigation and jurisdiction on Z. The committee had jurisdiction. The Alaska Supreme Court apparently agreed, since they refused to stop it (they'll give their reasons later) - http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=ap5f27TS7328&refer=us
Try again? ;-)
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #297,942
10/13/08 8:58:12 PM
|
Once again, you quote that statute that claims
personnel is the vehicle for the complaint then complain that the committee has jurisdiction when it doesnt. Go back and point out in the statute for those actions where the juidiciary committe has any jurisdiction. That is like the federal juidiciary investigating oil and gas shenanigans in the DOE entertaining but useless
thanx,
bill
if lemmy and god had a wrestling match who would win?
|
Post #297,943
10/13/08 8:59:17 PM
|
It's on Z. No time now. :-)
|
Post #297,944
10/13/08 9:01:35 PM
|
you failed to make the argument there
to anyones satisfaction but your own, you can flog that dead horse some more or admit you dont really understand alaskan statutes or wait till z comes up and ignore it there, besides I want to see if a 100 line rightshifted thread will crash this servelet :-)
if lemmy and god had a wrestling match who would win?
|
Post #297,945
10/13/08 9:06:26 PM
|
We'll see. :-)
|
Post #297,946
10/13/08 9:17:31 PM
|
No, it won't.
;-)
Regards,
-scott
<i>Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.</i>
|
Post #297,953
10/13/08 11:42:52 PM
|
you sure?
if lemmy and god had a wrestling match who would win?
|
Post #297,958
10/14/08 12:11:47 AM
|
Sure.
Or a reasonable semblance thereof. :)
-Mike
|
