Lady Palin and the Branchflower Report

Well, I've decided to switch from economics to politics, at least for this week or so. It seems I'm needed to use my paltry knowledge of law to tell something like the truth about Lady Palin (with a tip of the hat to that genuine comedian and true reporter, Dennis Miller).

I've read the Branchflower Report, which may be found here, and after reading it, I now would like to read an Alaska State Ethics Report which actually follows Alaska law. Branchflower's report certainly did not.

I'm glad in passing to find that at least that Branchflower, the investigator who wrote the report, was able to find that Lady Palin was within her rights to fire the Administrator of Police, Mr. Monaghan. You see, Article 3, Section 25 of the Alaska Constitution states that all heads of Alaska's departments are to be hired by the Governor and are to serve as his or her pleasure. That basically means that Palin could hire and fire any one she pleased, with or without cause.

But I'm shocked, shocked to find that while Branchflower quotes a part of the law on Executive Ethics, he fails to quote, far less to act upon, any part of that law which would seem to me to exonerate Lady Palin.

You see, Branchflower, at pages 49 through 52 of his Report quotes from the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act (Title 39, Chapter 52), and in particular, quotes from the first sentence of Section 110, subsection (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."

What I find surprising is that nowhere in his Report does Branchflower mention subsection (b) of that section, which I will quote in its entirety:

(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. (emphasis added)

Now I find this surprising because Branchflower goes out of his way to state that while Palin wanted to have Officer Wooten fired, and to have his administrative benefits cut off, she was unable to do that. It would seem clear to anyone reading the report that since Palin's actions had no effect on Officer Wooten's career, that Palin's actions had an "insignificant or conjectural effect on the matter", and thus did not constitute a substantial impropriety under Section 110(b)(2).

I also find Branchflower's report surprising because he goes out of his way to state that Palin wanted Officer Wooten fired, not only because Wooten was involved in a nasty divorce with Palin's sister, but because she had evidence that Wooten threatened to kill Palin's father, that Wooten had driven in a police vehicle with an open beer can, and that Wooten had committed other misdemeanors. It would seem to me that there was evidence by which Branchflower could find that Palin shared an interest with those members of the public (and I suspect they may be many) who would not want a police officer committing crimes under color of law or of his office. Thus, I think there was evidence that Palin's actions did not constitute a substantial impropriety under Section 110(b)(1).

Finally, I find surprising that Branchflower fails anywhere in his report to quote from subsection (c) of Section 110. I will quote it in its entirety:

(c) The attorney general, designated supervisors, hearing officers, and the personnel board must be guided by this section when issuing opinions and reaching decisions. (emphasis added)

It would seem to me that this subsection would apply to Branchflower as an appointed hearing officer, and that he should at the very least have quoted, and perhaps actually considered, this subsection before coming to his conclusions. I thus believe that under Alaska law, Branchflower has failed to follow a mandatory provision of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act, and thus has come to both an invalid decision. I look forward to seeing a revised report which actually takes Alaska law in account. But I am not holding my breath.