Palin and Monegan - What’s it all mean?

I don’t have any more facts than the rest of you who read the newspaper. Well, maybe a few insights from people who know the players, but not much. But I do know something about administration and human resources. The ADN's editorial this morning (there were also not one, but two different front page stories on the topic) called for an investigation of the Monegan firing:

The big question is whether Monegan was fired for not doing the Palins' bidding and firing Trooper Wooten. If so, that would be an abuse of office.

I'd argue that we need to separate the issues better. There are, it seems to me, two key issues.


1. The firing. This happened. Everyone agrees. It is important to remember that a Commissioner serves at the pleasure of the Governor. The Governor need not give any reason for the firing. Commissioners are not regular civil service positions that have protections against arbitrary terminations. These kinds of protections for career civil servants are there so public administrators are protected from arbitrary termination without cause. Ideally, this allows public administrators to do the right thing despite pressure to do some shady deal for a boss.

But the higher ranks are exempt from those protections. These are known as political appointees. The rationale for these folks is that a new politician needs to have people loyal to her vision of how things should be, to the platform she was voted in to carry out. But if a governor (or mayor or president) no longer trusts or is comfortable with a political appointee, there are no legal impediments to instant termination. There may be political consequences, but there are no legal violations.

To call for an investigation of the firing of Monegan is a waste of time and money. What she did was legal and was her right. What can the result of the investigation be? Nothing.


2. Pressuring the Commissioner to fire someone for personal reasons.

On this the facts are in dispute. We don't know exactly what happened and the players disagree. In a previous post on whether it was ok for legislators to get discounts from the Baranof Hotel during the special session. I raised two key ethical problems for public officials - undue gain and improper influence. Improper influence occurs when someone takes criteria into consideration that are outside the normal process for making a consideration. The Department of Public Safety has a union contract with its troopers that spells out the steps for terminating a trooper.

When it becomes necessary for the Employer to initiate disciplinary actions against any member for just cause, such actions shall be administered in a fair and impartial
manner, with due regard for the circumstances of the individual case. (p. 19)

If attempts were made to cause the Governor's ex-brother-in-law to be terminated that were outside of this process, then we could be getting into improper influence issues.

Undue gain happens when someone gets, through use of their position, something that they are not qualified to get. In many ethics laws, this usually means something of value was exchanged. Doing harm to an enemy fits into this, certainly in the public's mind.

But let's look at some of the possibilities:

• What can a sitting governor say or not say to her commissioners?
  
• If a Governor hears of a wrong doing by a state trooper that was not a relation, would anyone complain if she mentioned it to the Commissioner and asked that he look into it? I think not.
• If the Governor herself feels harassed or sees questionable behavior by a trooper and mentions this to the Commissioner, would that be a problem? Again, I think not.
  Both of these situations would involve the Commissioner, rather than the Governor reporting to the individual trooper's supervisor. But we expect the Commissioner to be aware of what is happening in the organization and he could pass the tip on to the supervisor.
  
• If a member of the Governor's family is a trooper and the Governor has issues with his behavior, can she mention it to the Commissioner? She could be accused of covering it up if she didn't.
  
• And finally, the case at hand, if the ex-husband of the Governor's sister is a trooper and the Governor thinks his behavior raises questions about his fitness as a trooper, can she mention this to the Commissioner?
  

It is clear, that if the Governor lied to get the trooper fired from his job hoping this would jeopardize her ex-brother-in-law's custody of her sister's children, that this would be a problem. But, if she really believed that he was unfit to be a trooper because of behavior she witnessed or heard about, is telling the Commissioner about it improper influence? In the context of what is done all the time, I would say no. In terms of a perfect world where no one ever was in a gray area, it would be a problem. One also has to wonder why someone would want to jeopardize child support payments by getting him fired. But it does appear that the Heath family thought this trooper was not fit to be a trooper.

But we don't know the facts - whether her concern about his fitness was genuine or whether this was an emotional reaction against the man who she perceives as doing her sister wrong. And from what we're learning about the trooper, he's no gem either.

• Is the Governor responsible for what her relatives say to the Commissioner?
  
• If she told them to go tell him and this can be proven, then yes.
• If she said something like, "Do what you want, but don't involve me" probably yes.
• If she said , "Don't do it," but they did it anyway, probably no.
• Is the Governor responsible for what her subordinates say to the Commissioner?
• If they say it on her behalf, at her behest? Yes.
• If they say it without telling her and she notifies the Commissioner as soon as she finds out, I think not.
• What does pressure mean?
• The Governor says she never pressured the Commissioner. The Commissioner says she did. "Pressure" I would argue here is in the eye of the beholder. But like all things, the word "pressure" means different things to different people. There's probably a continuum from "offhand comment" to "threaten with a gun". I suspect that the Governor and the Commissioner would mark the spot where 'pressure' sits on that continuum in different places. She may think she just mentioned it to him. He may think that when the Governor mentions something, it is always more than idle chit chat.
  
• Again, we don't know what she said. If we had a tape, we could play it and let people vote whether it fits their idea of pressure. We know she didn't say anything like, "You fire that guy or else" or anything even remotely close to that. If she had, then Monegan wouldn't have been so surprised when he was fired.
  

• What might be the outcome of an investigation?
  
• The investigators find clear proof that the Governor used her position to pressure Monegan to fire the brother-in-law.
• They don't find clear proof.
  

• If they find clear proof, what can they do?
• This hardly seems something that we would impeach a Governor over, especially when her popularity ratings are much higher than the legislators' ratings. If Bush can authorize torture, manufacture excuses to get into Iraq, and on and on without there being impeachment proceedings, then this option is going nowhere.
  
• There could be a vote of censure
• They could end up doing nothing
  

• Who wins and who loses here?
• Winners
• people who don't like the governor - they get the satisfaction of seeing her embarrassed and her golden glow tarnished a bit
• people who might benefit from the Governor being weakened
• The Oil Producers - AGIA passed last night in the House, but as John Coghill said when urging people to vote for the bill, there are no winners yet, we're just a little closer and we have a little more information. There is still a lot of negotiation to do. This still has the Senate vote and a weaker Governor can't negotiate as hard
• Sean Parnell's political opponents - He's been closely linked to Palin. If damage to her rubs off on him, then that helps Don Young in the primary. If Parnell beats Young in the primary, it helps Berkowitz or Benson, whoever wins the Democratic nomination. If this causes Parnell to lose to Young, this would also help the Democrats who believe they have a better chance against Young than Parnell.
  
• the legislature - they've been unable to stand up against Palin's popularity; if that lessens, then they gain
• Who loses?
• The Governor
• The Lt. Gov and US house candidate Sean Parnell
• The people of Alaska
• The time and money spent on this by whoever investigates
• The spiritual loss when people find out she's not superwoman
• The National Republican Party as they watch what they've billed as a rising political star
  

I'm sure others can add more people I've forgotten


Ultimately, as I think the chess pieces several moves ahead to see where this might go, I see much ado about nothing. This wouldn't have been a blip on the Alaska political scene five years ago, but then neither was buying votes outright. But unless there's evidence she strong armed Monegan, it is highly unlikely anything will come from this investigation beyond "he said, she said." In the end I think it will be the difference between their interpretations of "pressure."

This did not cause the Governor to lose the AGIA vote, but the timing of this was terrible. Her opposition didn't make up this issue just before the AGIA vote. She created it by firing Monegan. If she thought she'd done anything wrong, surely she would have waited until after the AGIA vote to fire him . But given we've seen several politicians sent to prison for things they think were ok, that isn't a foolproof argument either. Or maybe she's lived in such a positive publicity bubble for so long that she thinks she can't do wrong.

Part of me would like to see the ethical bar raised a little further. So an investigation would cause people to think more carefully about all their conversations. Another part of me thinks that we have to let governors and legislators have a sense of freedom of thought and speech that doesn't cause them to say nothing for fear of violating something.

One way out of this would be for the Governor to acknowledge that ex parte communications with a Commissioner for personal family gain is totally inappropriate and that she knows that and wouldn't do that. However, she has come to realize from this whole discussion that as Governor, perhaps people weigh her words much more heavily than they did when she was just Sarah Palin from Wasilla. So, what she thought was merely casual communication may have been interpreted as pressure by the Commissioner.

Now, let's get back to work solving the trooper shortage, alcohol problems, finding more and diverse energy sources, and on and on.