Halcro's Charges Against Palin over Monegan Firing

Andrew Halcro is a smart guy in a left brain sort of way, he writes well, and he knows a lot of people. But over the last year or two I've grown to wonder about his judgment or maybe his motivation. He seems to totally dismiss factors related to human feelings as irrelevant and seems not to care a whit about what people think about him. That can be ok if you just like making noise or have unchecked power (hear Jane Meyer on Dick Cheney) . But if you want to change people's minds, you need to show some respect for the the people with whom you disagree.

So, where I used to read his columns with care and give what he said serious weight, I'm much more skeptical nowadays. For instance, the gas pipeline decisions have unknowns that no one can answer with certainty. We can make predictions about what might happen, but there are so many variables, so many future decisions by different people all of which will be influenced by what the others do, that no one can predict with certainty what the outcomes will be. But Halcro has taken a strong stance against the Governor and against AGIA with a tone of omniscience and almost contempt for people who disagree, that I wonder whether he is just completely enamored by his own brilliance or whether he might have some ties with the oil producers. Or he has God's on his speed dial.

Since we know that he's been on a crusade against the governor for all sorts of reasons, when he lights into her over anything we have to get out the salt shaker. You might want to shake some white grains into your palm before reading on.

Today Halcro is offering his explanation of the firing of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan. You can look at Halcro's blog post for yourself.

Basically, Halcro is saying that Monegan was fired because:

• He has not fired the trooper who divorced Gov. Palin's sister
• He has fought hard NOT to reduce the troopers' budget opposing the Governor's office
  

Halcro's alleging that the Palin family has been filing frivolous complaints against the ex-inlaw trooper trying to get him fired.

I've done grievance work in one of my lives and I know that no matter how compelling someone's story is, there is almost always another take on things. Even if Halcro put a call into the Governor's office, I suspect she probably didn't call back. But I'm sure we'll hear more about this.

Governor Palin has enjoyed a level of public image and popularity that we all know is partially earned and partially wishful thinking. As she has to decide more and more issues where interests and values are in conflict her shine is going to dim. The backbone that it took to stand up against the corruption she saw on the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and stand up to the oil producers, could, on a bad day turn into a counterproductive stubbornness. Standing firm until you get what you want, tied in with family loyalty, could turn into the kind of vendetta Halcro portrays. And Palin's silence on the firing and her not telling the Commissioner the news herself only add fuel make Halcro's fire. Maybe we'll soon find out why Lyda Green disliked the Governor so much.

Or maybe this is part of the oil producers' campaign to discredit the Governor so that they can gain back their control over what happens with Alaska's oil. Stay tuned.

Meanwhile for some other thoughts on the issue, here is a thread from a law enforcement officer forum.

Thanks to AW for pointing out Halcro's post.

Blog, Blog, Blog

Blogging stuff keeps piling up in my life. Here's two posts in one, first on ADN blogs and then on Quarterlife and Marshall Herskovitz.

Anchorage Daily News (ADN) wants bloggers
At the Alaska Apple Users Group meeting last night, Kathleen McCoy from the Anchorage Daily News announced the paper was soliciting local bloggers who cover a specialized topic - community council news, local horse news, etc. They already have 13 blogs that I counted here tonight from gardening and barhopping to hockey. I got to talk to her a little during the break. Seems as the print version - and the employee base - shrinks, the ADN is trying to fill the void by using the free labor of local bloggers. On the one hand, that's good in a number of ways. It means

• ordinary people are writing about what they're passionate about
• we'll get coverage with different perspectives
• there won't be anyone to force a certain look or perspective
• there will be more room for comments - and maybe individual bloggers can do a better job of monitoring the nastiness of some of the current ADN blogs
• featured blogs will get more attention than they might otherwise
  

But on the negative side it means:

• the inconsistent quality we see online in general
• corporate exploitation of community public citizens - they aren't likely to share any ad revenue and they are cutting staff and replacing it with unpaid bloggers
• hit and miss coverage as unpaid bloggers have to earn a living and miss their posts, decide they don't need to subsidize the ADN with their blogs, and otherwise skip posts and/or drop out

I think the ADN has no choice but to figure out ways to create an electronic presence. Kathleen has been around the ADN many years and I think she's trying to make this work. So far their stance on monitoring the nastiness of some of the regular blog posters seems short sighted to me. I can't find the posts I was looking for, but here is a little after Andrew Halcro quit his ADN blog.I'll hold judgment, though I'm on the wrong side of neutral in my expectations at this point.


Quarterlife

One of the best television programs I ever saw was "My So-Called Life." One of the producers, Marshall Herskovitz, was on Fresh Air this morning, talking about the television industry (the effects of corporate consolitdation and the end of the ban on networks owning the programing) and his new effort - an internet tv program called Quarterlife that has been bought by NBC. Quarterlife has been on the periphery of my consciousness, but the interview brought it front and center. I watched the first two shows today. (You can watch it online at Quarterlife.com- there are 11 episodes so far, all available.)

The show is about a young woman who... you guessed it, has a blog named....did you figure it out yet? Quarterlife. It is very real, very unlike most television. And no commercials. And you won't have any late fees.

I suspect blogs are a transitional genre, and maybe corporate World will end up buying up or otherwise coopting the best - or at least most profitable - but something is happening here. Stay tuned.

[More recent posts at ADN Blogging Policy - 1 and ADN Blogging Policy - 2.]

Kott Trial Day 10 - The Afternoon

Overview:

• Peter Kott Jr. loses some of his luster under cross examination and delivers an infomercial on hardwood flooring
  
• Ethan Berkowitz, witness for the defense [April 26, 2008: If you are coming here from EthanBerkowitz.blogspot.com, you should note that Berkowitz did not come voluntarily, that Kott wanted Berkowitz to say that he did not vote the way the prosecutors told him to vote, and essentially Berkowitz was not a friendly witness for Kott. The details are below.]
  
• Brooke Miles, returned as a defense witness

From what I can tell the defense was trying to make several points today:

1. Pete Kott wasn't all that influential in the legislature and couldn't deliver what Veco wanted anyway.

In the morning session, Dr. Clive Thomas' testimony seemed aimed at showing that Kott wasn't on key committees and that at the end of the session things are chaotic and he didn't have much influence. Ethan Berkowitz was the Democratic leader in the house, and the legislator who stood up and protested when Weyhrauch voted the wrong way and then had the vote rescinded so he could vote the right way - you can hear Weyhrauch say he made a mistake and so they should revote, Berkowitz's passionate speech about the influence of lobbyists who call legislators on the floor, and Weyhrauch's indignant response here. It all has much more meaning now that we've heard the story from the other side.

On this link you can hear Kott talking to Smith right after Weyhrauch voted 'wrong.' It appears Kott is calling from the floor and Smith is apparently watching on Gavel to Gavel from 604.
Rep. Pete Kott to Veco VP Rick Smith phone call

Today the defense attorney Simonian questioned Berkowitz:
Q: Did Pete Kott get you to trade votes?
Berkowitz: I don't have the authority to trade votes.
They had him read the transcript where Kott said he got him to trade votes, and Berkowitz again said it wasn't true.

This appears again to be trying to show that Kott didn't have the power to deliver to Veco.

As I said in the previous post, I don't think this point matters, legally. The jury instructions in the Anderson trial were that it didn't matter whether a) if he could deliver or b) if he did deliver.

Here's a section of an earlier post on charges from the indictment.

• (A) Kott and Weyhrauch "unlawfully obtain[ed] ... money and other property... in agreement for the performance of official acts, in violation of Title 18..."

As I understand it, from the Anderson trial, it's the agreement, not the actual carrying it out, that matters.

2. That the $7,993 check that Allen wrote to Pete Kott in summer 2006 was NOT to pay for Pete Kott Jr. to continue on as campaign manager as the prosecution said, but rather was really advance payment for two flooring jobs Pete Jr. was to do. One for a Sharon Durant and the other for Rick Smith.

3. That Pete Kott never asked for a poll or wanted a poll or had any use for a poll. Thus even if Dittman did a poll that was paid for by Allen, Kott was not part of a deal to get a poll, and thus didn't enter into any agreement for the poll. Thus that charge is not proven. They also wanted to show that did not follow Dittman's advice to emphasize Kott's experience and accomplishments for the district.


In cross examination, the prosecutors very politely, but relentlessly exposed inconsistencies.

First about the money. Marsh started by reiterating Peter Jr.'s comment about his deep commitment to doing good work. Then asked whether getting paid a year in advance (for Smith's flooring) wasn't a bit unusual. And you haven't done the job yet? No. And you haven't given the check back? I plan to.

How did it come that he was getting such an advance? Well, he didn't have enough money to not do his regular work much longer while he worked on the campaign, and had told his dad he'd have to get paid or quit so he could pay his family's bills. So Allen wrote this check for an advance on these two projects. [I can accept that perhaps Allen might have advanced money for Smith's flooring, though that is a stretch; I never understood why Allen would be paying for the other person's (Sharon Durant) flooring.]

But then Prosecutor Marsh asked Peter Jr. why he wasn't just paid out of campaign money. There wasn't enough money, well, not enough to pay me, enough for signs, fliers, etc.
Marsh: Would you be surprised to learn the campaign had plenty of money?
And then he went on to show that the campaign had a surplus of over $15,000 and that lots of money had been donated to charity.
Marsh: Who filed the seven day APOC report?
Peter Jr.: I didn't file paper work. I handled grassroots stuff.
M: But you were campaign manager.
PJr: That was not in my scope. My job is to get voters. I'm no accountant.
M: But you run a business...

Basically, the idea that the money was for flooring looked pretty shaky, and with two paid staffers who filed the APOC reports and ordered polls without Peter Jr's knowledge, it was hard to believe he was the campaign manager in the traditional sense. So if he knew about the polls or not really wouldn't matter.

The prosecution also pulled out a campaign brochure that was sent out after the polling data came in that highlighted Kott's experience, as Dittman had advised based on the polling. This attempt to show that the campaign did take Dittman's advice was less convincing, since any incumbent is going to push his experience. But Peter Jr. said he hadn't been involved with the flier, reinforcing the idea that he really wasn't in charge.

The defense seems to me to be picking at minor points to discredit the prosecution's case. And the prosecution is very well prepared each time. Again, as in the Anderson case, the power of the government is pretty awesome. That's a good thing if they are going after real crooks, it is scary if they are going after the wrong people, or people they don't like.

Peter Jr. did spend a fair amount of time, in answer to his defense attorney Wendt's questions, talking about the hardwood flooring business. The different kinds of wood, how the wood takes time to dry sufficiently, kinds of coatings for the wood. I'm not sure what the point was - perhaps to show his mastery of the subject and his love for it. The prosecutors didn't object about him as an expert witness on flooring (as they did about Thomas' status as an expert earlier in the day), and after a while I thought I was listening to an infomercial.

Other people in the court today included: former state legislators Vic Fisher and Andrew Halcro. Fred Dyson was back. Weyhrauch's attorneys were there. Kott family members. A lot of press. And others whom I didn't recognize.

And at one point, prosecutor Marsh was asking a question when someone sneezed, "Later you God bless got three thousand...."

Someone told me that Pete Kott would be a witness. It didn't happen today. We'll see if it happens tomorrow.

More Anchorage Airport Railroad Depot Background

This comes from Andrew Halcro's website. Halcro was a Republican state representative from 1999-2003. On his site his biography says he is

President, Avis/Alaska (Statewide Family business owned and operated
since 1955) 2002-Present

He ran for governor of Alaska in 2006 as an Independent. He's sharp and talks straight. Below is his account of how the depot got built from a discussion of a candidate forum in Seward in March 2006. He's discussing John Binkley, then a Republican primary candidate for Governor.

Basically this is consistent with what I wrote earlier and fills in a few more details.

But the most amusing comments was his defense of the $28 million dollar cruise ship passenger depot at the Anchorage Airport. In fact, reconciling his comments to the audience on Friday with history, is a great lesson on how some politicians tend to lose memory when they run for office.

In the spring of 2001 while I was in the legislature I had my first conversation with John Binkley. He came to my office to address my concerns as a vocal critic of the railroad spending $28 million dollars of taxpayer money to construct a facility that was going to serve a limited use (cruise ship passengers) and be closed for 8 months a year.

During that conversation, Binkley who was the Railroad's Chairman of the Board and supported the rail depot, told me that the reason they went ahead with the project was that they didn't want to embarass Senator Ted Stevens by giving back the money. Even though the railroads own feasibility study raised questions about the project.

However on Friday, the rail depot turned from a "must do" to a "must have".

In his comments on Friday, Binkley defended the depot as a vision for the future. We built this so we could encourage commuter transportation and not have the roads clogged up with rental cars, eliminate the need for $56 million dollar parking garages (referring to the new Anchorage Airport car rental facility under construction) and to eliminate the need for expanding the Glenn Highway to four lanes. [Although Halcro has his rental car background on his biography on his webpage, and may assume that people know this about him, it would be nice if had made that clear for people who find this on the web and don't know. It doesn't change anything, but letting people know your connection to an issue a good habit to get into.]

Now lets stop here.

First, when the railroad board gave the rail depot the green light there was no car rental garage planned yet. Even so, would you rather have a $56 million private structure that generates millions in revenue or a $28 federally subsidized rail depot that's closed eight months a year?

Second, those rental cars clogging all the highways (unlike the tour buses from cruiseships) actually pay local and state taxes that reduce tax burdens of Alaskans. In Anchorage alone, the industry contributes almost $10 million dollars a year. Not to mention another $5 million dollars a year to the Anchorage Airport in concessionare and lease fees that help keep the airport open.

Third, I'm sure the 40,000 Alaskans a day that commute from the Mat-Su would love to know that John Binkley's vision for improved transportation in the region is based on them giving up there vehicles for a train ride.

Ironically, the railroads own economic feasibility study panned the idea of commuter rail to the airport due to a lack of railroad infrastructure, a sparse population base and the reality of infrequent trips.

But then again, anybody who would have taken the time to read the airport rail depot's feasibility study would have known that. But this was never an issue of what was best for taxpayers, this was about self interest.

In December 1998, a month after being elected to the State House I was invited to lunch with former Governor Sheffield who was head of the railroad at the time. I brought up the subject of the proposed rail depot. At the time, the railroad was still in the process of having a local firm conduct the feasibility study.

I told the governor I thought the project had a limited appeal and was a bad use of taxpayer money. However, it was very clear from his response that regardless of what the projected economics concluded, his was going to spend $28 million on the depot.

In December 2002, Sheffield and others sipped champagne as they celebrated the grand opening of the Bill Sheffield Airport Railroad Depot complete with a bronze bust of the former governor.

Today the rail depot is open on a regular basis only for cruise ship passengers from mid-May to September who pay nothing for the facility. The total yearly passengers are less than 50% of what their feasibility study projected they'd be by this date.

At least the next generation of taxpayers won't have to look down the tracks very far to see why they're inheriting an $8 trillion national debt.

All aboard.