What Does The Law Say About Special Counsels?

It's pretty short and easy to read.  There are ten sections, not more than four paragraphs each.  You can read it yourself - courtesy of Cornell University Law School.

28 CFR Part 600 - GENERAL POWERS OF SPECIAL COUNSEL

§ 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and -
(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and
(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.

§ 600.2 Alternatives available to the Attorney General.When matters are brought to the attention of the Attorney General that might warrant consideration of appointment of a Special Counsel, the Attorney General may:
(a) Appoint a Special Counsel;
(b) Direct that an initial investigation, consisting of such factual inquiry or legal research as the Attorney General deems appropriate, be conducted in order to better inform the decision; or
(c) Conclude that under the circumstances of the matter, the public interest would not be served by removing the investigation from the normal processes of the Department, and that the appropriate component of the Department should handle the matter. If the Attorney General reaches this conclusion, he or she may direct that appropriate steps be taken to mitigate any conflicts of interest, such as recusal of particular officials. 

§ 600.3 Qualifications of the Special Counsel.(a) An individual named as Special Counsel shall be a lawyer with a reputation for integrity and impartial decisionmaking, and with appropriate experience to ensure both that the investigation will be conducted ably, expeditiously and thoroughly, and that investigative and prosecutorial decisions will be supported by an informed understanding of the criminal law and Department of Justice policies. The Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government. Special Counsels shall agree that their responsibilities as Special Counsel shall take first precedence in their professional lives, and that it may be necessary to devote their full time to the investigation, depending on its complexity and the stage of the investigation.
(b) The Attorney General shall consult with the Assistant Attorney General for Administration to ensure an appropriate method of appointment, and to ensure that a Special Counsel undergoes an appropriate background investigation and a detailed review of ethics and conflicts of interest issues. A Special Counsel shall be appointed as a “confidential employee” as defined in 5 U.S.C. 7511(b)(2)(C). 

§ 600.4 Jurisdiction.(a)Original jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall be established by the Attorney General. The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted.
(b)Additional jurisdiction. If in the course of his or her investigation the Special Counsel concludes that additional jurisdiction beyond that specified in his or her original jurisdiction is necessary in order to fully investigate and resolve the matters assigned, or to investigate new matters that come to light in the course of his or her investigation, he or she shall consult with the Attorney General, who will determine whether to include the additional matters within the Special Counsel's jurisdiction or assign them elsewhere.
(c)Civil and administrative jurisdiction. If in the course of his or her investigation the Special Counsel determines that administrative remedies, civil sanctions or other governmental action outside the criminal justice system might be appropriate, he or she shall consult with the Attorney General with respect to the appropriate component to take any necessary action. A Special Counsel shall not have civil or administrative authority unless specifically granted such jurisdiction by the Attorney General. 

§ 600.5 Staff.A Special Counsel may request the assignment of appropriate Department employees to assist the Special Counsel. The Department shall gather and provide the Special Counsel with the names and resumes of appropriate personnel available for detail. The Special Counsel may also request the detail of specific employees, and the office for which the designated employee works shall make reasonable efforts to accommodate the request. The Special Counsel shall assign the duties and supervise the work of such employees while they are assigned to the Special Counsel. If necessary, the Special Counsel may request that additional personnel be hired or assigned from outside the Department. All personnel in the Department shall cooperate to the fullest extent possible with the Special Counsel. 

§ 600.6 Powers and authority.Subject to the limitations in the following paragraphs, the Special Counsel shall exercise, within the scope of his or her jurisdiction, the full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States Attorney. Except as provided in this part, the Special Counsel shall determine whether and to what extent to inform or consult with the Attorney General or others within the Department about the conduct of his or her duties and responsibilities. 

§ 600.7 Conduct and accountability.(a) A Special Counsel shall comply with the rules, regulations, procedures, practices and policies of the Department of Justice. He or she shall consult with appropriate offices within the Department for guidance with respect to established practices, policies and procedures of the Department, including ethics and security regulations and procedures. Should the Special Counsel conclude that the extraordinary circumstances of any particular decision would render compliance with required review and approval procedures by the designated Departmental component inappropriate, he or she may consult directly with the Attorney General.
(b) The Special Counsel shall not be subject to the day-to-day supervision of any official of the Department. However, the Attorney General may request that the Special Counsel provide an explanation for any investigative or prosecutorial step, and may after review conclude that the action is so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued. In conducting that review, the Attorney General will give great weight to the views of the Special Counsel. If the Attorney General concludes that a proposed action by a Special Counsel should not be pursued, the Attorney General shall notify Congress as specified in § 600.9(a)(3).
(c) The Special Counsel and staff shall be subject to disciplinary action for misconduct and breach of ethical duties under the same standards and to the same extent as are other employees of the Department of Justice. Inquiries into such matters shall be handled through the appropriate office of the Department upon the approval of the Attorney General.
(d) The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her removal. 

§ 600.8 Notification and reports by the Special Counsel.(a)Budget.

(1) A Special Counsel shall be provided all appropriate resources by the Department of Justice. Within the first 60 days of his or her appointment, the Special Counsel shall develop a proposed budget for the current fiscal year with the assistance of the Justice Management Division for the Attorney General's review and approval. Based on the proposal, the Attorney General shall establish a budget for the operations of the Special Counsel. The budget shall include a request for assignment of personnel, with a description of the qualifications needed.

(2) Thereafter, 90 days before the beginning of each fiscal year, the Special Counsel shall report to the Attorney General the status of the investigation, and provide a budget request for the following year. The Attorney General shall determine whether the investigation should continue and, if so, establish the budget for the next year.

(b)Notification of significant events. The Special Counsel shall notify the Attorney General of events in the course of his or her investigation in conformity with the Departmental guidelines with respect to Urgent Reports.
(c)Closing documentation. At the conclusion of the Special Counsel's work, he or she shall provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel.

§ 600.9 Notification and reports by the Attorney General.
(a) The Attorney General will notify the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Judiciary Committees of each House of Congress, with an explanation for each action -

(1) Upon appointing a Special Counsel;

(2) Upon removing any Special Counsel; and

(3) Upon conclusion of the Special Counsels investigation, including, to the extent consistent with applicable law, a description and explanation of instances (if any) in which the Attorney General concluded that a proposed action by a Special Counsel was so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued.

(b) The notification requirement in paragraph (a)(1) of this section may be tolled by the Attorney General upon a finding that legitimate investigative or privacy concerns require confidentiality. At such time as confidentiality is no longer needed, the notification will be provided.
(c) The Attorney General may determine that public release of these reports would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions. All other releases of information by any Department of Justice employee, including the Special Counsel and staff, concerning matters handled by Special Counsels shall be governed by the generally applicable Departmental guidelines concerning public comment with respect to any criminal investigation, and relevant law.

§ 600.10 No creation of rights.
The regulations in this part are not intended to, do not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity, by any person or entity, in any matter, civil, criminal, or administrative.

From what I can tell, the terms special prosecutor and special counsels seem to be used interchangeably. 

Voting Booth Selfies - There Is A Good Reason To Ban Them

When I first heard about bans on voting booth selfies, I thought this was ridiculous, and probably impossible to enforce.  After all, I've taken pictures in the voting booth myself for this blog.   The one on the right I took after voting and slipping my ballot into the secrecy sleeve at the August primary election.

But last night at dinner the conversation turned to the American tradition of taking voters to the polls and then paying them to vote for a particular candidate.  According to this Washington Post article published in 2012, it still happens and the price is often alcohol and cash.

But before cell phone cameras people buying votes had to rely on the honesty of the voter, and considering the voter was willing to sell his vote, that wasn't necessarily a sure thing.

But with everyone carrying cellphones with cameras now, a vote buyer could condition the payment on a selfie of the voter with his filled out ballot in the voting booth.  Selfies make buying votes a much more certain enterprise.

But There's Better Reasons Not To Ban Them

That said, I still don't see this as being enforceable.  Are we going to have TSA monitor elections and everyone has to empty their pockets before they vote?  Even having election officials ask people to empty their pockets and leave their purses and other bags outside the voting booth is untenable. I hope that doesn't happen and it certainly shouldn't even be considered until there is hard evidence that vote selling/buying is at a level where it is affecting the outcome of elections.

And this ignores the positive message that gets sent when people see their friends' voting selfies online.  Perhaps selfies that show how someone voted that are found online can get a fine if buying votes for selfies becomes a thing.  But maybe better drug and alcohol rehabilitation and poverty programs would be a better way to spend anti-voting-selfie funds.

Now that I've written this post, I'm going to read this Mother Jones article I found titled The Case Against Voting Booth Selfies.   OK, I've read it now.  It's basically the argument I just made about verifying bought votes and it's shorter than this post.

As I'm writing this I'm thinking about my discussion with the village head man near the town where I taught English in Thailand and influencing the elections there.  Maybe I'll do that as a part 2 to this post.

Trump Attacked For Publicly Saying What He's Thinking; Clinton Attacked For Not Saying Things Publicly

Cue the orchestra for the chorus of "Damned if you do and damned if you don't."


ON THE TRUMP SIDE

Trump's been making Republicans uneasy because he says things that they think he should NOT say publicly.  And polls say this open talk is hurting him.

The message I get from this is:  It's ok to be a racist and misogynist as long as you don't get caught. As long as you don't say these things publicly.  How many other politicians say and do the same things, but off mic?   As long as we don't know about it, no problem.

On the other hand, many of his supporters applaud his free-wheeling tongue, saying it's a sign of transparency and it's a refreshing change from the careful spin of most politicians.    It doesn't matter that what he says is hateful and disgusting.

Now, for some (many?) of his base, probably he's saying out loud the hateful things they're thinking and saying in their closed circles.   They're delighted he's saying them in public.  It validates their thinking.

But some Republicans are cringing as if their fancy shoes can't avoid the dog doo.

And while his supporters admire his openness, they can't seem to mimic it themselves.  Take this example of twisted spin from World Net Daily:

"Mr. Donald Trump is raising the bar of America’s conscience. Apology is often the first step in correcting a wrong. Having moved for [sic]  a position of saying “I don’t need forgiveness,” Mr. Trump is now taking a second look at past behaviors; things that he’s said and done that he regrets. While he is not asking for forgiveness for being human, he is admitting that he’s made mistakes and humbly making apologies."

What's wrong with this?  Trump's raising the bar of America's conscience?  Yeah, sure.  Things he regrets?  Only if they make him look bad, not because they are bad.  What he said was a sincere apology?  How many of his advisors had to pin him down and punch him until he agreed?   There is nothing Donald Trump has publicly done in the last year or so that can be remotely described as "humbly.'  NOTHING.

And Trump's supporters are not being as open and honest as Trump is.

What she's really saying there, and it gets clearer in the rest of it (you can see it here if you must) is, "I don't really care what he says or does about anything, as long as he appoints anti-abortion judges."  That's one of the problems with extremism.  You don't have to be an extremist to dance with the devil now and then.  The US became an ally of the Soviet Union during WW II, so sometimes we have to take those kinds of positions.  But the Soviets played a huge role in the defeat of Hitler.  They delivered.  Why would anyone believe anything Trump promises?  He's only going to follow through if he gets a cut.


ON THE CLINTON SIDE

Clinton's taken a lot of heat for things she and her staffers said that they had every reason to believe were said in private conversations.  Until Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee's (DNC) server  and Wikileaks shared them with the world.

We say a lot of things in private, at work and with friends.  In fact policy debate among staffers is one of the in Freedom of Information Act exemptions (#5), so that agency staffers can speak candidly, play the devil's advocate, and test out policies that they don't really expect to pursue.  They're the kind of things a number of Republican presidents have claimed Executive Privilege to prevent being disclosed. And the DNC isn't even a government agency that would come under the Freedom of Information Act.

But Clinton's been attacked for things that she or the DNC staff never actually said in public.  Now, one could argue that Trump sex assault tape was similar, and once it's public it's fair game.  And there are some things that are inconvenient for Clinton supporters.  But I dare say if we got the same conversations that were held with the RNC, I'm confident there'd be a lot juicier quotes than what we have from the DNC.

As I've said before, I'm not 100% in agreement with Clinton.  I'm troubled by the Clinton Foundation, particularly its actions with relation to Haiti and the appearance, if not the actual fact, of it being used to sell influence.  I'm not happy with her early position on Iraq and her cosiness with Wall Street.  But there are many positions I support fully and she has the experience and the connections to make things happen.  She's had eight years to watch how Republicans obstructed Obama.  I'm betting if she gets a majority in the Senate, we're going to see a lot of legislation passed in the first two years before the 2018 election.  And she's running against Trump.

I think the saying "Damned if you do and damned if you don't" is appropriate here.  Trump gets hit for saying what he's thinking and Clinton gets hit for not saying what's been said by her party in private.  But in balance, what Trump's been saying has been so over the top, that many in the political party he hijacked are abandoning him.  Clinton's email sins are run-of-the-mill back room political strategizing.  But nothing really damning, unless you're a Republican strategist trying to find anything that might stick and to get the negative attention off Trump and onto Clinton.

Principles And Verification Tasks For Journalists And Their Readers

I've mentioned I'm taking an online class called Journalism Skills for Engaged Citizens from the University of Melbourne.  Last week I got one of the optional books they recommend - Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel's The Elements of Journalism.  The copy I got from the library is a 2007 edition and given the changes in electronic journalism since then, I'm sure the newer version has been updated quite a bit.  Nevertheless the chapter on verification is still worth thinking about - both for journalists AND for readers (listeners, viewers, etc.)

Much of this stems from, according to the authors, a 1997 meeting of journalists concerned about the future of journalism in the age of digital and commodified journalism.  The meeting led to a group called the Committee of Concerned Journalists.  (I chose this link because it lists their principles of good journalism.)

In Chapter 4, they talk about verification being central in defining good journalism.  I'm going to offer several of the guidelines for journalists including techniques for verification.

Note:  I've done some editing because the authors have written quite a bit about each point and the one and two word titles don't necessarily capture the gist.  I've tried to give a slight bit more to aim the reader in the right direction.  I've added some links at the bottom* for a little more depth.

Let's start with "Intellectual principles of a science of reporting"

1. Do Not Add.  Never add anything that wasn’t there (don't make anything up)
2. Do Not Deceive.  Never deceive your audience
3. Transparency.  Be as transparent as possible about your methods and motives (more on transparency below.)
4. Originality.  Rely on your own original reporting (get the facts yourself, don't just rely on others, a particular issue in the age of 24/7 news and online rumors)
5. Humility.  Exercise humility 

 Transparency Questions

1. What does my audience need to know to evaluate this information for itself?
2. Is there anything in our treatment of this that requires explanation, including any controversial decisions made about leaving something in or taking something out?
3. Journalists should acknowledge the questions their stories are not answering. a. Misleading sources: Corollary to transparency. Truth goes both ways. Sources need to be truthful. Some say a misleading source should be revealed. Part of the bargain for anonymity is truthfulness.
4. Masquerading (getting stories with deception) - ok if you follow principles: Three Step Test:
1. Information must be sufficiently vital to public to justify deception
2. There is no other way to get the story
3. Journalist should reveal to audience whenever they mislead sources to get info, and should explain reasons, including 1. why the story justifies deception and 2. why there was no other way to get story.

I'd like to think that I've incorporated most of this in my blogging.  Some comes from having to verify in academic writing, some comes from my personal values of keeping the public interest in mind.  I know that I have often, for example, spoken to readers directly about how I've gotten a story, why I'm writing it a certain way, what cautions they should take interpreting what I've written.  The most typical warning I'd guess, has been reporting meetings when my fingers couldn't keep up with what was being said.  For example, from a redistricting board meeting:

"Below are my very rough notes.  Use with caution, until the official transcripts are available."

And finally I get to the list specifically addressing Verification.   There's a fair bit of discussion on the definition of 'objectivity' and whether a journalist can achieve it.  The authors say that the original use of 'objectivity' coming from Walter Lippmann and others, acknowledged bias in the writer, and offered 'objectivity' as a method that focused on techniques of verification that would unite journalists regardless of their bias.  (I would argue that even those techniques have their built in biases to be aware of, but that's for a different day and post.)


Techniques of Verification

1. Edit with skepticism - check line by line - how do I know this? Why should a reader believe it? what is the assumption behind this sentence? If the story says events may raise questions, who suggested that? Reporter? Source? Citizen?
2. Keep an accuracy checklist (See below - this is particularly useful for readers as well as journalists.)
3. Assume nothing.  (See Protess Method below)
4. Tom French’s red pencil - he made a check after each sentence if he’d double checked it.
5. Be careful of your sources  

Accuracy Checklist (useful for readers to think about when reading/hearing news stories)

• Is the lead of the story sufficiently supported?
• Is the background material, required to understand the story, complete?
• Are all the stakeholders in the story identified and have representatives from that side been contacted and given a chance to talk?
• Does the story pixies [pick sides] or make subtle value judgments?  Will some people like this story more than they should?
• Have you attributed and/or documented all the information in your story to make sure it is correct?
• Do those facts back up the premise of your story?  Do you have multiple sources for controversial facts?
• Did you double-check the quotes make sure they are accurate and in context?  

This is all good stuff for me (and other bloggers) to be thinking about.  I even put a note about originality in a story I posted recently about a Superior Court decision.  I was quoting the Alaska Dispatch's report, but couldn't figure out how to get the decision online.  I noted the journalist's need for originality and my attempt to get the judge's decision in my post.  Yesterday an attorney told me you can't get them online, you have to go to the courthouse and buy it.  I called the court just now trying to see if there was a way, but they haven't been able to point out a link to get the decision.  They connected me to the judge's assistant and I've left a voice mail message.


*Short of getting the book itself, ideally the most recent edition, there are websites you can check on to get a little more depth on each of these points than I'm giving.

On Verification - Transparency, Humility, Originality

Informing the News - an essay based on a book by that title also stems from the Committee of Concerned Journalists' work that overlaps a bit with the lists here.

Protess Method of Verification - a way of thinking about verification by the head of the Chicago Innocence Project.  It's the method he uses with students to determine which prisoners to work with on their appeals.

[I've made some typo corrections, some of which look like auto correct errors.  Others are mine.]

What's Wrong With Judge Guidi's Decision That Ben Nageak Should Be The District 40 Democratic Candidate?

In Friday's ADN a Nathaniel Herz article reports that Judge Guidi overturned the house district 40 election, deciding that Ben Nageak should have won.  Based on that article* I have some problems with the decision.

Map of house district 40 from elections website, I added Shungnak

Let's look at the key points I have issues with.

"But in the small Northwest Alaska village of Shungnak, which went 47-3 for Westlake, Guidi found poll workers acted with 'reckless disregard of the requirements of law. . .'

. . . And Randy Ruedrich, the former chairman of the Alaska Republican Party, testified on Nageak's behalf as an expert witness during the trial. 

Guidi's decision, in fact, hinged on an analysis by Ruedrich of how the double voting in Shungnak affected the outcome of the election. . ."

Note, we have a long-time Republican Party chair working on behalf of one of the Democratic candidates.  That's because while Nageak is a Democrat, he caucuses with the Republicans, which is why the Democratic party supported his opponent, Dean Westlake, in the primary.

"Westlake had his own witness — his campaign manager, John-Henry Heckendorn — but Guidi wrote that Ruedrich's testimony was more "authoritative and reliable." And in his decision, Guidi calculated 12 "contaminated votes" in Shungnak should be thrown out — 11 for Westlake and one for Nageak, based on the existing split in votes between the two candidates."

I would grant that Ruedrich is more knowledgable about voting in Alaska.  He's a very bright man and has spent many years studying districts and precincts around the state.  He was very much involved with the redistricting process in the most recent redistricting and in past ones.  Few people know Alaska elections like Ruedrich.

However, I would argue that Ruedrich isn't acting as a political scientists here, studying the facts and coming up with the most reasonable interpretation and solution.  Rather he was acting as a strong political partisan, finding a scheme that would sound reasonable to the judge, that would result in his favored candidate winning the election.

In fact, were the vote counts switched, and Westlake had challenged Nageak using the same argument Ruedrich used, Ruedrich would have argued against that reasoning, because Ruedrich's goal is to find an argument that will get his candidate elected, not one that is most reasonable.  (And as a party operative, that's what he ought to be doing and it's the judge's job to decide.)

Citing Ruedrich's testimony, Guidi ruled those dozen voters would have picked the Republican ballot — on which Nageak and Westlake didn't appear — based on historical averages."

Here's the part I have the most heartburn with.  Perhaps there were a dozen Republican voters in Shungnak.  But there were no house candidates on the Republican ballot.  The most contested election in the primary, the only one on which the voters of Shungnak might make a difference, was the Democratic** primary. It was the only race where voters in Shungnak could make a difference.

Republicans in Alaska are allowed to vote on the Democratic ballot.  The 'historical' 12 Shungnak Republicans knew they would have no impact on any of the statewide Republican primary contests.  The odds are that they all would have picked Democratic ballots so they could vote in the district 40 house primary.  But, Ruedrich would point out, there was no Republican ballot in 2014 or 2013 and still about a dozen people voted Republican.

I would counter that this was NOT like other 'historical' elections.  In 2012 there were four candidates on the Democratic ballot and Nageak won by four percentage points over the runner up.  In 2014, he beat Westlake by nearly 7% of the vote.  While these aren't landslides, they're comfortable margins.

What was significantly different this year was that the Republicans were backing Nageak and the Democrats were backing Westlake in the primary.  A lot of money was spent on this election.  It had a lot more publicity than in the past.  There was a candidate who was nominally a Democrat, but was had been caucusing with the Republicans and would in the future.  His opponent was going to caucus with the Democrats.  This was NOT by any stretch a typical election where 'historical average' ought to be used.

From what I can gather from the article, Judge Guidi has disenfranchised those 12 Republican voters in Shungnak.  Maybe they would have taken a Republican ballot.  But maybe not.

• They had the right to vote in the Democratic primary
• They chose their preferred candidate
• Any votes on mistakenly given out Republican ballots would have had no effect on any of the state wide primary races

 Since they had the right to vote in the Democratic primary why should their votes be taken away?

Why would Guidi choose to invalidate the Democratic ballots rather than the Republican ballots which Shungnak's Democratic voters had no right to use?

Furthermore, the reasoning Ruedrich used, if I read Herz' article correctly, and he reported correctly, was that we should look at how they voted in the past.  

By that logic, we could skip elections altogether, and just go by what voters did in the last election.  

I understand Judge Guidi's concern about election workers giving everyone both ballots.  That's totally unacceptable.  But so is Guidi's decision.

Essentially, Guidi disenfranchised 12 Shungnak voters.  

If he truly believes the results were tainted by giving out both ballots to all voters, the only fair option is to let both candidates run against each other once more in the general election where more voters are likely to vote.  Since there were no Republican primary candidates, or any other party candidates, this would pit Nageak against Westlake against each other once again.  One could argue that's unfair to the original winner Westlake, but it's a lot fairer than Ruedrich and Guidi second guessing the voters of Shungnak.  

If there had been a Republican candidate, this would have been a messy solution.  But there isn't so this would be the cleanest option if you truly believe that the primary was tainted.  

Now it's up to the Alaska Supreme Court to decide how this election will go.  

[UPDATE October 13:  Yesterday the Supreme Court threw out Judge Guidi's decision and Westlake will go to Juneau representing District 40.]

*Since I'm taking an online class called Journalism Skills For Engaged Citizens, I'm acutely aware that this post would have been stronger had I gotten a copy of the judge's decision and not just relied on the article.  I tried.  I did get to the case online, but couldn't figure out how to get a copy of the decision.  And it's after hours so I can't get help.  Next time I'll do better.

**I use Democratic primary, but technically it's called the ADL primary.

Titillation Or Legitimate Journalistic Endeavor?

The University of Alaska Anchorage faculty and staff got an email from the director of human resources Friday warning them that basic information - including salaries - would be released  shortly because of a Public Records Act request. You can see the memo below.

 This would seem a good time to direct folks to a 2014 post - Is Publishing Public Employee Salaries The Financial Equivalent of Showing Bare Breasts? - that looks more closely at the logic of publishing the salaries of public employees in such detail, and generally addresses the title question.

Here's the heart of the memo people got:

"I'm writing today to advise you that UAA, within the next week, will release employee information in response to a request for information under the Alaska Public Records Act (AS 40.25.110-.220), the State Personnel Act (AS 39.25.080(b)) and Regents' Policy (P04.01.062; P06.02.010-.100). Certain employee information is designated as public information by the references cited and must be released if requested. This information release will include the following for Faculty (but not adjunct faculty) and Administrators employed at the UAA MAU as of August 12, 2016: 

-- Employee name 

-- Employment Type (Executive Officer, Faculty, or Senior Administrator) 

-- Date of Employment (Original hire date) 

-- Job Title 

-- Annual Salary 

-- Campus (UAA, KPC, Kodiak, Mat-Su, PWSC) 

Ron Kamahele, Director UAA Human Resource Services"

Again, my discussion of the issues surrounding such releases is here.

"Governor says he responded to every allegation but was misled by leaders."

The title is from a headline in the ADN. [The paper and online editions have different headlines and different dates.]

“Every time I heard an allegation, every time I got an allegation or my office did, we investigated that with guard leadership,” Parnell said even as he acknowledged the same leadership turned out to be the cause of some of the guard's biggest problems."

We asked the fox how the hens were doing. 

Sort of like how he investigated the claims of the oil companies that they needed a tax break so they could increase production and create more jobs.

Good intentions are important, but our Governor was simply unable to get to the heart of matters for four years.  You need more than intentions.  You need to be able to figure out what's going on and then correct it. 

For four years the governor has heard about problems at the National Guard.  Often such complaints come from people whose credibility may be questionable to people in authority, which, of course, doesn't invalidate their claims.  It just makes it harder for them to get people to listen.

But in this case the people who complained to the governor were people with credibility.  Chaplains.  Officers in the guard.  A senior politician from the governor's party.

What is revealed in this case is that the governor is, like Don Young said, Captain Zero.  He's an empty shell.  He simply doesn't have the ability to judge people - he listened to Katkus and not to Katkus' critics.  He doesn't know how to investigate and find the facts.  He got bamboozled for four years by the likes of Katkus.  (If you were to actually meet Katkus, you'd find this even more amazing.)

The National Guard scandal is all the more outrageous because Parnell made ending domestic violence one of his top priorities - but when it was waved in front of his face for four years, he didn't see it.  Or know what to do about it.  [OK, he'll say I did everything I could but there wasn't evidence.  That answer gives Parnell a fail on this question.  A more alert and serious governor would have done something much sooner.  The head of the National Guard is an appointed position and serves at the pleasure of the governor.]

And this is the governor who told us we needed to pass SB 21  giving the oil companies a $2 billion a year tax cut because the tax was hindering oil production and costing the state jobs.  (If he had done the math, he would have known that for $2 billion a year he could have given every unemployed Alaskan a decent paying job.)  And he fought against the referendum to repeal SB 21 saying it would cost the state oil revenue and jobs.

Yet the oil companies Parnell supported said themselves production would decline and after it passed one oil company said there wouldn't be increased oil production and another laid off  a significant number of employees.  We all know that if Prop 1 had passed, they would have blamed it for the layoffs.

We don't have a governor, we have a puppet.  He only knows what to do when one of his puppeteers tells him what to do.  His "Choose Respect" campaign to end domestic violence was a poor marketing campaign.  The scary thing is that I believe Parnell thought it had substance. (There were some substantive actions, but only because a non-profit that  working with state agencies had already developed a statewide plan and the governor's task force was able to adopt some of that.)

But it seems the governor is a good representative of the voters of Alaska who continue to believe Parnell's promises and continue to elect Republican majorities in the house and senate.  And continue to buy the Republican brand for our US Representative. The majority of voters seem to be swayed by symbols and not by substance.  Perhaps the so-called Unity Party with Walker an Mallot will change things.  I think just the change itself will allow for a little different direction, but how long will it last? And if he wins, how will Walker's socially conservative values play out after the election?   Stay tuned.

I realize this is not my normal style.  But this situation is so outrageous, even I have to call it out harshly.  This is a clear fail on the part of the governor.  There are no shades of gray here. 

224,448 Of Anchorage's 216,038 Voting Age Population (or 103%) Are Registered To Vote

Yes, go back and read that title carefully.

Anchorage's 2010 census data show 291,826 people.  Of those 75,788 are under 18 years of age.

That leaves 218,038 people old enough to vote.  103% of them are registered to vote.

The Alaska's Division of Elections has 224,448 of them registered* to vote. 

That comes to just under 103% of eligible voters are registered.  I didn't intend to write a post on this, but the numbers popped out at me when I was working on another post.  I've already written two posts - one in 2008 on Anchorage voter registration and one in 2010 on Alaska voter registration - that makes this same point.

Nationally, about 71% of the voter age population is registered to vote. So, Alaska is really high.  [At the link you have to do the math yourself - it gives 206,072,000 Americans eligible to vote and 146,311,000 actually registered.]  

As I said in the earlier posts, Alaska has a lot of transients and keeping track of people who move away and don't notify the Division of Elections isn't easy.  Division of Elections will tell you they purge the lists of people who haven't vote for four or five years and they check against names of people registered in other states.  Furthermore,  some people notify them when a relative has died or left the state.

But when you have more people registered than you have actual people eligible to vote, there's something wrong.  And it leaves an inviting hole in the system should anyone be looking for some phantom voters for their candidate or issue.  

I don't think there's any hanky panky going on here.  I think no one has taken this issue seriously and looked for more aggressive ways to purge the rolls.  And such purging needs to be done carefully, not in a way that will knock legitimate voters off the record books. 


Notes:

For the sticklers out there, I'm using 2010 census data and 2014 voter registration data.  So there are surely more people in Alaska since the census.  But I didn't count the over 5,000 registered voters in District 12 who live in Peters Creek and Eklutna (in a district otherwise in Mat-Su.)


*Actually, the Division of Elections doesn't split out data by cities or boroughs.  They offer data by Party and Precinct (with district totals), by Age, and Voter History.

Voter Registration Data Options on Division of Elections website

I called and told them this was all I could find and was there an easier way to get the Anchorage data.  The email I got back sent me back to this page.  So I went through Statistics by Party and Precinct and added up the totals for the Anchorage districts (Districts 13 - 28), which came to 224,448.  There may be some adding errors, but nothing serious enough to negate the basic point - that we have a large number of people on the registered voter list who no longer live in Alaska. 

UA President's Bonus Rescinded And Fuller Cowell, The Regent Who Voted No

This is old news, but I want to complete the story I started on this topic and also get people to start paying attention to who is on the Board of Regents.

At their September 8, 2014 meeting, the Board of Regents voted, at the President's request, to rescind the $320,000 retention bonus.  I'm hoping this is the end of this particular series of posts, but I would note that the president's request did say that the bonus was inappropriate at this time.  Leaving open, perhaps, a more appropriate time.  But I want to give the president the benefit of the doubt.  As I've indicated in previous posts on this topic, he's already earning - with pensions from the Air Force and the Alaska Railroad - and his UA salary, in the ballpark of half a million a year.  Anyone could find something to do with $320,000, but at his income level, surely he can live well without it.

One of the regents voted against rescinding the bonus.  KFQD reported:

"[Cowell] says the university wants to attract high-quality leaders and the vote sets a bad precedent. Gamble says he appreciates the support of the board."

It seems that the rest of the regents thought giving the bonus sends an even worse message to students, faculty, and staff of the university system, not to mention potential donors, the legislature, and the general public.  And I'm not sure what bad precedent it sets.  That the Board listens to the president?  That it is sensitive to public opinion?  That it can correct a mistake?  Or that if you want to be president of the Alaska system, your salary won't be unlimited?

I emailed Regent Cowell right after the vote to ask some questions, but I never got a response.  He's also the only regent who doesn't list his phone number on the University pages for the regents.

So I took to the internet to try to figure out who he might be.  I'll warn you, I've been doing this long enough to know that figuring out someone's values and motives from scraps of bio information is a risky business.  At best it can let you speculate and raise questions to ask.

So let's look at Cowell's online shadow.

First, from the University of Alaska's bio of the regent.

Fuller A. Cowell of Anchorage was appointed in 2007 by Governor Palin. Regent Cowell was raised on a homestead in Fairbanks, attended Lathrop High School and studied biology at UAF. He completed his bachelors of business administration with an emphasis in marketing at National University, Sacramento, California graduating Summa Cum Laude. Cowell completed the Advanced Executive Program at the Kellogg Business School, Northwestern University, in Chicago, Illinois. In 1995, he was awarded the UAF Alumni Achievement Award for Community Achievement. The award was established to recognize outstanding UAF alumni.

If you just read this you might think Cowell was born in Alaska, but a McClatchy article from 1993  says he didn't come until he was seven. 

He has an extensive background in Alaska, moving to the state with his family when he was seven years old. 

That's no big deal.  I didn't get to Alaska until I was in my 30s. It's not so much how long you've been here, but a) whether your story matches what really happened, and b) whether your time here was spent getting to know the state, particularly the people.    

Probably much more relevant to his position as a regent is his educational background.  From the official bio we can infer that he studied at, but did not graduate from UAF.  Then, apparently he switched from biology to business.  National University is today a big online university. How good it is, I can't tell.  Students often go to online universities because it's easier to get in, class times are more flexible, and they want a degree.  While you can get a good education online (and a bad one in person), my guess is that most people going to online programs want the degree more than they want an education.  That's a generalization and there are lots of exceptions.  Does it apply to Cowell?  First, I don't know when he went and whether it was even online at the time.  But it's not a traditional university.  I'm guessing he went there because after dropping out (?) of UAF, he just wanted to get his diploma.  But I don't know.  We just gather clues and make hypotheses and try to test them.  His next educational experience seems to point in the same direction. 

"Cowell completed the Advanced Executive Program at the Kellogg Business School, Northwestern University, in Chicago, Illinois."

First, I'd mention that Northwestern is in Evanston, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago.  But maybe they have a Chicago branch, or maybe he thought people wouldn't know where Evanston was, or maybe he's not a stickler for details.  It's probably not important, but just another clue that may or may not prove useful.

The Kellog School has one of the best business programs in the country.  An advanced executive program sounds pretty substantial.  But the Advanced Management Program - Intensive today is just under three weeks long and costs $36,000! (In comparison, a Harvard Business School Program For Leadership Development costs $45,000, but goes from December to June with two (12 day) on-campus and two off-campus modules.)

Again, this is a program for someone who wants to get things done quickly, who can't or doesn't want to spend the time for a longer, more traditional program.  I'm sure it was a stimulating experience, but there's only so much you can learn and retain in such a short program. 

Is this the best person that Sarah Palin could find to be on the board?  Of course, each appointee should be considered in the context of the other members.  If they all have more traditional educations, then he might add a useful perspective. 
 

Back to the official bio. 

Cowell serves as co-chair of the Providence Foundation Steering Committee, is on the board of St. Elias (long term acute care) Hospital and on the C.W. Snedden Chair of Journalism Selection Committee at UAF. He has served on the Journalism Advisory Board at UAA, the boards of Commonwealth North, Anchorage Chamber of Commerce, and the Anchorage Performing Arts Center and co-chaired the United Way of Anchorage campaign.

The Juneau Empire adds this:

He also co-chaired the Providence Foundation Steering Committee and was a founding member of the Alaska Cancer Research and Education Center.

The cancer research makes more sense if you look at Evangeline Atwood's Bent Pins to Chains:  Alaska and Its Newspapers:

"He returned to Alaska in 1993 as publisher of the Daily News but had to retire in 1999 to concentrate on a successful fight against leukemia."

Back to the official bio:

Cowell’s newspaper career took him from a newspaper carrier at the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner to director of operations of the McClatchy Company and ultimately publisher of Alaska’s largest newspaper, the Anchorage Daily News. He spent ten years commercial fishing in Area E, which includes Prince William Sound and the Copper River Delta.

Cowell is married to the former Christmas Tripp of Fairbanks. Their daughter Alexis lives and works in Anchorage where she was born.

Much of his career has  been spent working for the McClatchy newspaper chain. Including time with some of its California papers.   He seems to have been in the management rather than the journalism side.  The McClatchy newspaper chain published information about Cowell when he took over as the publisher of the Anchorage Daily News, in 1993.


He's also, it seems, the owner of Cowell's Heliport Service in Big Lake.  The only date I could find on the site was a 7/2004 activation date; there's a July 2014 reference at 123 Jets. Or maybe he has a son with the same name.


OK, as I said, this is just a bunch of facts about his education and his work experience.  It doesn't tell us who he is, what he knows, what he values, and whether he's a good choice for the Board of Regents.

The University plays a critical role for Alaska.  If it does its job well, more Alaskans will get a good education and make important contributions to a sustainable Alaska, an Alaska that uses its resources wisely and has both  physical and social infrastructures that support a good life for this and future generations.

With a FY15 budget of over $1 billion, it's also an institution whose leaders should be closely followed and kept accountable.  But I dare say few Alaskans could name even one or two regents, let alone have any idea of what they do or how well.  (I did post abbreviated bios of the regents in an earlier post.)

I hope to explore this topic further in future posts. 

Gov Finally Sacks Katkus After National Guard Bureau Office of Complex Investigations (OCI) Report On Sexual And Other Abuse

From the Governor's website:

 "September 4, 2014, Anchorage, Alaska – Following the conclusion of a six-month independent review and assessment of open and closed investigations related to reports of sexual assault, rape and fraud among members of the Alaska National Guard, Governor Sean Parnell released the findings today, and took the resignation of the adjutant general, Major General Thomas H. Katkus. The governor originally requested the assessment from the National Guard Bureau Office of Complex Investigations (OCI) in February."

I first came across Tom Katkus at his confirmation hearings in 2010 at the State Affairs Committee in Juneau, but kept my personal reactions to myself.  As I look back at that post, it's ironic that after they approved Katkus, the next topic was sexual abuse in Alaska.  And my personal instincts were reinforced soon when I got an email after that post from a spouse of someone at the National Guard telling me how corrupt the Guard and Katkus were.  She wouldn't give me her name or fill in details, but she talked about intimidation of people in the guard who noticed all the things going wrong, of favoritism, and cronyism and did nothing.  It seemed serious and her anonymity seemed more fearful than a way to vent. And I had lots of other things to keep me busy.

More recently (January this year) someone put up this comment on that post:

"Funny that MG Katkus is leading the charge against rape and sexual assault, considering the fact that he's been the person in charge of covering up the numerous sexual assault cases that have been reported to the Governors office over the years."

Someone also had sent me a link to the 2012 twelve page list of allegations from retired Lieutenant Colonel Kenneth T. Blaylock that starts out:

KENNETH T. BLAYLOCK
LIEUTENANT COLONEL (RET) AKARNG
529-XXXX
Illegal Activities within the Alaska National Guard
Murder, Sexual Assault, Narcotic Trafficking, and other violations are reported. It’s not that any proper investigations are performed and the results produced. But rather they are not investigated. The only actual investigations conducted are against the whistleblowers themselves.

I mention all this because if I, as a blogger was getting this sort of stuff, no doubt people responsible - like the governor - were also getting it and probably more.  Clearly there was something seriously wrong at the Guard and whenever it came up, I felt a bit of guilt for not looking into it, but I mollified myself because there were official studies being done that would have more access than I could ever get.

Parnell is quoted in a Becky Bohrer article the Army Times:

“I’ve been extremely frustrated over the years because it seemed like we’ve been chasing a vapor,” said Parnell, who has been criticized for not doing enough in response to allegations of sexual assaults within the Guard. He said when his office heard concerns, it would go to Guard leaders and be assured the matter was being handled and be given a description of how it was handled. He said he had no evidence that he was misled.

I learned an organizational lesson long ago: Employees often look very different from above than they do from below.  I can understand that Katkus could probably act the perfect employee to the governor, so that the charges against the Guard would bring cognitive dissonance to the governor.  The stories he heard about Katkus didn't match his personal experience with the man.  But good leaders should see through those facades.

Given that this governor made fighting violence against women a high priority, including leading a Choose Respect march every year, his "no evidence that he was misled" sounds like total incompetence.  Instead of spending all that time marching, he should have been having conversations with guard members who were complaining.  Even I had evidence coming to me that made it clear things were bad.  Both our US Senators had enough evidence to call for investigations. 

So what does the report say?  You can see the whole 229 page report here. [UPDATE Oct 19, 2018 - I see this link no longer works, but the Scribd link below where I also posted it still does.] [Anon left a comment asking if I could post this report somewhere other than at the governor's website.  So I've posted it at Scribd and you can get it here.]

Below is the Executive Summary which doesn't have the detailed findings that convey how bad things were, so I'll add some selected quotes to give you a sense.  But you should then go to the report and read them in context.  To find my excerpts in the report, you can copy five or six words from each passage and search the document.

Here's the synopsis and executive summary:

National Guard Bureau Office of Complex Investigations

Report of Assessment: AK1401

Synopsis

The National Guard Bureau’s Office of Complex Investigations conducted a statewide
assessment into the Alaska National Guard and made findings and recommendations in the areas of sexual assault, EEO/EO matters, coordination with local law enforcement,
Alaska National Guard member misconduct, command climate and the administration of
justice.

I. Executive Summary
On 28 February 2014, Alaska Governor Sean Parnell submitted a letter
to the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, General Frank J. Grass, requesting that the National Guard Bureau’s Office of Complex Investigations (NGB-JA/OCI) investigate “open and closed investigations related to reports of sexual assault, rape, and fraud among members of the Alaska National Guard [(AKNG)].” The request highlighted concerns over reports of sexual assault and allegations of a hostile work environment within the AKNG. The Governor’s request also sought an overall assessment of the AKNG’s command structure and its responses in cases of sexual assault that were otherwise referred to civilian law enforcement for disposition.
    A. Findings

• The AKNG’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program is well-organized, but victims do not trust the system due to an overall lack of confidence in the command;
• The AKNG leadership has failed to provide the resources, emphasis, and oversight in the implementation of the AKNG EEO/EO program; • The AKNG does not have a formal mechanism to facilitate coordination with local law enforcement regarding cases of misconduct committed by members of the AKNG;
• There were several instances of fraud committed by AKNG members and leadership at the facilities level, but that this fraudulent activity did not have an impact on the reporting of sexual assault. Examples of fraud included embezzlement of money from a NG family programs account and misuse of government equipment for personal gain. On 27 August 2014, Governor Parnell requested that the National Guard Bureau conduct a further assessment into the management of federal fiscal resources in the AKNG;
• Actual and perceived favoritism, ethical misconduct, and fear of reprisal are eroding trust and confidence in AKNG leadership; and
• The AKNG is not properly administering justice through either the investigation or adjudication of AKNG member misconduct.

    B. Recommendations

• The NGB-JA/OCI Team provided seven separate recommendations to improve the management of sexual assault matters within the state;
• The Team provided five separate recommendations to improve the State Equal Employment Opportunity program;
• The Team recommends that allegations of misconduct under investigation by law enforcement be tracked by the AKNG Office of the Staff Judge Advocate or a law enforcement liaison, such as a Provost Marshall Officer;
• The Team recommends that the National Guard Bureau conduct a separate assessment into the management of federal fiscal resources in the AKNG;
• The Team recommends that all levels of command in the AKNG reevaluate their approach to leading soldiers in a positive manner and provided seven recommendations to address the concerns raised during the Team’s visit and through the climate survey; and
• The Team identified nine areas that the AKNG and AK legislature may want to consider to improve the administration of justice within the state.

Some of the specific findings:

"The AKNG provided a matrix of all reported incidents of sexual assault  since the DoD Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) program was initiated in 2006. There were 37 reports of sexual assault; of those, 17 were unrestricted and eight identified sexual assault perpetrators. Some of the allegations reported were investigated by the AKNG; however, most of the allegations involved civilian perpetrators and were referred to AK local law enforcement officials for investigation."

Thirty seven reports of sexual assault in eight years.  That's a little more than one every three months.  Surely that is a sign of serious problems in any organization.  And that's only the ones reported.  This report says that many people didn't report because they didn't trust the leadership and feared retaliation.  Note, Wikipedia says there were 1850 people in the Alaska National Guard in 2006.  Let's use that as an approximate figure and then consider how many of those were women . . .

"Prior to 2012

The Team learned that records regarding reports of sexual assault were not properly maintained or tracked, and in some cases were never completed. As a result, victims and leaders were not properly informed regarding the status of their cases, victims were not offered treatment services, and victim information was not adequately treated in a confidential manner as required by DoD Policy"

"Victim Confidentiality

Most of the individuals interviewed stated that they knew who their Victim Advocate was and understood the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response program; nonetheless, most individuals also indicated that they would not report a sexual assault due to concerns over confidentiality. The Team noted that prior to 2012 there had been instances wherein commanders either obtained the names of victims who made restricted reports of sexual assault or distilled that same information from the “sanitized” reports that were made in contradiction to DoD policy.7 Additionally, victims reported that in some cases they were ostracized and even abused by fellow service members after making their restricted reports. Such conduct is in violation of DoD policy." [restricted reports were not supposed to be shared beyond the person taking the report.]

After 2012, a new officer, according to the report, seems to have turned this around, but the report also said that a lot of people didn't know that and still acted as though the pre-2012 situation was still in place.

 "The Team learned of several examples of inappropriate conduct of a sexual nature in its interviews with AKNG personnel, including a report of pictures of male genitalia drawn inside aircraft panels at an ANG Wing, flight instructors having sex with flight students, and senior leaders sending harassing and inappropriate text messages. Witnesses reported that AKNG internal inquiries into their complaints failed to substantiate the harassing behavior and as a result no action was taken. Indeed the information provided by the ANG Wings did not reflect that any administrative action occurred as a result of the complaints made."

"Team also learned that there were recent allegations of sexual harassment that had not been referred to EEO/EO; rather, the AKNG leadership was aware of these allegations, which were handled through internal investigation. Leaders should be directly involved in the EEO/EO program and they should collaborate with EEO/EO personnel to provide appropriate lawful recourse for both the complainant and the subject of the complaint. In several instances leaders attempted resolution without the assistance of EEO/EO personnel, this is not optimal. Service members interviewed by the Team perceived leadership efforts at internal resolution as an attempt to cover up sexual harassment allegations. This perception was reiterated in the OCI climate survey, which highlighted fear of reprisal and lack of support from the chain of command as the primary barriers to reporting discrimination."

"Disparate Treatment

A large number (50+) of Puerto Rican Army National Guard members moved from Puerto Rico to Alaska to supplement the AKNG Military Police unit at Ft. Greely, AK. Several members discussed disparate treatment towards the Spanish-speaking members of this unit. They related that their leadership told Puerto Rican soldiers that they were not allowed to speak Spanish in the “operational” area, which some consider the entire installation. Under Army Policy, commanders may not require the use of English for personal communications that are unrelated to military functions.
Command emphasis on the language issue has created a negative environment within the remote location, where members report that some military spouses are even posting derogatory comments about Spanish speaking spouses on social media sites."

 "C.  Analysis of Fraud

The Team reviewed reported incidents of fraud that had occurred over the past 10 years. Most of the incidents involved the improper use of the government travel or purchase card. One incident involved the embezzlement of money from a NG family programs account and another incident involved the misconduct of a senior officer who misused federal equipment and personnel for his own personal gain. In each instance the Team noted that there was a lack of oversight in the AKNG to prevent and detect fraud when it occurred.

"The Team noted a high level of misconduct occurring within the AKNG Recruiting and Retention Command. Several command directed investigations initiated in 2012 found that, during the time period of 2008-2009, several non- commissioned officers within this command were engaged in misuse of
government vehicles, fraud, adultery, inappropriate relationships and sexual
assault. Several of these cases are pending administrative action.
The Team’s interviews conducted with the FBI, CID and local law enforcement revealed that the Recruiting and Retention Command had been the target of multiple investigations for crimes such as weapons smuggling, rape,and drug trafficking; however, none of these investigations resulted in prosecution of the
crimes under investigation due to jurisdictional issues or lack of evidence.

Some Army and Air National Guard witnesses testified that when they approached the leadership regarding misconduct, they were specifically told to stand down."

I think this is enough to give you a sense of the findings.  This gets us only to page 19 of a 229 page document.

Surely the governor who has made Choose Respect (and ending sexual abuse and violence) the slogan of his administration knows the severe long-term impacts of sexual assaults on the victims and even their families.  If Katkus is responsible enough to fire (ok, the governor accepted his resignation - even here, Katkus got the option not to be fired), then surely he bears responsibility for the damage done not only to those assaulted, but also those upstanding members of the Guard who tried to point out such problems and were retaliated against with missed promotions and other such administrative punishments.

Will anyone be charged with any crimes?

If the governor didn't see any evidence of wrong doing in this area what else hasn't he seen in his administration?  I've learned that we are all guilty of seeing what we want to see and not seeing what we don't want to see.  But someone in a position of power should be able to see what he has to see to do his job well.  And what does this say about his ability to judge people?  And other issues?  He stood loyal to Katkus until today.  Four years.

The study will go to other agencies and presumably there will be charges.  But don't hold your breath.


According to the Bohrer article, the governor apologized.

"Parnell apologized to those who had been victimized.
“Our Alaska Guard members deserve better. The victims who have been hurt deserve better. And those who have brought complaints forward deserve better,” he said."

Is that it?  Sorry guys, but I was asleep at the wheel?  Or does he plan to help victims to regain their emotional health and repair the damage to their careers?

He's quoted in this morning's ADN:

“This culture of mistrust and failed leadership in the Guard ends now,” Parnell said.

No Governor, as the various surveys cited in the report show, there's still a lot of mistrust.  It doesn't go away because you declare it over.  It still lives in the hearts of the victims, in their nightmares, in their flashbacks, in the people still in the Guard who didn't believe them or help them.  It doesn't end now.  Changing it begins now.  And if the governor's actions to change the culture are as wishy-washy as his actions have been in response to all the complaints over the years, it will be a while before there is trust.  (I can imagine the governor reading this and sincerely saying, "I did everything I could."  And I think he believes that.  But someone with better skills at reading people (Katkus and the victims) and a bigger heart that could feel the pain of the victims, would have started repairing this long ago.)

I don't mean to suggest that the governor takes this lightly.  I believe he's sincere in his belief that domestic violence and sexual assault are terrible things.  But this report indicates that though these issues were called to his attention, his response was inadequate.   I do appreciate that the governor did call for this study  and published it. (Unlike other studies he held back for so long, like the one on Medicaid expansion.)  But the smoke has been here for years, even if the previous studies couldn't find the actual fires.   Had he just moved Katkus to another position while things were uncertain, things might have been better.  But his loyalty to his appointee was greater than his loyalty to the members of the guard who had been complaining for so long.  In the Catholic Church complaints piled up, but the leadership found ways to avoid dealing with it.  They didn't have 'proof.'

My normal constraints are obviously not working here.  I wrote most of this last night thinking I could review it more rationally in the morning, but that isn't working.  Instead I'm more upset by the incompetence in handling this.  And probably I'm upset at myself for not pursuing it here on the blog.