Sitka's Mayor, Scott McAdams, In Juneau - Lobbyist or Advocate?

[Update Aug. 26, 2010:  More recent Scott McAdams video available speaking to Democratic Unity Dinner after 2010 primary election.]

As I've said, I'm trying to convey what it is like in and around the Capitol Building in Juneau. And one thing that stands out for me is the constant stream of people coming to talk to their legislators.  In an earlier post about receptions and lobbyists,  a staffer left a comment correcting my characterization of school children as lobbyists.  Lobbyists get paid, while advocates are volunteers.  I knew that wasn't all of it, so I looked it up in the statutes.  (This isn't as hard as it may seem.  I simply googled "Alaska Statutes Lobbyist Advocate" and that got right to the statutes.)

AS 24.60.990. Definitions.

(12) "lobbyist" means a person who is required to register under AS 24.45.041 and is described under AS 24.45.171 , but does not include a volunteer lobbyist described in AS 24.45.161 (a)(1) or a representational lobbyist as defined under regulations of the Alaska Public Offices Commission;

(14) "registered lobbyist" means a person who is required to register under AS 24.45.041 ;

Based on (12) and (14,) lobbyist and registered lobbyist sound an awful lot alike.  

So, the link to AS 24.45.041 doesn't tell us much more but gives the information needed to register as a lobbyist.  Lobbyist is further is described under AS 24.45.171

(11) "lobbyist" means a person who

(A) is employed and receives payments, or who contracts for economic consideration, including reimbursement for reasonable travel and living expenses, to communicate directly or through the person's agents with any public official for the purpose of influencing legislation or administrative action for more than 10 hours in any 30-day period in one calendar year; or

(B) represents oneself as engaging in the influencing of legislative or administrative action as a business, occupation, or profession;

"Advocate" shows up once in this section:

(9) "influencing legislative or administrative action" means to communicate directly for the purpose of introducing, promoting, advocating, supporting, modifying, opposing, or delaying or seeking to do the same with respect to any legislative or administrative action;

The next link takes us to  Exemptions.  This would then apply to people who get compensation to influence more than ten days in a thirty day period. 

AS 24.45.161. Exemptions.

(a) This chapter [60 Standards of Conduct of Title 24 Legislature] does not apply to

(1) an individual

(A) who lobbies without payment of compensation or other consideration and makes no disbursement or expenditure for or on behalf of a public official to influence legislative or administrative action other than to pay the individual's reasonable personal travel and living expenses; and

(B) who limits lobbying activities to appearances before public sessions of the legislature, or its committees or subcommittees, or to public hearings or other public proceedings of state agencies;

(2) an elected or appointed state or municipal public officer or an employee of the state or a municipality acting in an official capacity or within the scope of employment;

(3) any newspaper or other periodical of general circulation, book publisher, radio or television station (including an individual who owns, publishes, or is employed by that newspaper or periodical, radio or television station) that publishes news items, editorials, or other comments, or paid advertisements, that directly or indirectly urge legislative or administrative action if the newspaper, periodical, book publisher, radio or television station, or individual engages in no further or other activities in connection with urging or advocating legislative or administrative action other than to appear before public sessions of the legislature, or its committees or subcommittees, or public hearings or other public proceedings of state agencies;

(4) a person who appears before the legislature or either house, or standing, special, or interim committee, in response to an invitation issued under (c) of this section.

So, I don't seem to find the term 'advocate' in the sense of a non-paid lobbyist, but the term "voluntary lobbyist" did appear in AS 24.60.990. Definitions (12).
.

Now, when we get to the Mayor of Sitka, I suppose he fits into the category of "less than ten days in a thirty day period." But, even if he did lobby that much, he would be exempt because he would be doing it as an elected official.  So, maybe he's an advocate or maybe he's a 'volunteer lobbyist."  Here's what he had to say Thursday:






The reference he made to expanding the legislature was the subject of the State Affairs committee earlier I covered earlier this week.

Advocates - There Oughta Be a Law!

The halls of the Capitol are often crawling with people who are in Juneau to see legislators about some special project, about a favored agency, to argue for or against some law, or a whole host of other reasons.  Here are a couple that I caught on camera Wednesday.

Emergency Medical Responders staked out the table just outside the Legislators' lounge and were giving blood pressure tests and explaining to people the services they provide around the state. 



Then, later, in the new (this session) staff and public lounge in the Thomas Potter [Stewart] Building, where I've found a new place to blog comfortably, I overheard a group of advocates (I was corrected in an earlier post when I referred to some school children as lobbyists) talking to a legislative staffer and asked them if I could get them to tell me what they are doing here on film. 

[Not sure what happened to the video.  There's a clip that worked right when I did it, but isn't working right now. I'll see if I can fix it later.]

Receptions and Lobbyists

One thing I'd heard about Juneau was that there were receptions every night.  After all, I'd been to the Kohring Trial where people talked about him living off of receptions, even taking food home.  But I still wasn't prepared for the reality. Sitting in the office as a staffer, I saw a regular flow of people, from day one, coming by the office to drop off an invitation or information. People from the State Library offered us a folder full of brochures with all the information available for legislators. Non-profit groups left packets. Everyone seems to want to make the legislature aware of their issue.

Staff are generally invited to receptions as well.

One of the biggest receptions is put on by the City of Juneau in Centennial Hall.  It's in a huge room and I think the whole city is invited to this one.  I ran into people from the visitors industry, from the University, and, of course, lots of legislators and their staff and spouses.

The AFL-CIO representing a wide array of unions had its reception at the Baranof Hotel. Democrats and Republicans alike were there grazing the Hors D'oeuvres and taking advantage of the open bar. I talked to one of the union reps about the purpose of spending all this money. I was told, this is a chance for them to talk to politicians who aren't necessarily their supporters.  It's a time  to get into informal conversations, perhaps a little looser because of the booze.  It's a chance for people to get to know each other across party lines.  

Clearly that was happening for me. I bumped into people I knew who introduced me to people I didn't know. Such as Vince Beltrami, the executive president of the Alaska AFL-CIO and the nominal host of the event.




And I got to talk to House Minority leader Beth Kerttula and her husband as well as a lot of other people I probably wouldn't have met without this social gathering.  This was true at other events as well where I got to talk to staffers in much more depth than I'd had a chance during work hours.

And then there was the lunch reception at the Conoco-Phillips office.  The president of Conoco-Phillips Alaska was supposed to be there, but his plane got diverted to Sitka because of poor weather in Juneau. But I got to talk to several of the legislators and staffers. 

Even non-profits put on fancy receptions. Juneau's highly regarded Perseverance Theater invited legislators and their staff to a reception followed by a performance of Eurydice, their current production. (I'll try to post on that soon too.) This was underwritten by ATT Alaska if I understood it right. So, it was a double lobbying reception - for both Perseverance Theater and for ATT whose Alaska President (I think that's who he was) was there.

And lest your image of lobbyists is either sleazy wheeler/dealers or well dressed, liberal spending legislative seducers, I have to say the halls of the Capitol are filled with lobbyists of all sorts. This was the youngest set of lobbyists I saw. They were leaving materials in legislators' offices in support of schools.

I'm not making judgments at this point.  I'm just taking things in and trying to report what I see.  I was a staffer for just about a week and I only went to a few of the many events offered and I didn't think to take pictures at them all. 

Is this basically a good thing that gets people together, builds connections, enables people of different perspectives to talk across the ideological divide, and allows legislators and their staffers to get some quick food in the rush of their work?  Or is this a way people who can afford to put on a bash for the legislature get to impress the people who make the laws at a level beyond what those with smaller bank accounts can do? 

If these social events are important to the legislative process because they stimulate communication, perhaps the State should sponsor them and everyone would have a chance to get in and talk to their elected officials.  (I would say though, that no one at any of these events checked whether I belonged there.  Maybe if I weren't an older white male I wouldn't have been as unchallenged.) 

But why not let private parties who are willing,  pay for these events?  There could be a legislative reception fund that pays for twice-weely receptions. The donors names could be publicly listed.  (The Juneau Douglas City Museum has free admission and each month, a different sponsor's name is posted.)   Somehow I don't think the present party hosts would be that excited about this idea.  And maybe it isn't necessary.  I know I didn't feel personally swayed about anything because someone was feeding me.  I sort of felt, "Well, if they want to do it, I can go see, get some food, and that's that."  But is it that innocent?  Is there some subtle obligation to return the favor hanging out there?   I just don't know.

I suspect I'll touch on this topic again in the next couple of months. 

Ethics Training Session

We did three and a half hours Friday going over the ethics standards.  This is territory I know pretty well, in general, but I don’t know the details of the State Law, so this was useful.  

Joyce Anderson, the Administrator of the Legislative Ethics Committee, went through a long Powerpoint and fortunately we all got copies so I can go back and remember what was said.  We also got copies of the Standards of Conduct Handbook (pdf). A key point early on, from the slides,  was:

Two aspects to being ETHICAL
Knowing right from wrong
Having the moral willpower to do what’s right (discipline)

So yesterday’s session was designed to help us know right from wrong.  There seemed to be five key areas though considerable time was spent on gifts. 

1. Gifts
1. No gifts over $250 from anyone.
2. No gifts from lobbyists.  Period.
2. Separating Political and Personal Activity from Legislative Activity Paid for by the State 
1. Don’t do Legislator’s personal chores while on the Legislative payroll
2. Don’t do any campaign related work while on the legislative payroll
3. Constituent Services
   
1. Legislators and staff may help constituents determine how to get through the state system, but may not advocate for constituents dealing with state officials
4. Potential conflicts of interest must be Disclosed
5. Other  
1. Legislator or legislative employee may not disclose information deemed confidential by statute.
2. Legislative Employees may not file a letter of intent or declaration of candidacy to become a state or national candidate
3. Legislator or legislative employee may not request or accept compensation greater than the value of the services performed. (To prevent companies from ‘hiring’ legislators in the interim as a form of ‘gift’ rather than serious employment.)
   

I think that those are the basic areas.  But the handbook in the picture is 121 pages long because there are lots of exceptions, gray areas, and examples.  Here's a little more on some of those categories.



Gifts

The $250 limit is cumulative from any one person or entity, but there is no limit on how many people a staffer could get up to $250 worth of gifts from.  This includes everything from Money, Loans, Services (Cleaning, child care, legal advice, etc.), Entertainment, Hospitality (stay at a home, room at a hotel), things (flowers, clothes, etc.), Promise or Other Form.  (Promise of payment whether it's carried out or not.)

Also, there’s a distinction between gifts connected to one’s legislative status and gifts NOT related.  But this too can become complicated if a person is both a good friend or relative and also has business affected by the legislature. 


With lobbyists, there are a couple of exceptions on the no gift policy. 
First the basic rule:

Gifts from a registered lobbyist OR immediate family OR a person acting on behalf of a lobbyist are prohibited.

Exceptions:

1. Food and drink (for immediate consumption)
1. Lobbyist must report to APOC if the value of food and beverage exceeds $15
2. Gifts from an Immediate Family Member (spouse or domestic partner; OR parent, child or sibling under certain circumstances (this means the lobbyist is the immediate family member)
3. Contributions on behalf of a charity or charity event
4. Contributions to a charity
5. Compassionate gift

Let’s clarify.  A lobbyist can take a legislator or legislative staff member out to eat, but only up to $15.  If over $15 it has to be reported.  This includes not just the legislator or staff member, but also their the spouse or domestic partner.

However, “If the food and beverage is provided as part of an event open to all legislators or employees, no disclosure is required.” (Handbook, p. 29)

Charity events are also a big thing in Juneau apparently and it is okay for a lobbyist to buy a ticket to a charity dinner and give the ticket to a legislator or legislative employee.  There is a limit of $250 per lobbyist per legislator per year for charity events. So, if there were a Haiti Rescue Chairty Dinner next week, a lobbyist could buy and give five $50 tickets to Rep. G for him and his staff and wife  to go.  BUT, the Alaska Legislative Council must approve the charity event in advance.

A compassionate gift is when there is a health-related emergency, catastrophe, or tragedy.  To qualify it must have prior written approval from the chair of the Legislative Council and Ethics Committee and some other requirements.  Flowers, fruit baskets, etc. do not require pre-approval. 


Separating Legislative and Personal Status is intended, in the case of staff, to keep the staff from doing the legislator’s personal chores while on the state budget.  The only things staff are allowed to do while being paid by the State are activities that are legislative functions.  The Powerpoint slides tell us, however,

"There is no definition of 'legislative purpose' in the Legislative Ethics Act"

And sometimes the line is blurred.  An example from the handbook (page 10):

Q:  May a legislator or legislative employee ask or allow staff to pick up a clean shirt at the dry cleaners if the legislator or employee just spilled ink on the shirt being worn and must soon attend a meeting?
A:  Yes, this falls within the infrequent and unusual situation rule. 

Staff are not allowed to schedule non-legislative events on the legislator’s calendar, however, they are allowed to record such events, made by the legislator, on the calendar to avoid double booking the legislator.  There's an attempt, in these examples, to have rules but recognize that there are times when it's reasonable to make adjustments.

Also in this category is separating legislative and campaign functions.  So there are strict rules against using State funded legislative newsletters to campaign.  Factors for evaluating if something is allowed include:  Timing (how close it is to the election); Content (is it legislative or candidate info?); and Audience.  But mentioning anything about one’s campaign is prohibited.  Newsletters are not allowed 60 days before an election unless there is prior approval. 

Legislators are not allowed to do any campaigning from the office.  However, if someone calls and asks a campaign question, the staffer doesn't have to just hang up.  The staffer can  refer the caller to a campaign phone number or website.  This same ‘receptive’ rule is in effect if, say, the doctor's office called to change an appointment.  A staffer could check the schedule and change the appointment time. 

Constituent issues.  Legislators and their staff are allowed to assist their constituents with problems with State agencies - say an issue over their Permanent Fund Check.  The assistance is restricted to helping the constituent determine the right office to contact, understand the procedure, etc.  The legislator or staff is NOT to take the role of advocate or tell the State agency personnel how to resolve the problem. 

Disclosure.  There are situations when legislators and staffers must file official disclosures.

Gifts

1. If Legislative related
1. aggregate total under $250 from same person/entity in a calendar year, NO disclosure required. 
2. aggregate total over $250 from same person/entity in a calendar year (some are permitted)  disclosure required.
2. If Non-Legislative related 
1. - over $250 is required and disclosure may be required

Other required disclosures:

1. Membership on a Board of Directors
2. State Benefit and Loan Programs
1. there’s a long list of programs (from the Violent Crimes Compensation Board and Right of Way Easement to the Agricultural Revolving Loan Fund)
2. -State Contracts and Grants, if annual value is $5000 or more 
3. Close Economic Association
1. If there is a financial relationships between legislators, legislative employees, public officials (as defined in Statute) and registered lobbyists
2. These might include any business or employment or even rental agreements
4. Financial agreement to represent a client before a state agency, board or commission

The group that interprets the law is the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics composed of

Public Members - Dennis ‘Skip’ Cook (Fairbanks);  H. Conner Thomas (Nome), Gary J. Turner (Chair)(Soldotna); Ann Rabinowitz (Anchorage); Herman G. Walker Jr.  (Anchorage)

Legislative Members - Senator Gary Stevens (Alt Senator Joe Thomas);  Senator Tom Wagoner (alt Senator Bill Wielechowski);  Vacant (Rep. John Coghill moved to the Senate) (Alt.  Rep. Carl Gatto);  Rep. Berta Gardner (Alt. Rep. Les Gara)

I don't recall hearing what the penalties are for violations.  I guess I should look that up.

This is a lot to swallow in three and a half hours.  Just to write this post, I had to go back through my notes and the handbook carefully to be sure I had it right. And I don't guarantee that it is all correct.  But it gives a sense of what all is involved.

That was just the morning session on Friday.  But I'll stop here and try to cover the other afternoon later.

Meanwhile, rain and wind are quickly getting rid of the snow.  I've had a hard time getting to good wifi spots, plus there's just been a lot to do. And the ferry from Whittier arrived this morning carrying lots of legislators and staff members and their cars.  Monday is Martin Luther King's Birthday Holiday, so the session begins on Tuesday.  But things are starting to happen.  We spent part of today unpacking the boxes that arrived from the Anchorage office.

Destination Juneau

Ever since I retired a couple of years ago, Rep. Max Gruenberg has invited me to Juneau for the legislative session, as a scholar, to sit in and watch what was going on.  For as long or as short as I wanted.  He wasn't going to pay me, but would let me have a desk in his office.  Well, the last two years we've gone to Thailand during much of the session, but this year I called him to have him spell out what exactly he had in mind. 

Initial discussions sounded interesting and when Alaska Airlines recently had a deal on tickets to Juneau, I bought a couple, which, in hindsight, was when I decided to go for it.  Friday I rode the Number 2 bus (I don't remember being on a bus in Anchorage where people had to stand before - it wasn't even rush hour) downtown to talk a bit more with Rep. G. 

So my role there is somewhat unique.  I'm not a staffer, I'm not an intern, I'm a volunteer.  But Rep. G has in mind something more than that, sort of a Legislative Fellow or Scholar in Residence kind of thing where I'm there as an academic.  Of course, my blogger status also came up.  Would I have to limit myself to weather and movies and other non-legislative issues?  I came up with a tentative set of guidelines:

OK to blog:

1. Objective description of events at public meetings (yes, I know 'objective' is a subjective term)
   

NOT OK to blog:

1. Anything that would cause heat for Rep. G, such as:
1. private conversations (without explicit permission)
2. subjective comments that paint law makers and staff negatively
2. Legally confidential information or off-the-record meetings (not that I'll have access to this sort of stuff)

When I got to Rep. G's office on 4th Avenue, the first thing we did - Rep. G, another new staffer, and myself - was visit Joyce Anderson, Administrator for the Legislative Ethics Committee.  One requirement is that everyone working (or even volunteering) with the legislator is to have ethics training.  We can do this online and/or in person in Juneau on January 15, just before the session starts.  But we went over a few things first.  One issue that came up was no gifts over $250 value are allowed.

I had a question.  We were offered housing at a long time friend's home during the session when his wife will be out of town.
Q:   Does that count as a gift? 
A:   Yes.  You're going to have to pay.

OK, I'm going down on my own dime.  Legislators and most staff and even interns, it appears, all have some sort of per diem and/or transportation.  So, I can't stay with a friend - someone who has stayed in my house on a number of occasions when visiting Anchorage - for free.   Joyce mentioned a staffer who was told she had to pay rent to stay with her mom.  After I questioned that in amazement, Joyce did add the fact that her mom was a lobbyist.  Even so, it's her Mom, she'd give her housing no matter why she was in Juneau.  What if Mom gives her a birthday present equal to the rent the following year, would they be busted?  Is paying rent going to stop her from confiding to her mom or helping out her mom the lobbyist?

One of my areas of research has been ethics.  So I understand the concerns about conflicts of interest, but I've published the argument that every politician has conflicts of interest and that the real issues are undue gain and improper influence.  My friend would have offered the housing for whatever reason I came to Juneau; it's not because I'll be in a legislator's office.  But I also understand the issue of appearance of conflict.  I may know my friend and I have this long term relationship, and that his offer has nothing to do with getting favors from me,  but do others? 


I also raised the blog questions while we were with Joyce.  It's not an issue that's come up before.  We'll be writing the rules as we go.  But I did get Joyce's ok to take her picture and blog about what happens as I start this process of becoming a volunteer in the Alaska State Legislature.

Afterward, Rep. G and I talked about things I might do.  He's being really generous.  I can do staff work for his office, but I'm free to explore whatever is of interest and to help out in another office or just do stuff on my own.  Of course, I'm going to do some of the staff work needed in his office, but it will be interesting to see where this all leads.  My goal is just to be close enough to get an idea of what the legislative process is really like.  And to better know who represents the residents of Alaska.

I also got a booklet:  Alaska State Legislature Uniform Rules (links to pdf file)

FOREWORD

The Constitution of the State of Alaska (sec. 12, art. II) provides: "The houses of each legislature shall adopt uniform rules of procedure." It is noteworthy that the drafters of the constitution did not say "each house" shall adopt, but rather emphasized that the "houses" should adopt uniform rules. It was the intention of the writers that Alaska should avoid the circumstances of many state legislatures where one finds house rules, senate rules, and joint rules. The uniform system is intended to permit the members and the public to follow or conduct the legislative process without a confusion of rules. The rules are adopted by both houses sitting in joint session as one body. The law on the subject of rules reads:

Sec. 24.05.120. Rules. At the beginning of the first regular session of each legislature, both houses shall adopt uniform rules of procedure for enacting bills into law and adopting resolutions. The rules in effect at the last regular session of the immediately preceding legislature serve as the temporary rules of the legislature until the adoption of permanent rules.

The rules are meant as an aid to legislators and both houses in the conduct of their business in the formal processing of legislative documents and the exercise of other powers and duties assigned the legislature by constitutional and statute law.

Copies of the Uniform Rules are distributed at the direction of the Legislative Council by the Legislative Affairs Agency.

Executive Director

Legislative Affairs Agency

There are 55 numbered rules.  Some examples:

Rule No. 1:  Organization of First Session

Rule No. 3.  Legislative Session Staff (that was less relevant than I expected)

Rule No. 8:  Privilege of the Floor

Rule No. 26:  Decorum in Debate  (that actually refers to a fat law book - Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure - which are generally rules for state legislatures throughout the US, which guide behavior, though the Alaska rules take precedence if there's a conflict, or that's what I understood.)

Rule No. 37:  Introduction of Bills

Rule No. 45:  Vetoed Bills

Rule No 54:  Suspension of Rules

So this will be an interesting period.  We did talk about blogging with Joyce (Legislative Ethics) and it appears this is uncharted territory, at least from an official policy standpoint.  I'll probably start out pretty cautiously and see what happens.  But I didn't go to Juneau to blog - that's incidental, just as it was last year when I volunteered in Thailand.  There, too, I made sure I had appropriate permissions from my NGO, though it will be a little trickier, I assume, in Juneau.   

So, after talking to Rep. G, I'm now taking this opportunity to let readers know what's coming up and that I have no idea what the impact on the blog will be.  I normally try to be careful how I write, trying to be respectful of the people I write about and if I make critical comments, trying to talk about actions or ideas, not about people.  Trying to word things in as objective terms as possible.  This does mean I rarely offer my personal opinion, but let the readers draw their on conclusion.  And I don't always succeed.  But I suspect I'm going to get much better at this style of writing in the blog.

"Allen was a sitting duck" and other thoughts about the sentencing hearing

I've posted my very unofficial and rough transcript of the sentencing hearing and one with just Allen's statement to the court. So let me now write down some of my reactions to what I saw.

He was a sitting duck . . . He was vulnerable.

Defense attorney Bundy tried to portray Allen as the victim of greedy legislators who took advantage of his zeal for the PPT (variously called the Petroleum Profits Tax and Petroleum Production Tax) and his generosity.

Bundy: There was no organizing, strategy to talk to legislators to agree on one side, that was the strategy, lobbyists do that all the time, spending billions of dollars on health in DC now, What happened in this situation, because of Mr. Allen’s obvious desire to have PPT passed, he bellied that was the right way. and they knew his history of generosity, he was a sitting duck for these people. They came to him. Mr. Kohring had to approach, Mr. Kott had to approach. 


Sedwick: What about 7 years of payments to Sen. B. Doesn’t that give us insight to what was in Allen’s mind?

Bundy: It is not illegal to pay a legislator to give advice. Nothing - Sen B was on the payroll before he became a Senator. To say Mr. Allen was an organizer way overstates his role. There was no secret he wanted to the PPT passed. The illegal solicitation was made by others. He didn’t solicit anyone. They came to him. He was vulnerable. They came to him.

I had to restrain myself so I didn't burst out laughing at this characterization. The judge wasn't buying it either.


Why didn't they mention the deal to not pursue Allen's kids?

Sentencing is based on guidelines and then factors that might kick you to a higher level or down to a lower level. According to criminaldefenselawyer:

How the Sentencing Guidelines Work
The court sentencing guidelines take into account both the seriousness of the offense and the offender’s criminal history, as well as mandatory sentencing guidelines, including federal criminal sentencing guidelines and federal prison sentencing guidelines for federal cases.
OFFENSE SERIOUSNESS
The sentencing guidelines provide 43 levels of offense seriousness— the more serious the crime, the higher the offense level.
BASE OFFENSE LEVEL
Each type of crime is assigned a base offense level, which is the starting point for determining the seriousness of a particular offense. More serious types of crime have higher base offense levels (for example, a trespass has a base offense level of 4, while kidnapping has a base offense level of 32).[There's more details at the link.]

In this case there was a lot of discussion about how Allen had agreed to cooperate immediately when he was taken in to the FBI headquarters and shown some of the tapes of him in his Baranof Hotel suite; about how much work he did for the prosecution; how he was important in getting the various convictions this investigation has gotten. So all this cooperation meant that he ended up getting more than the normal lowering of levels. OK, sort of.

But what wasn't mentioned was the agreement that was discussed in the press and at the Kott and Kohring trials, that part of his agreement to cooperate included immunity to prosecution for his children. Given that he thought they needed such immunity, I'd say this was a big benefit that he'd already gotten for his cooperation. It would seem to me that it should have been factored in. Perhaps in the agreement it was also not supposed to affect the figuring of what level he deserved. It just seemed like a glaring omission to me. Perhaps an attorney can comment and explain why it wasn't mentioned.

Comparing sentences of others to insure fairness

The judge mentioned that the public will compare Allen's sentencing with the sentencing of the others involved - Pete Kott and Vic Kohring. He said this was not an appropriate comparison because neither of them admitted their guilt, showed any remorse, or cooperated with the prosecution.

Not mentioned was Tom Anderson. Tom's case didn't directly involve Allen, though Tom had been employed by VECO during one out of session period, his case didn't involve the PPT tax or money from Allen. However, it was the first case to go to trial from this whole investigation. He got five years - two more than Allen. (Though his fine was minimal and Allen's was the maximum.)

People I've talked to agree that Anderson's sentence was high. People believe that, in hopes of sending a message to the others under investigation or indicted to cooperate, Anderson got a pretty stiff sentence. And Anderson, in his statement to the court at sentencing DID admit his guilt and remorse. And Anderson DID cooperate with the FBI for several months. Now he did stop that cooperation, but his conduct was very different from Kott and Kohring. It just seems that his sentence should also have been compared as well as Kott and Kohring's.


Bribes versus Gratuities

This was raised by Judge Sedwick because bribes raise the sentencing by 12 levels and illegal gratuities would only raise it by 9 levels. He distinguished between the two by saying (this is a rough quote) "series of large payments made to State Sen. B - over extended period to insure in general in long run, not for performance of specific acts. Illegal gratuities, not bribes." Later he said a bribe was more of a payment for a specific act, a quid pro quo.

Prosecutor Trusty reminded the judge that Allen pleaded guilty to bribery, not to illegal gratuities.

There was also more discussion about the amount in illegal gratuities to Sen B was far greater than the relatively small amounts in bribes to Kott and Kohring but if these got mixed and then separated later, it would have little impact on the sentence.

In my fuzzy understanding of all this, this seems to have some implications - others can help clarify this perhaps. First, it reminds us what came out in the Kott trial, that Allen pleaded guilty to bribing State Sen. B, who is understood to be Sen. Ben Stevens. While the damage done by the prosecutors' mishandling of the Ted Stevens evidence has raised questions about whether the rest of the investigation will indeed proceed, it should be clear that if Allen pleaded guilty to bribing Sen. B, then probably Sen. B might well be guilty of receiving bribes.

(On the other hand, if Allen pleaded guilty to bribing Senator B because the Feds also had information on his alleged carrying on with a 15 year old girl and they would ignore that to focus on the political corruption - this was the Public Integrity Section of the FBI and not a vice squad - then maybe it's not that strong a case on Sen. B.)

It also raises the question of whether Sedwick thinks state legislators who are hired by companies that have a strong interest in specific legislation are receiving illegal gratuities, something the State of Alaska has denied, if I have my fact straight.


This will have to do it for now. This is all speculation so if I'm headed in the wrong direction, please explain why and get me in the right direction.

Bill Allen Sentencing

[Bill Allen was sentenced today. In a previous post today, I've put up my notes on Mr. Allen's statement to the court. This post includes my notes on what transpired in court as best as I could keep track. Allen's statement is repeated in here. Rick Smith was also sentenced - 21 months and $10,000. I'll post on that later along with comments on both sessions. Picture is after sentencing, leaving the federal building. ]

U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska
Wednesday, October 28, 2009

8:30 AM

3:07-CR-00057-JWS

Judge Sedwick

Anchorage Courtroom 3

USA

vs. BILL J. ALLEN

(James Trusty)

(George Terwilliger)

(Kevin Gingras)

(Robert Bundy)

(Peter Koski)

IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE

I got into the courtroom a few minutes late. Given predictions of possible snow I debated the bus, the bike, the car. Walking was out because I knew I couldn’t get up that early. In the end I decided to take the bike and get some fresh air on the way.

There were empty seats, but not many.

Most of this is pretty technical - how the guidelines work for sentencing. Based on various factors, sentencing is based on what level the defendant falls. Factors include the type of crime and then factors such as past record, cooperation with the prosecutors (a big deal in this case), remorse, etc. So that’s what most of this is about.

The sentence in the end was 3 years and $750,000 fine. I’ll give all the details here and then do another post where I’ll try to sort through what struck me as interesting.

Note: I typed as fast as I could, but the attorneys spoke faster than I could type. This is a rough approximation of what happened while I was in the courtroom. Judging from how I did in previous court sessions, this is maybe 60% of what was actually said, but you get the gist. But wait for the official court transcripts for the certain details.

Note 2: The names of all the attorneys are above. Bundy spoke most on behalf of Allen, but Terwilliger spoke at the end. For the Prosecution, I think Trusty did all the talking.


Very Rough Transcript:

8:34am

Objection lacks merit - would have reduced by 12 levels factual basis

2 other objections
1. use of guideline 2v1.1 relating to bribes rather that unlawful gratuities. If correct, adjusted upward by only 9 levels instead of 12

role in offense - 111-113 of pre-sentence report

Additional points
Both objected to discussion of James Clark, but I agree that Clark is bound n the conspiracy of PPT thus overruled

Beverly Masek and Stevens, US Rep A - will not be considered so nee not be addressed

Allen objections to info on scheme in 1980s using VECO employees to contribute to candidates. I think it relevant and should be included

Everything else supported by preponderance of evidence

2c1.1 - bribes 2c1.2 - gratuities - hear these arguments. My preliminary feeling is that gratuities applies

Account 1 - series of large payments made to State Sen. B - over extended period to insure in general in long run, not for performance of specific acts. Illegal gratuities, not bribes. If consider Kohring and Kott, if they were bribes, a small portion.


[Trusty:] Bribe v. Gratuity - nothing irrational the way court is approaching it. I would point out, first, that he has pleaded guilty to bribe e related nothing about out gratuities, it seems to me using the language that acknowledges quid pro quo - bribe

Q [Judge asking]: Focus on payments to State Sen B - not sure anything shows factual basis were bribes.

Prosecutor Trusty: I would submit Par. 4 p. ?? most operative - chronology describing the fact of payments and describing what is received in return. Less specific than PPT but does in fact indicate payments provided in exchange for giving advice, lobbying colleagues, and taking legislative acts. The bribe doesn’t have to be exclusively wedded to a single issue before the legislature. More of a standing retaining circumstance. Amount of years supersedes or extends beyond 200? legislature. Particularly 2006.

Other point - since each guideline is going to be grouped together ultimately, if some part is bribes and some gratuities, then at the end of the day, may end up with same sentencing.

Q: Count 2 carries maximum of 5 years, second 10

Prosecutor Trusty: I think you have those reversed.

Q: Directs court to use either one or the other without saying why.

Prosecutor Trusty: I think some is gratuities and some is bribes, overall loss amount/benefits amount is grouped, means the highest grouping controls.

Q: Your view, grouping two counts which are relevant - IRS count has no bearing ?

Prosecutor Trusty: Yes, Would be setting up two groups and ultimately grouping them anyway.

Q: The overwhelming payment here is for Sen B, and it seems warrant... ??

Allen Attorney: Bundy

Court given ability to choose which to use. Theres a huge difference here in the three levels in terms of dollar amounts - 10 or 12 level adjustment. To start at bribery amount 12 instead of 9 is a huge difference. When you have a guideline range that is changed dramatically like that, the court must find a clear and convincing evidence for that. We would say it is ambiguous.

Payments over 6-7 years - here the bribe should account for all of that.

Sedwick: I agree with Bundy that for 3 level difference need more certainty. I have no evidence the Sen B money was bribe - it may be, but no evidence. If ambiguous court is required to choose the more lenient.

Will use 2C1.2 - that difference is 3 levels.

Trusty: Will the court reflect our objection?

Sedwick: Yes


2.
Particularly video tapes I think the roll adjustment is correct.

Bundy: Roll adjustment - as in the pre-sentence report, what we saw in Kohring and Kott proceedings. Mr. Allen really wasn’t an organizer of much of anything. What occurred is people approaching Mr. Allen and asking for favors.

Sedwick: ARe you telling me there was no organization, no strategy?

Bundy: There was no organizing, strategy to talk to legislators to agree on one side, that was the strategy, lobbyists do that all the time, spending billions of dollars on health in DC now, What happened in this situation, because of Mr. Allen’s obvious desire to have PPT passed, he bellied that was the right way. and they knew his history of generosity, he was a sitting duck for these people. They came to him. Mr. Kohring had to approach, Mr. Kott had to approach. 

Sedwick: What about 7 years of payments to SEn. B. Doesn’t that give us insight to what was in Allen’s mind?

Bundy: It is not illegal to pay a legislator to give advice. Nothing - Sen B was on the payroll before he became a Senator. To say Mr. Allen was an organizer way overstates his role. There was no secret he wanted to the PPT passed. The illegal solicitation was made by others. He didn’t solicit anyone. They came to him. He was vulnerable. They came to him.

Prosecutor Trusty: I would submit 4 levels is appropriate here. Question is whether Allen is a leader or organizer of a scheme.
Actions of Allen as the court knows them - reflective of court
Person in charge of doling out promises, favors,
The way others treat Mr. Allen - people who sit there and report, repeatedly to Mr. Allen. People Mr. Allen can look in the eye and say I own your hind quarters. That says something. Someone in that position wouldn’t be talked to in that manner.

I don’t know the role in 2007, but was a non-binding estimate. Being a manager, if the court went for 2 level adjustment suggests there is someone higher than the manager, and there simply isn’t one. He isn’t just one of the players. No one above. No middle ground, the scope of the scheme covers the fie participants - Allen, Smith, State Sen B, state Senators A and C.

Payments between 1995 and 2001 are not part of the criminal conduct. Consultation is not illegal, but sham consultation payments are.

When people look people n the eye and says he owns them, and he is the center of the conspiracy, no one higher than him, there is no question at all.

Judge Sedwick: I think it’s clear he was the leader, as Mr. X points out, there is no one else who could have been. It may be correct that some of the minions knew how to take advantage of Mr. Allen, but only because it was known he was willing to put lots of money into what he wanted.

Also indicate, that I disagree with argument in Bundy’s brief that it has to be proven by clear and convincing, but it is clear and convincing aNYway.

advisory from 78-97 months, this is before considering motion for downward adjustment, and he is eligible for downward because all five conditions have been met.

Mr. Trusty:

Mere threshold of making a motion, …. some highlights, undisputed . Mr. Allen made an immediate decision to cooperate, and he has cooperated in a proactive manner, testified, made himself available, about 71 consultations, consented and participated in consensual recordings, and close circuit tv in his home on about 11 occasions. Clearly, Mr. Allen is worthy of this and we have submitted a motion of 8 level departure. this is a bit different from custom of this court because it goes beyond the normal 50% standard in this court. But we think it is justified here. What makes them unravel is having an insider that makes them unravel. Mr. Allen did the right thing by way of cooperation. Also note the cooperation with Judge Sullivan. We filed a second amendment to the plea agreement, that Mr. Schuelke’s probe would be a component of the cooperation. We think it might have been covered by the original plea, but modified it just in case.

[As I understand it, Schuelke was appointed by Judge Sullivan in the Ted Stevens case, to investigate the allegations of wrongdoings on the part of the prosecutors.]

9:08

Administrative proceedings would not be part of the plea agreement or modified pa.

In our assessment, guilty pleas have been secured with Mr. Allen's cooperation. Mr. Smith was guided by Mr. Allen. Indictments of individuals. What should b e considered in the reduction -

I would suggest to the court it would be appropriate for the court to assume Mr. Allen will continue to be available - as in Weyhrauch case. That would also be determined. Rather than amorphous sentencing or excluding that.

Judge Sedwick: I assume that he will continue in that role with Mr. Weyhrauch.

I have accepted the letter form Mr. S?

Bundy: We maintain strenuously that Mr. Allen has been forthright with the govt.

Judge Sedwick: I assume that.

Bundy: Govt. papers misstated, policy in this district when rule 31.c that ordinarily in plea agreement, the court cannot go below or the govt. will drop the agreement. It will not be lower than ½ unless extraordinary cooperation has occurred. Were 311c agreement, ….??? then there is no such policy.

Judge Sedwick c1c c1b court is free It doesn’t matter.

Bundy: If this were ?? would not be constrained. No policy that prevents….

Judge Sedwick: One thing that sometimes come out where 5k1 motion, cooperating witness has run great personal risk of being assassinated or having family killed. I’ve had a case where one witnessed took a ten year minimum because he was so scared. Was Allen under such a risk?

Bundy: Not aware of such a risk, but the level of

Judge Sedwick: I understand that, but I don’t think any of the witnesses…

Bundy: None of the witnesses, but some deranged person in the community…..

Court knows from medical examination, it was much more difficult for him to go through the gigantic amounts of information.

Judge Sedwick: I’ve seen Mr. Allen testify, I understand.

Trusty: You talk about threat, we have no information that there was any such information about a threat, and of course we would have shared that info had we had it.

Judge Sedwick: didn’t suggest you hid information.

Govt. asked for 8 level reduction, Appears to be appropriate. In connection with some federal crimes, victims allowed to speak at the hearing. Unlike bank robbery, the crimes here have no individual victims, but rather the public at large. Mr. Ray Metcalfe has asked to speak. Since I find he has suffered no particular harm, I find he doesn’t have a right to speak as in various cases named….. So Mr. Metcalfe doesn’t have right to speak

Not hear from Attorneys. Also address amount of fine. I’m seriously considering maximum fine by law $750K

Bundy: I’d like to make sure, on the record, ???? Amounts attributed to Mr. Kohring. $17,000 that Mr. K asked of Mr. Allen and court found he was good for that request. But he never gave him, never loaned him, never did anything illegal to fix his medical or master card payment.

Judge Sedwick: Does it make any difference in the sentencing?

Bundy: I don’t think so. And Mr. Kott assess $???? for a job he never got, Amount court finally approved came from Mr. Allen’s testimony in the Kott trial - that clearly is not, based on the plea agreement, is not allowed to be used.
From Sen. B’s payment - most considered to be legal - all but about 10% should not be considered.

Judge Sedwick. That

Mr. Terwilliger: Thank you for giving me the privilege of appearing in this court before your honor.

Judge Sedwick: To be honest, jut about any attorney can appear here.

Mr. Trusty [Terwilliger]: Niceties thank yous. Grateful for the professionalism with which we’ve been dealt with by our colleagues from the govt. Highlight a few:

1. Important but housekeeping
a. request that Mr. Allen serve his time in one of two federal prison camps - Sheridan Oregon or Tucson, Arizona, so he can have support of family without having to travel great distance.

We know how difficult this is, consider three factors:
1. alluded already by Bundy, Mr. Allen’s age and medical conditions
2. proportionality and balance - balancing the good in Mr. Allen’s life and what has been not good - violations of the law
3. Keen sense of justice


Age - 72 years old, going on 73. From both the PSR and Government recommendations, his normal life expectancy, not counting health problems, would have mr. allen spend ½ the rest of his life in jail. All the medications he takes, impaired cognitive functions, appreciate your comments, all are going to make his service of time more difficult than had he not had those conditions and ask you to take them into consideration.

Proportion and balance - Fair to say Allen created a record, that he is extremely hardworking, dedicated, goal oriented individual, Company he built from nothing with no education remarkable. Patriarchal with family and employees. I know you’ve looked at this. He’s done extraordinary things for people out of generosity. What happened here int terms of his involvement can be explained and not excused. he became focused on this pipeline on the benefits it would bring to Alaska, and allowed himself to turn his generosity into illegal behavior. Separating illegal from while there may be a body who view the pipeline or oil exploration may think not good for Alaska. He had views which are protected by the constitution. He allowed his goals to overcome his responsibility to obey the law. So, in doing what he did, he did cross the line.

All of that wrong has to be measured against what he did when he agreed to cooperate - a decision he made without an attorney


Public Corruption is indeed a serious wrong. I spent time in the Justice Department and understand the dangers of public corruption. I was arrested by your words - C has way of eroding democracy….” no one can disagree with that. What he did when he was confronted with this, in all cases where corruption is removed, it takes someone inside who can help out.

If prosecutors thought he was the worst, they wouldn’t have made a deal with him.

What got the job done, was not the surveillance and video, it was Mr. Allen’s corruption.

We understand public opinion is very strong, the ADN tells us.

I’m struck what the Federal system means in cases like this. Federal court have always stood as a bulwark against runaway justice. the most difficult task and awesome responsibility a judge can face is to decide a person’s face in the face of strong public sentiment. We ask you to consider this.

Mr. Trusty: Housekeeping, place keeping, my understanding that federal institutions carefully

Judge Sedwick: I’ve never turned down a recommendation to house someone near family

Trusty: Mr. T puts finger on key issue - balancing wildly conflicting interests. I don’t envy the court. I think Mr. Allen can be a very polarizing figure, may be a polarizing person himself.

Picture of man who loves family, supports family. I don’t dispute. Admirable upbringing from hard scrabble to responsible positions.

But has created a swath of harm by Mr. Allen’s corruption. Harmed institutions very visibly and calls for punishment.

Assume truth lies somewhere in between. Not useful in this case. Truth embraces the extremes. It’s really both his generosity and the harm of his corruption. A difficult balance. Reasonable minds can disagree.

Important to acknowledge cooperation to erode guidelines to where they are now. But also conflicting need for punishment because he was the center of the spokes of this wheel of corruption. Whatever word we want to use, corrosive, graft, this was very devastating to Alaska.

I heard a lot about Mr. Allen’s motivation. Something he didn’t intend evil, he was pushing what he thought was good for alaska, but how he pursued it became corrupt. There is some truth - that Mr. allen, in his mind, could justify his corruption.

But bribery requires out and out greed. They trade their honor for a pittance. The birbr the man who hands out the money, decides he wants the profit despite the harm.

[Allen watching closely.]

He made that decision, not as a one time event, but a regular, corrupt process, Years of affecting the political process.

We’re not blind that there was extensive cooperation. The system anticipates the cooperation that takes place. We don’t ignore the governments position. This calculation does not ignore the benefits of that cooperation. Also strikes a balance.

We know that our guideline range is now 33-41 months, Our recommendation was 46 months. May have said “in the vicinity” we think it appropriate, difficult balance. 41 months sentence appropriate.

Ability to pay is clearly in play here. We think the maximum fine of $750K is appropriate - makes a message. Appropriate component to impose that maximum fine.

We believe under all the tangled circumstances of his history and conduct. Imprisonment in 41 months, originally said 46, maximum fine.

Judge Sedwick: Mr. Allen, you have a right to speak:


Bill Allen: I can’t talk fast. I started. . . went to Alaska in 1968, it was good timing, They needed people like me to develop the Cook Inlet. Oil companies wanted me to go in and I did, I went , I was really wanting to do oil pipeline. I didn’t know anything about politics at that time. I could see we weren’t going to get any pipeline.

Boom in North Sea. I went there. 1000 people in platforms, So it came along pretty good. I also had VECO. Hard to take care of VECO here in Alaska and company in North Sea, Tough time doing both. I think we got the oil pipeline about ‘75 and so I started trying to sell my part of the company in the North Sea. I was successful. I took that money back to Alaska and put it on the Slope. I went up there, Done it myself. Took me a year to get all the shops set up. It was successful. So I both the timing was great. When I seen that we were going to produce about 2 million barrels a day. I thought, boy Alaska really needs to make sure that they keep that. I think Prudhoe producing about 2 million, about 20 % of the oil used in the Lower 48. From that Alaska really, good deal for Alaska. Look at all the buildings, libraries, roads. When I come up to Alaska in ‘68, they thought it was great, but some of the media didn’t like oil for some reason. I don’t understand why.

When I got . . and decided if i could help with oil, I hired a lobbyist. He said the best thing I could do is fundraisers for guys who have the same minds I have to protect oil and we have a pretty good tax here. It was really balanced. Anyway those fundraisers, we did a lot of good people, legislators About that time lobbyist and I parted ways and I got more personally involved in the political process. We needed ….. and that is the reason I thought about that time I hired Rick Smith to help with the fund raisers. He’s good at that. A little more than 2 years. Big war between Times and Anchorage Daily News. Had a bigger . . .than I had. . . I had [Anchorage Times] for about 15 years. What they thought - conservative people think When Murkowski was elected. I think he done a good job. Hard headed. Other than that he done a good job. Got the three producers together. Really got together I thought man I can really… All they wanted was clarity on their oil taxes and they would build the natural oil pipeline. And they would put more money in oil - heavy oil big job, West ??/, Almost as much oil as Prudhoe but hard to produce.

So we had a . . . between oil companies and state, They need to be married. It got close. Tried to push it too far, over the line. But I did. When they nailed me in 2006, it was a 30 Aug. 2006. They give me a tape that really embarrassed me. I can’t talk anyway. When they were taping it, hell I could tell I was half drunk. I didn’t like looking at myself.

I made two decisions. I was going to do the right things. I quit drinking. I haven’t had a drop of alcohol since 2006. I’m not an alcoholic, but you do a lot of drinking. Not as good as it should be.

I’d like to apologize to you, to the people here in Alaska. Instead of me really helping them. I pushed them down really. I thought I was. I worked with the govt. 2 years. It was like a job. We probably done five to seven days a week trying to get ready for all these trials. I couldn’t [work?] full time, because of what I had to do to help them. It was hard a lot of people who were my friends. So your honor, I respectfully, go ahead and sentence me. Try to remember I tried.

Judge Sedwick. Thank you Mr. Allen.


The lawyers and some of you in the auditorium who have been at previous trials know I need to consider certain factors.

Congress chose to list:
Par. Nature and circumstances of the defendant - that’s really two factors, here they go in two direction. The effect of corruption on political process affects us all Democracy doesn’t work if corrupt. We can see that around the world. We are blessed in a country where that isn’t true. We enjoy the benefits of a true democracy. Time to time we face corruption. So this is a very serious offense.

The characteristics of the defendant points in another direction. Though not all commendable. His participation in the political campaign work in the 80s show he tried to affect that process.

To affect politics now requires large amounts of money. Large advertising campaigns.

But Mr. Bundy and Mr. T’s comments and letters of support, he is a person who is generous and has done a lot of good in the community, so this factor is difficult to assess. The balance of the offense and characteristics of the defendant.

Some in the guidelines or a little higher are appropriate. Seriousness of the offense requires relatively stiff sentnce. PROMOTION g respect for the law, just. Mr. Allen does have some medical needs.

Defendant isn’t likely to pursue further criminal conduct. He didn’t have much eduction but is very intelligent. Anyone in Allen’s position would think twice bore engaging in the type of activity in which he was engaged. Conspiracy almost always unravels. You are putting your life in the hands of other people, who are by definition are criminals.

2. US Sentencing commission - level 20, category 1 = between 3-4 months, People will compare to Pete Kott and Vic Kohring. Big differences. Mr. Allen has cooperated. Mr. Kohring and Kott had the opportunity to cooperate and they refused. Also refused to take responsibility for their crimes. Not an appropriate comparison.

What Mr. Allen did is very substantial . Rare for government to recommend level less than ½. The only thing that would have made it stronger would have been if there had been threats against his life and family.


In this case, the person at the top of the pyramid who decided to cooperate. There are no real victims, but the people in this room, except perhaps the lawyers for DC. I’m directed by congress to impose a sentence that is no more than necessary.

Mr. T asked me to consider Mr. A’s health.

to achieve all the objectives, cooperation, 3 years of prison is required. Less than that would be insufficient. Greater than that doesn’t take into consideration his cooperation and his personal conditions and the difficulty he will face in prison. The people there are not dangerous, but it is punishment, it is prison. Their daily regimen is directed by others, not them. It is a miserable existence.

The fine. The crime here committed for more than one reason. I don’t doubt that he believes he was doing things for the best interest. But so do the people of opposing views, but they don’t commit crimes. Mr. A did commit a crime and it did involve a lot of money. Hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars for the people of the state. If that money had been left to the oil companies, Mr. A and his company would have gotten some of that money. 10s if not 100s of millions for his company.

If I were able to impose a larger fine I would. The maximum is $750K.

Sentence; 36 months on count 1, 2, 3, to be served consecutively, concurrently.

Probation.

Drug testing is suspended.
Required by statue, collection of DNA sample.
Submit to search of person, vehicle, place of employment on reasonable suspicion of contraband.

Until fine is paid, access to financial records.

Fine of $750K, Interest on fine will not be waived.
No fire arms.

Special assessment of $300

Conditions remain in effect until report to institution. Won’t report until told where to report.

Court advises me I said consecutively I meant concurrently.

In Sheridan, Oregon or Tucson.

In your plea agreement you waived your right to appeal. Normally , not appealable, but if you have some issue, you need to take it up in

Bill J. Allen's Statement in Court

I've just gotten back from the Allen and Smith sentencing. I've got lots of notes, but most is probably up on other sites. But let me post first Allen's statement to the Court. [For the rough, rough transcript I typed at the court of the whole session click here.]

Afterward, the judge sentenced him to three years in prison and $750,000. I'll cover that in detail later.

[NOTE: This was from typing as he spoke in court. While he spoke a lot slower than did the attorneys, he also didn't speak loudly. This is the best I could do. Not every word is here, but I don't think I've distorted what he said enough to change the meaning of the effect.]


Bill Allen: I can’t talk fast. I started. . . went to Alaska in 1968, it was good timing, They needed people like me to develop the Cook Inlet. Oil companies wanted me to go in and I did, I went , I was really wanting to do oil pipeline. I didn’t know anything about politics at that time. I could see we weren’t going to get any pipeline.

Boom in North Sea. I went there. 1000 people in platforms, So it came along pretty good. I also had VECO. Hard to take care of VECO here in Alaska and company in North Sea, Tough time doing both. I think we got the oil pipeline about ‘75 and so I started trying to sell my part of the company in the North Sea. I was successful. I took that money back to Alaska and put it on the Slope. I went up there, Done it myself. Took me a year to get all the shops set up. It was successful. So I both the timing was great. When I seen that we were going to produce about 2 million barrels a day. I thought, boy Alaska really needs to make sure that they keep that. I think Prudhoe producing about 2 million, about 20 % of the oil used in the Lower 48. From that Alaska really, good deal for Alaska. Look at all the buildings, libraries, roads. When I come up to Alaska in ‘68, they thought it was great, but some of the media didn’t like oil for some reason. I don’t understand why.

When I got . . and decided if i could help with oil, I hired a lobbyist. He said the best thing I could do is fundraisers for guys who have the same minds I have to protect oil and we have a pretty good tax here. It was really balanced. Anyway those fundraisers, we did a lot of good people, legislators About that time lobbyist and I parted ways and I got more personally involved in the political process. We needed ….. and that is the reason I thought about that time I hired Rick Smith to help with the fund raisers. He’s good at that. A little more than 2 years. Big war between Times and Anchorage Daily News. Had a bigger . . .than I had. . . I had [Anchorage Times] for about 15 years. What they thought - conservative people think When Murkowski was elected. I think he done a good job. Hard headed. Other than that he done a good job. Got the three producers together. Really got together I thought man I can really… All they wanted was clarity on their oil taxes and they would build the natural oil pipeline. And they would put more money in oil - heavy oil big job, West ??/, Almost as much oil as Prudhoe but hard to produce.

So we had a . . . between oil companies and state, They need to be married. It got close. Tried to push it too far, over the line. But I did. When they nailed me in 2006, it was a 30 Aug. 2006. They give me a tape that really embarrassed me. I can’t talk anyway. When they were taping it, hell I could tell I was half drunk. I didn’t like looking at myself.

I made two decisions. I was going to do the right things. I quit drinking. I haven’t had a drop of alcohol since 2006. I’m not an alcoholic, but you do a lot of drinking. Not as good as it should be.

I’d like to apologize to you, to the people here in Alaska. Instead of me really helping them. I pushed them down really. I thought I was. I worked with the govt. 2 years. It was like a job. We probably done five to seven days a week trying to get ready for all these trials. I couldn’t [work?] full time, because of what I had to do to help them. It was hard a lot of people who were my friends. So your honor, I respectfully, go ahead and sentence me. Try to remember I tried.


[To get earlier glimpses of Bill Allen in court, you can look at my posts on the Pete Kott Trial. There are quite a few posts and I think Day 6 was Allen's first appearance. So you'll have to scroll back a few pages to get there. Or go directly to Day 6.]

Capitalism: An Education

We did get to see two movies so far while we've been here. "Capitalism: A Love Story" and "An Education." I just don't feel like writing much on them, but I'll give you a quickie on each.

Novelists would be hard pressed to invent a character like Michael Moore. Frumpy and overweight, creative and fearless, Moore's take on the world seems pretty much on the mark. He's able to explain complex relationships clearly with his camera and his tongue and his juxtaposition of stories. We see working people being thrown out of their long term homes by heartless real estate agents with the help of police. Then we see a guy who talks quite openly about how he helps clients find foreclosures they can buy cheap. Republicans will see these folks as deadbeats who spent more than they had. Moore shows a story of predatory finance organizations luring people into unworkable agreements. We hear from Congresspersons and lobbyists who helped bail out the bankers. He keeps up the pressure and the camera antics til the very end when he surrounds Wall Street with yellow crime scene tape.

I know that people yell and scream that he's outrageous - and he is. But his take on capitalism, while not exactly what Jr. Achievement preaches, is probably far more accurate. Capitalism plays an important role, but like the circus elephant, it needs to be chained down lest it goes on a rampage. After all, capitalists say it works because everyone pursuing their self interests, keep each other in check. Unfortunately, pursuing their self interest part is right, but keeping each other in check isn't. That's why the chain needs to be there. But the ideologically impaired, seem to believe that capitalism is an integral part of Christianity.


"An Education" kept me uncomfortable through the whole movie. It wasn't long after we meet the older (30s?) gentleman, David (Peter Saarsgard) who offers the 16 year old cellist, Jenny (Carey Mulligan) a ride in the rainstorm, that it was clear this wasn't going to end well. I tend to question conventional knowledge and I suspect that not all older-younger romance has to be bad. But in this case the cad is lying early on and all the bells went off. This just wasn't a good situation. The acting was convincing, but I just felt uncomfortable throughout. Jenny was well developed, but we never saw more than quick glimpses behind David's facade. How had he become who he was? How did he deveop his charming facade and what caused him to be so totally without compassion for others? Was he a non-violent, gentleman sociopath? We don't know. And since he was the most troubling character, understanding him would have been more enlightening than understanding Jenny. A good movie for teenage girls to watch.

Discussing Ethics Part II - Keeping Politicians Clean

Yesterday I wrote about Talk of Alaska's discussion on ethics and the difficulty of talking about ethics in the middle of a public ethics dispute. It's natural to be biased by who, in the current controversy, you think is 'right.' So, I reasoned, we needed to step back and look at the underlying conditions that contribute to ethical communities.

In that post I argued that because conflict of interest is inherent in all jobs, the real focus needs to be on how to prevent conflicts of interest from leading to the two most common negative consequences of a conflict of interest: undue gain and improper influence.

Most of my views on this have evolved from teaching graduate public administration students and also doing ethics workshops with municipal employees for many years. Living and working in Asia have also contributed to my understanding of this topic. The ideas here have been written up in more detail as "Balancing Tensions between Personal and Public Obligations: A Context for Public Ethics and Corruption" in a chapter of a public administration book. The focus of that chapter and these ideas is NOT specifically Alaska, but the dynamics that affect the level of ethics and corruption anywhere in the world.

So let's move on.

In most countries or well defined communities there are official rules - government laws - but also other social norms that people follow. Modern states tend to be based on what we know as "the rule of law." Decisions are supposed to be based on rationalized rules and laws, and aren't made arbitrarily by some despot. But we also have the pull of loyalty to our family and friends that all of us recognize as legitimate as well. It's why we have laws against nepotism.

Ideally the rule of law and other norms support each other, but often they do not. Some common competing norms for government officials include religion, family loyalties, and alternatives to government. These alternatives include private options that come into being to fill gaps that aren't otherwise met by the government - from perfectly legal ones such as the legal market to highly illegal ones such as organized crime.

So with this very brief context, here are some basic cultural questions for testing the likelihood that public officials and administrators will be drawn into unethical behavior in any particular setting:

1. Can administrators meet their basic needs (live a life-style consistent to the societal expectations for a person in that position) from the compensation of their jobs?
   
   • In the US, public salaries for jobs that require the least amount of education tend to be highly competitive, and when you include benefits and pensions, are probably better than what many of the employees could get in the private sector. However, those in professional jobs - lawyers, engineers, accountants - often could make much higher salaries in the private sector than in government.
     
     
2. Are there conflicts between the social norms and the rule of law?
   
   • Do many public officials have personal obligations that are so strong that they may lead them to violate their professional obligations? Can religious or family responsibilities, or other personal ties interfere with their public job performance? In a number of countries family or school ties lead to severe conflicts for public officials. In the US business interests are often a challenge to politicians' duties to the public as a whole.
     
     
3. Are there options to meet one's needs through breaking the law?
   
   • In places where the rule of law is lax and corruption widespread, even basically honest officials are tempted. Where organized crime has strong power, politicians may be threatened if they don't cooperate with crime bosses. A terrible example of this in the news are the Mexican drug cartels that make it dangerous to be an honest public official in many places in Mexico. But the tales I hear from Juneau suggest that temptation lurks in much less overt ways - free dinners and drinks from lobbyists, poker parties where politicians hardly ever lose, and a bunch of people who are suddenly new legislators' best friends.
     
     
4. What is the likelihood of getting caught breaking the laws?
   
   • If corruption is commonplace and few are ever punished, falling to temptation is more likely. The Alaskan legislators who were convicted in the last few years were not doing things that hadn't been fairly common in Juneau. On the other hand, better education in ethics wouldn't hurt - education that is more than learning abstractly about laws. And also includes federal laws. The three convicted legislators didn't even know about the federal laws they were breaking at the time. But such training shouldn't simply be how to avoid getting caught.
     
     
5. Is the price of breaking the rules worth the risk?
   
   • If the potential gains are great and the potential punishment if caught low, some will take the chance, especially in places where legitimate means of improving one's position in life are limited.

While some Alaskans may think this is extreme, I would remind them the model here was not focused on Alaska, but nations around the world. But I would also point out that legislative salaries in Alaska are set with the expectation that legislators have other jobs when the legislature is not meeting. This does set up the opportunity for businesses affected by the legislature to hire legislators during the off season. While there may be situations where the legislator is completely free of obligations to his or her employer, there has to be a real tension for most. And the appearance of a wrong doing is ever present in the public's mind.

So, based on this scenario, what are the likeliest strategies for preventing unethical behaviors?

1. Employing organizations must provide enough compensation and free time for employees to meet their basic personal obligations.
2. Public officials should not be able to meet their needs through illegal channels.
3. Public officials pursuing illegal channels should have a high probability of being caught and punished.
   
4. Specific factors that make corruption less likely include:
   

• Transparency
  
  • As much as possible is out in the open to be seen and reviewed
• Independent watchdogs
  
  • Independent media, ombudsman offices, auditors, citizen activists, real protections for whistle blowers, are all important in this.
• Political structure with dispersed power
  
  • The more power is concentrated the less opportunity to challenge that power. But if it is too dispersed, it may be difficult to get anything done. (No one said any of this is easy.)
• Economic and political systems in which wealth and power are equitably distributed.
  
• The bigger the gap between the rich and poor, and the more difficult it is to bridge that gap legally, the more likely people will go to illegal options. If this assumption is accurate, then the more equitable a country's economy is, the less likely there will be corruption.
• Sufficiently educated population that understands the dynamics of economic, political, and social systems and thus is less susceptible to propaganda that supports corruption
  
  • To the extent people are susceptible to propaganda - economic or political or social - demagogues can take advantage of real or perceived problems to increase their own power and legitimize the illegitimate.

These are basic rules of thumb. Their application necessarily must vary from situation to situation. Some are relatively easy short term changes. Some are very difficult long-term changes. Some may react, "this is impossible in my country." While I have seen 'the impossible' happen several times in my lifetime, I don't dismiss that some things are real long shots. But it is also healthy to understand that sometimes we are facing extremely difficult tasks and that perhaps we should shift our efforts to areas that will yield more benefits for the costs. We tend to be better at understanding what is impossible physically ("Would you please jump over this house?") than we are at understanding things that might be impossible socially ("We will eliminate homelessness in two years.")

There's a lot of stuff there. Here's a simpler recap of the strategies:

Shorter term measures:

1. Reasonable compensation for officials so that they aren't tempted to make more money in ways that put them into compromising positions.
   
   
2. Tough, but enforceable laws that make it clear that undue gain and improper influence are not acceptable.
   
   
3. Incentive structures that protect independent watch dogs - media, auditing agencies, citizen activists, etc.
   
   
4. Transparency - there should be few areas where the public does not have access to what public officials are doing. Freedom of Information laws have already identified those areas that are legitimately confidential and when that confidentiality is no longer needed. Perhaps statute of limitations should be related to when the information becomes publicly available.

Longer term measures:

1. Work to have reasonably equitable distribution of education, wealth, and power. At the very least, legitimate ways to improve one's position in society should be more accessible and attractive than illegitimate ways.
   
   
2. Education, from primary school on, should focus on developing students' critical thinking abilities.

Improving the ethical climate of our state - or any political entity - is not something we can do quickly. It's based on a mix of factors that include personal values of officials, but also the social, economic, and legal structures that increase or decrease incentives to be good.