Misrepresenting Ethics Law in a Highly Visible Case
Robert Wechsler
It seriously undermines the public's understanding of government ethics
when highly visible decisions misrepresent basic government ethics
concepts. This occurred yesterday, when the Alaska State Personnel
Board found that Governor Sarah Palin did not violate the Alaska
Executive Branch Ethics Act when she wore a jacket with the logo of
her husband's sponsor as the starter for a highly visible event, a
position she held only because she was Governor (e.g., a picture of her
wearing the jacket with logo appeared in Sports Illustrated).
Here's the relevant provision:
And here's what, according to a press release from the Governor's office, the report -- which concluded that "there is no evidence establishing probable cause to believe that Governor Palin used her position for personal gain" -- said to support this conclusion:
The relevant ethics act provision does not require proof of a quid pro quo. Proving that there was a direct exchange of something in return for an act is not only very difficult, it is also unnecessary under the ethics act.
In fact, the provision only requires that an official "attempt to use" her position for personal gain. No gain has to actually occur. But in this case there was clearly gain to the family in the company's sponsorship of the Governor's husband. Whether or not the Governor was required as part of a deal with the company to wear the jacket at the particular occasion is irrelevant.
I have no doubt that I will be falsely attacked in the blogosphere as a Democrat who never criticizes Democrats, as I was when I wrote about this complaint when it was filed (nor will my post on abusing the ethics process, with respect to Gov. Palin, be mentioned).
And that's why I'm writing this -- because such a highly visible, contentious complaint must be dealt with responsibly. It's not the outcome that matters, it's the honest presentation and interpretation of the law. This was not done here. I don't know if the people who misrepresented the law and the appropriate burden of proof were Democrats, Republicans, or independents. And I don't care.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Here's the relevant provision:
Sec. 39.52.120. Misuse of official
position.
(a) A public officer may not use, or attempt to use, an official position for personal gain, and may not intentionally secure or grant unwarranted benefits or treatment for any person.
(a) A public officer may not use, or attempt to use, an official position for personal gain, and may not intentionally secure or grant unwarranted benefits or treatment for any person.
And here's what, according to a press release from the Governor's office, the report -- which concluded that "there is no evidence establishing probable cause to believe that Governor Palin used her position for personal gain" -- said to support this conclusion:
My investigation has uncovered no
evidence that the governor or her
husband received anything of value in exchange for the governor wearing
the Team Arctic jacket when she acted as the official starter of the
2009 Iron Dog race.
The relevant ethics act provision does not require proof of a quid pro quo. Proving that there was a direct exchange of something in return for an act is not only very difficult, it is also unnecessary under the ethics act.
In fact, the provision only requires that an official "attempt to use" her position for personal gain. No gain has to actually occur. But in this case there was clearly gain to the family in the company's sponsorship of the Governor's husband. Whether or not the Governor was required as part of a deal with the company to wear the jacket at the particular occasion is irrelevant.
I have no doubt that I will be falsely attacked in the blogosphere as a Democrat who never criticizes Democrats, as I was when I wrote about this complaint when it was filed (nor will my post on abusing the ethics process, with respect to Gov. Palin, be mentioned).
And that's why I'm writing this -- because such a highly visible, contentious complaint must be dealt with responsibly. It's not the outcome that matters, it's the honest presentation and interpretation of the law. This was not done here. I don't know if the people who misrepresented the law and the appropriate burden of proof were Democrats, Republicans, or independents. And I don't care.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---