Parnell's Plight

Governor Sean Parnell has dug himself a hole that is deep and wide. Parnell has enough trouble brewing that would cause any sitting governor to start looking at the Help Wanted ads in the local papers. There are four primary areas of concern.

Parnell’s first problem is AGIA.

AGIA was pronounced as DOA by Parnell himself with respect to any expected success of the Open Season. Parnell’s refusal to answer rival Bill Walker’s FOIA request for disclosure of the Open Season is proof that Parnell is playing a delaying game without any expectation of success.

Against AGIA is the reality of the shale gas developments in Canada and the U.S. The Outside gas reserves are estimated to be enough for a 150 year supply of natural gas. The fact of the lack of any permitting to show in the 3 years since the passage of AGIA belie his current assertions that AGIA is alive and well.

AGIA, like Conoco/BP’s Denali project, takes our gas and gas liquids to Canada, thereby benefitting Canada, not Alaska.

Is Parnell acting in the best interests of Alaska by pushing AGIA?

Parnell’s second problem is his contempt for the law with the growing controversy over his appointments of Nancy Dahlstrom and Gene Therriault as his Military Advisor and Oil and Gas Advisor, respectively.

This situation would not be so remarkable were it not for the fact that both Dahlstrom and Therriault were sitting legislators at the time of the creation of the positions to which they were appointed. As ‘advisors’ their appointments did not have to be approved by the Legislature. The problem for Parnell arises with the fact that both appointments were in violation of Article II of the Constitution of the State of Alaska:

“Section 2.5 - Disqualifications.
No legislator may hold any other office or position of profit under the United States or the State. During the term for which elected and for one year thereafter, no legislator may be nominated, elected, or appointed to any other office or position of profit which has been created, or the salary or emoluments of which have been increased, while he was a member. . . .”

There was little comment about former Sen. Gene Therriault’s appointment, except by yours truly and a few others. With the second appointment of Rep. Nancy Dahlstrom, the pundits and the press finally figured out that our governor was ignoring the law.

Is our Governor above the law?

Another indication of the contempt that his governor and his appointees have for the law is the conduct of Gov. Parnell’s MG Katkus in requiring a subordinate to appear in uniform to testify to the House Military and Veterans Affairs Committee in support of Katkus’ appointment as Commissioner DMVA and Adjutant General. This act was unprecedented, and constituted a blatant act of undue influence. This situation was akin to Gene Therriault filling in for the Governor at a campaign function in Fairbanks earlier this summer. Both situations constitute at the very least undue influence on the part of the Governor and by Katkus as Parnell’s appointee.

Parnell’s third problem is the contradiction to any claim that he is working to resolve the Cook Inlet gas supply crisis.

Parnell’s Oil and Gas Division refuses to timely renew expired Cook Inlet oil and gas leases to exploration and development companies. This failure by Parnell’s Oil and Gas Division is incredible in the face of the alleged purpose of the bullet line.

Is Governor Parnell playing politics with a critical gas supply issue to the detriment of Alaska’s largest population segment?

Parnell’s fourth problem that is indefensible and, perhaps, the least recognized by the media, is Gov. Parnell’s decision to virtually eliminate the Alaska State Defense Force as a viable emergency response asset under DMVA.

In 2006, many of the Army National Guard assets were called to federal active duty in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo, leaving the ASDF to perform disaster response. ASDF was called to State Active Duty three times in 2006.

How is reducing the State’s ability to respond to a disaster a showing of leadership?

Are we voters going to let Governor Sean Parnell’s open contempt for the law and his failure in leadership stand?

Open and Transparent does not exist in Alaska's State Gov't

Alaska’s state government has been heavily criticized over the past few years from all sides for a lack of transparency. Criticisms have been made about meetings of the Legislature and the Executive branches held behind closed doors, along with the penchant for the judiciary to hide the crimes of their own.

It is one thing for a candidate to rail about the lack of transparency of the opposition’s administration, then to take office and repeat the same offenses. Sarah Palin railed against Murkowski’s closed door meetings with the oil companies. When she took office, she did the same, including closed door meetings with the Legislature. Sean Parnell’s Administration continues the practice.

What is hidden from we peons is a practice that is an affront to the idea of a constitutional government and the rule of law that is supposed to protect us all. Worse is the damage to the concept of openness in disclosing the machinations of a regime through public disclosure.

The State’s Freedom of Information Act has been compromised along with the disclosure of any document from any branch for any reason by a practice that is so cynical and so abhorrent in its intent so as to make a mockery of the words “open” and “transparent” when referring to an administration’s conduct.

What am I referring to? I am referring to the requirement of the Department of Law to review investigations and documents requested by FOIA under AS 40.25.100-120 and/or any document requested from a State agency for any reason.

The documents which can be refused are defined under AS 40.25.120. Certain aspects for the basis of refusal are a case of “duh” in terms of the obviousness of the need for discretion. However, the State has taken this need to protect its own to a new low.

Documents so reviewed are subject to being redacted, meaning information is changed at the discretion of the Assistant Attorney General reviewing the documents in question. One has to wonder how that sets with the courts to received documents so redacted?

Further, why would it be necessary to send any documents not meeting the criterion under AS 40.25.120 to the DOL for review? Every agency in the State has a legal department that should be competent to review the documents in question without subjecting them to further review by then DOL. In imposing this added bar to open and transparent government, an administration can selectively filter anything that it does not want to disclose, and who is the wiser? How do we peons know that DOL actually conducted a review of the documents in question?

Even the courts can be circumvented by this malarkey.

How do I know about this impediment to open and transparent?

I have requested the results from two investigations by the Dept. of Military and Veterans Affairs into the conduct of a certain appointee of the last two administrations. I am also a subject of those reports and have never been privy to the contents thereof. Yet, DMVA has delayed the disclosure of those reports for months, and when I finally informed them that I wanted to review and then copy as provided for under AS 40.25.100, I was informed that the documents in question would be sent to the DOL for review with respect to AS 40.25.120. How long will this process take? Who knows? It has been months and months for DMVA to disclose the existence of documents that are one year and 4 years old respectively, and still no end in sight as my being able to review a copy of either document.

I had to provide the Director of Administration the author’s name of one of the reports, as this individual indicated that DMVA could not find it. Now, DMVA miraculously found it, and it, with the other report, is allegedly headed to DOL for review, even though DMVA has attorneys on staff.

I firmly believe, and it is a matter of standing precedent, that when one is appointed to a post in an administration by the governor, one is in the public eye. Further, one’s conduct and performance are a matter of public record, and that the results of any investigation are public record. That’s just part of the price for holding one of those well paying political appointee jobs.

In the present case, the subject of the reports was an appointee of both the Murkowski and Palin Administrations and was a good friend of the current Lt. Governor Craig Campbell.

It is too bad that Gov. Sean Parnell cannot see that open and transparent is not withholding lawfully requested documents from one of the subjects of those reports. It sets a dangerous precedent and definitely shows that the Parnell Administration is a mirror of the Palin hypocrisy.

I also discovered this policy also applies to reports made to such agencies as the Office of Children Services that one has made in defense of a minor. If you make a report to OCS in writing, then request a copy of that report at a later date for a court proceeding, you might receive a redacted copy.

CYA should not exist in State government. It is time that such self serving conduct ended. Better the AG’s time be spent on prosecuting the law, than hindering the disclosure of conduct on the part of a state official that might turn out to be embarrassing to an administration or two.