There are times when a judge has made his decision before looking at the evidence. It happens when the finder of fact is an interested party. This is exactly what has happened in the case against Sarah Palin.
"I think there are some problems in this report," said Republican state Sen. Gary Stevens, a member of the panel. "I would encourage people to be very cautious, to look at this with a jaundiced eye."
Jaundiced eye indeed.
My question is this, at what point did personal interest in one's community coinciding with the benefits associated with protecting that community become an ethical issue? The finder of fact quotes Monegan's testimony extensively, but the one portion of the report that contains words directly from Palin is an e-mail to Monegan under the subsection entitled "Event 7" on pages fifty-seven to fifty-eight [bolding my own].
In sharing a few personal examples with you, including the trooper who used to be related to me-the one who illegally killed a cow moose out of season without a tag-he's still bragging about it in my hometown and another officer confessed to witnessing the kill, this trooper was "investigated" for over a year and merely given a slap on the wrist... though he's out there arresting people today for this same crime! This is the same trooper who shot is 11-year old stepson with a taser gun, was seen drinking in his patrol car, was pulled over for drunk driving but let off by a coworker & brags about this incident to this day... he threatened to kill his estranged wife's parent, refused to be transferred to rural Alaska and continued to disparage natives in words and tone, he continues to harass and intimidate his ex, -even after being slapped with a restraining order that was lifted when his supervisors intervened... he threatens to always be able to come out on top because he's 'got the badge", etc. etc. etc.) This trooper is still out on the street, in fact he's been promoted. It was a joke, the whole year long "investigation" of him - in fact those who passed along the serious information about him to Julia Grimes and Tandesky were threatened with legal action from the trooper's union for speaking out about it. (This is the same trooper who is out there telling people the new administration is going to destroy the trooper organization and he'd never work for that b****, Palin.)
Anyway, just another personal example of what I've personally seen out there and had to live with for two years - and this is what people in the Valley are putting up with (those many residents who know of this trooper time-bomb who's supposed to be "protecting" them.)
The portions I bolded suggest to me that she honestly believed [and with good reason] that the continued employment of
Wooten was an actual public safety issue. Furthermore, it demonstrates her justified belief that Monegan and the troopers' union were acting with a callous disregard [or "rogue mentality"] for the safety of the people in order to protect, not only one Wooten, but those troopers who condoned Wooten's indiscretions [i.e., the officer who witnessed the moose kill and the one who let him off for drunk driving].
Furthermore, the report glosses over the "improper motivation" element of this inquiry [pages 50 & 51]. The Alaska Administrative Code defines "improper motivation" as "a motivation not related to the best interests of the state." The list following the definition is not inclusive, it is expansive. The fact remains, that Palin DID have the best interests of the citizens in mind. Her state of mind is well-documented in the one piece of direct evidence as to her words and actions, the e-mail. The fact that she pressed the issue with Bitney and others suggests not that she was trying to abuse her power in her self-interests, but that she was exhausting all avenues to effect the change that was actually in the best interests of the people of Alaska.
There was no reason to demonstrate both personal and financial gain. The analysis should have started and ended at "improper motivation". Isn't it axiomatic that a civil servant personally gains when the needs of the public are served? An indirect personal benefit does not negate public benefit.
Palin had the right to fire department heads without cause. They served at her will. THE END. The fact that there was even an investigation into this matter is a farce.
No comments:
Post a Comment