Is it OK to cheat on your expense account (and I mean big time). Her initials are SP.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@China_Guy

I am assuming that the State of Alaska has a code of conduct for elected officials. I would be greatly surprised if the above 2 points are not included in some fashon or another and applicable to the Governor.

There is.

“High moral and ethical standards among public servants in the legislative branch of government are essential to assure the trust, respect, and confidence of the people of this state.”

“A fair and open government requires that legislators and legislative employees conduct the public’s business in a manner that preserves the integrity of the legislative process and avoids conflicts of interest or even appearances of conflicts of interest.”

In fact, it looks to me like asking if her daughter(s) can attend events violates this (.pdf!):

Sec. 11.56.120. Receiving unlawful gratuities.
(a) A public servant commits the crime of receiving unlawful gratuities if, for having engaged in an
official act which was required or authorized and for which the public servant was not entitled to
any special or additional compensation, the public servant
(1) solicits a benefit, regardless of value; or
(2) accepts or agrees to accept a benefit having a value of $50 or more.

(b) Receiving unlawful gratuities is a class A misdemeanor. (§ 6 ch 166 SLA 1978)

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@Chief_Pedant

As one of those privileged to occasionally fly on the corporate jet, I can attest to the fact that it’s easily one of the top and most coveted executive perks.

So here’s a woman who gets rid of the government jet for travel, saving hundreds of thousands. She expenses $21,000 or so to keep her kids with her when she travels. And her political opponents turn it into a field day.

Castigating the woman for this is at the least mean-spirited sniping that exposes the political bias of the harper. At worst it’s the sort of idiotic argumentation that uses the letter of the law (and possibly not even that) to distort the general behaviour of the person being skewered. Not only is it embarassingly petty; it’s destructive. It is precisely the sort of politically-motivated nitpicking that helps keep women in their place. If ever there were an issue that focuses the dilemma of female execs, this is one. And to the general issue of our political system, it is precisely this sort of self-righteous carping from opponents that turns our political leaders on both sides into cynical bastards (if they weren’t that to begin with).

There’s no bigger picture being looked at here. There’s no effort at all to ascertain whether the overall public trust is being protected. No sirree. Got rid of the jet? So what? This woman spent our money ferrying her damn children around! The horror…the horror…

Proponents for Mr Obama do not elevate their cause being shrill about bullshit. They don’t separate themselves from the rabid right by wallowing in self-righteous indignation over something this petty. And when Mr Obama ascends to the Presidency he will not be well-served by this type of culture, because it promotes only division and hypocrisy.

The woman did what few in power have ever done: deprive herself of the corporate jet, saving her taxpayers real money at a real loss to her personal comfort. That does, indeed, play into the equation, and it does say something about her leadership in the area of controlling travel expenses. Those who pretend some purist philosophy gets to separate those two actions are indistinguishable from small-time booger-flickers casting snot because they know they don’t like an opposing debater but they are too mentally challenged to focus on substantive issues.

There are fish to fry in this election. This one is not even a minnow.

My hat is off to you Chief

Its the first time the word “eloquent” came to mind as I read your post.

You captured my thoughts and attitude on this issue with such precision and breadth that I look forward in anticipation to hear your views and arguments on issues in the future.

[even_sven]

@jtgain

Couldn’t it be argued that part of the job of Governor is PR?

Yeah, of course. And I’d expect the first family to show up if they are invited to be speakers during a conference about education. Or if they are asked to participate in a round table discussion about youth issues. Or doing some ribbon cutting at a children’s hospital.

5 days in a luxury hotel in New York city after their mom attended a five hour conference on subjects completely unrelated to these things is not PR nor is it all at in the best interests of the state. This is a sightseeing trip. If I have kids, nobody is going to pay for my kids to go on sightseeing trips. Why should I pay for someone else’s kids, especially when that person is worth a million and a half and could probably find funds to pay for her own family vacations if that was her priority?

[whorfin]

@Chief_Pedant

As one of those privileged to occasionally fly on the corporate jet, I can attest to the fact that it’s easily one of the top and most coveted executive perks.

So here’s a woman who gets rid of the government jet for travel, saving hundreds of thousands. She expenses $21,000 or so to keep her kids with her when she travels. And her political opponents turn it into a field day.

Castigating the woman for this is at the least mean-spirited sniping that exposes the political bias of the harper. At worst it’s the sort of idiotic argumentation that uses the letter of the law (and possibly not even that) to distort the general behaviour of the person being skewered. Not only is it embarassingly petty; it’s destructive. It is precisely the sort of politically-motivated nitpicking that helps keep women in their place. If ever there were an issue that focuses the dilemma of female execs, this is one. And to the general issue of our political system, it is precisely this sort of self-righteous carping from opponents that turns our political leaders on both sides into cynical bastards (if they weren’t that to begin with).

There’s no bigger picture being looked at here. There’s no effort at all to ascertain whether the overall public trust is being protected. No sirree. Got rid of the jet? So what? This woman spent our money ferrying her damn children around! The horror…the horror…

Proponents for Mr Obama do not elevate their cause being shrill about bullshit. They don’t separate themselves from the rabid right by wallowing in self-righteous indignation over something this petty. And when Mr Obama ascends to the Presidency he will not be well-served by this type of culture, because it promotes only division and hypocrisy.

The woman did what few in power have ever done: deprive herself of the corporate jet, saving her taxpayers real money at a real loss to her personal comfort. That does, indeed, play into the equation, and it does say something about her leadership in the area of controlling travel expenses. Those who pretend some purist philosophy gets to separate those two actions are indistinguishable from small-time booger-flickers casting snot because they know they don’t like an opposing debater but they are too mentally challenged to focus on substantive issues.

There are fish to fry in this election. This one is not even a minnow.

I’ll agree that this is a relatively petty sum. I think it says a lot about Gov Palin’s sense of entitlement–and about her character.

Some people given a trust (say, a corporate director), are faithful to that. They act in the best interests of those they are responsible to. They understand that even if they’re entitled to have the company pay (say) for first class travel, they won’t travel first class unless they need to-because they’re spending other people’s money.

Others think of the thing they’re responsible for as their property, ignoring those who trust them.

If the jet is sold, the state saves hundreds of thousands on the jet-NOT Gov. Palin. The money spent on the jet comes out of taxes. It’s not hers. She’s saving the taxpayers’ money. It’s that simple. She has no right to personally collect or benefit from any of the money she saves.

It’s very simple. Whether or not the state of alaska (NOT gov. Palin) was entitled to keep the jet, that’s one issue. If palin cut costs by getting rid of the jet, that’s a good thing. That has nothing at all to do with what travel expenses Gov. Palin is entitled to reimburse.

The legislature of alaska made certain rules for spending TAXPAYER money on reimbursement for travel. Those rules don’t have to make sense (though it seems that they do)–the legislature can set any rules they get the votes for.

But the governor has no right to go around them. If the representatives of the taxpayers say “we’ll reimburse travel if it’s got a state purpose,” then if Palin decides to get reimbursement for the kids’ flights when no state purpose exists, she’s taking money those representatives decided she wasn’t entitled to. That’s stealing. If she’s fudging her reports to make it look like her kids were invited (and hence should be reimbursed for travel) to events, that’s again taking something the voters decided they didn’t want to give to the governor.

And if we’re praising Palin for saving money—why aren’t we asking why she takes her children thousands of miles for some minor part in an event, instead of saving even more taxpayer money by leaving them at home?

[MEBuckner]

@Scylla

Don’t make up other shit and pretend that’s what I said. Don’t put words in my mouth or attribute positions to me that I did not explicitly state. Use the quote button to address your integrity issues.

@Scylla

You have falsely inflated it into a generality and pretended that was my stance when I said no such thing.

Falsely equating the specific to mean the general is both dishonest and a logical fallacy.

@Scylla

Again, I don’t appreciate your continued disingenuousness. I don’t appreciate you’re putting words in my mouth. I don’t appreciate you’re wasting my time by necessitating that I correct your dishonest extrapolations and false attributions.

If you’re incapable of using the quote button, you could simply ask before you attribute to me positions I haven’t made.

I think false attribution is a debate tool commonly used by the most dishonest and least intelligent posters on this board, and I’m surprised to see you lowering your bar this way.

Moderator’s Note: Scylla, knock it the hell off. You are walking right up to–maybe actually crossing–the line against insulting other posters in this forum (specifically, calling them liars) because…they can’t read your mind? I don’t see anyone here being disingenuous but you.

Just say what you think; if someone else doesn’t seem to undertand what you meant from what you actually typed, then simply try to explain and expand upon your point of view without spending two pages dancing around and getting offended at and then slinging ad hominems at all the non-telepaths who post on the board.

[whorfin]

Here’s an even simpler way to put it:

The state of alaska has said that the governor gets one of two things:

A) A jet, which will travel on business trips. She can bring anyone she wants in leftover seats.

B) Reimbursement for air travel for anyone with a business purpose for the trip. The state won’t pay for anyone who’s coming for the ride.

They pass an appropriations bill–so state law says this is what the governor gets.
She decides she doesn’t want (A), and sells the jet.

Can someone who’s trying to support her position please explain to me how any of the above entitles Gov. Palin to something that is neither (a) nor (b), reimbursement for her own air travel on business trips, plus reimbursement for the kids if she decides to bring them along (and changes her expense reports after the fact to list that they’re invited)

[tomndebb]

Frank and Scylla, let it go.
At this point, whatever point either of you had intended to clarify has gotten lost in your irritation.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

Yeah, this is only a little bit of fraud. Not that much to get worked up about. Her taking per diem for days at home is only a little fraudulent, too.

Her abuse of power was only a little bit abusive, since she could have fired the guy regardless.

Everyone should stop making mountains out of all these little molehills of corruption that Sarah Palin leaves behind.

[Equipoise]

@Jolly_Roger

I have to move soon, and I have to pay out of pocket to fly my pets back to the US. If I were to follow Palin’s example I should try to do some underhanded crap and get the taxpayers to pay for their flight.

Make sure to change your political affiliation to “Republican.” Then it’ll be ok.

So, is this stuff, the per diems, the fudged expense accounts, the clothes, getting play in Alaska? Is any of it at all affecting her popularity?

[gonzomax]

I do not like her taking her brood everyplace she goes. Get them back in school trying to live a normal life. We have all seen them enough.
As far as charging for dragging them everywhere, I expect it from pols. Thats what they do. She is just another pol looting away. She spends a lot for clothes…big whoop.
She is totally unqualified. Thats what I care about. She does not seem very bright either. I also care about that. She is a better speaking version of Bush. He has done so well ,we could use another one,couldn’t we.?

[Mtgman]

Meh. Governor’s kids live in the Governor’s mansion. They eat food bought and prepared by civil servants(chefs/cooks in said mansions). They may have security details, chauffers, etc. all on the state dime. That’s part of being a governor. Your job is 24/7 and if the event is a family friendly one, then the state should foot the bill to send the family(those the governor chooses to bring) to the event.

Now if she’s sending the kids into staff meetings and letting them represent her in legislative sessions, or sign/veto bills for her, that’s a no no. The governor has social duties as a figurehead for the community. The first family of a state or the nation all get included in those duties. Governors give up PTA meetings and neighborhood potlucks because they work 24/7/365. Their meetings and social events are in far flung areas and expensive. Unlike the private sector, where you go home at the end of the day, the governor goes back to the governor’s mansion, which is just another office, albeit a comfortable one. If the invitation is to “Governor and guest/family” then yep, the state foots the bill for sending the “guest/family” along, just like they foot the bill for the first family’s food and board.

This is how I feel about the issue generally. If Alaska has specific guidelines for family/guest of the governor travel and entertainment expenses, then those should be followed. If those were knowingly broken, that’s an integrity issue. Barring evidence of that, I don’t see why this should be a big deal at all.

Enjoy,
Steven

[rocking_chair]

does it make a difference if the flights are on a state police plane? the state police plane that is the search and rescue plane?

i heard it on cnn late last night. although this morning you can find many articles on it.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Mtgman

If the invitation is to “Governor and guest/family” then yep, the state foots the bill for sending the “guest/family” along, just like they foot the bill for the first family’s food and board.

This is how I feel about the issue generally. If Alaska has specific guidelines for family/guest of the governor travel and entertainment expenses, then those should be followed. If those were knowingly broken, that’s an integrity issue. Barring evidence of that, I don’t see why this should be a big deal at all.

Many of these invitations were not, according to the event organizers, for the whole family, but Gov. Palin asked if she could bring her daughters. That would seem to violate

Sec. 11.56.120. Receiving unlawful gratuities.
(a) A public servant commits the crime of receiving unlawful gratuities if, for having engaged in an
official act which was required or authorized and for which the public servant was not entitled to
any special or additional compensation, the public servant
(1) solicits a benefit, regardless of value; or
(2) accepts or agrees to accept a benefit having a value of $50 or more.

(b) Receiving unlawful gratuities is a class A misdemeanor. (§ 6 ch 166 SLA 1978)

as I noted in a previous post.

So now you have evidence; what do you think with this new information in mind?

[Mtgman]

@Snowboarder_Bo

Many of these invitations were not, according to the event organizers, for the whole family, but Gov. Palin asked if she could bring her daughters. That would seem to violate

as I noted in a previous post.

So now you have evidence; what do you think with this new information in mind?

I’m no lawyer licensed to practice in Alaska, but the privileges of the governor’s office are a different thing from gratuities. Governors don’t get a lot of time with their families, taking them along as guests when attending events would be a perk of the office, rather than a special dispensation provided by the event organizers, in my opinion.

Listing them as having performed “official business” is nonsense and she shouldn’t have done that, but I’m not sure “I’ll be bringing a couple guests, is that ok?” counts as soliciting a benefit. It’s a governor’s prerogative to bring their entourage wherever they go, as a general rule. Family is a legitimate part of that entourage, but they shouldn’t be passed off as anything more than guests.

Enjoy,
Steven

[whorfin]

@Mtgman

I’m no lawyer licensed to practice in Alaska, but the privileges of the governor’s office are a different thing from gratuities. Governors don’t get a lot of time with their families, taking them along as guests when attending events would be a perk of the office, rather than a special dispensation provided by the event organizers, in my opinion.

Listing them as having performed “official business” is nonsense and she shouldn’t have done that, but I’m not sure “I’ll be bringing a couple guests, is that ok?” counts as soliciting a benefit. It’s a governor’s prerogative to bring their entourage wherever they go, as a general rule. Family is a legitimate part of that entourage, but they shouldn’t be passed off as anything more than guests.

Enjoy,
Steven

As another non-lawyer, I’d agree that asking to bring guests is both the governor’s prerogative and a perk of the office. I don’t think she has a right to do so–simply in that if whoever’s inviting her says no, that’s their call. It’s the event organizer’s party-they have a right to invite nobody, the governor, the governor and entourage, or the 82nd airborne if they want.

Further, if the event ORGANIZER who makes the invitation agrees to not charge the kids/pay for their travel (say, if it’s a fundraiser dinner), that’s their call.

The big issue is that if Palin is bringing guests because she wants to, the State of Alaska hasn’t agreed to pay for their travel. The State of Alaska appears to have decided (by making a law/putting it in the budget) that it will pay for someone’s travel to an event only if they’re on official business. Hence, palin has NO RIGHT to get the state of alaska to pay for her kids travel if they’re guests.–and she’s stealing from the alaska taxpayers if she does.

As you point out, it’s nonsense for Palin to call bringing the kids “official business” in almost every case. She appears very clearly to have listed on several expense reports that the kids’ were on official business when they were not.

@Mtgman

If Alaska has specific guidelines for family/guest of the governor travel and entertainment expenses, then those should be followed. If those were knowingly broken, that’s an integrity issue. Barring evidence of that, I don’t see why this should be a big deal at all.

It’s pretty clear the state of alaska has guidelines on expenses. Some boy scout troops have guidelines for who pays for travel-it’s absurd to say a state wouldn’t have such rules.

As you note, these guidelines allow for the family to live in the governor’s mansion. That, however, doesn’t imply anything else-the rules are whatever the alaska legislature says they are, and they don’t have to be consistent.

So if the rules only allow for reimbursement for travel on official business, and that palin is rewriting expense reports to characterize her kids’ travel as official business when it wasn’t, I agree that that’s a major integrity issue. How is that not what happened here?