Below is Anchorage Mayor Dan Sullivan’s response to a question I asked about if he plans to fight APOC’s staff decision to fine him $187.50 for a campaign violation. APOC said that a statement that Sullivan sent from his official office was “election related” and therefore should not have been sent from his office. The statement in question was an apology for comparing union membership to slavery at a lieutenant governor’s forum. Read the back story here:
I am going to present a reasoned response that suggest that when something of this nature is so ‘de minimus,’ a cautionary warning to try and avoid candidate/elected official conflicts might be more appropriate than an arbitrary $187.50 penalty. The headline generated is completely out of proportion to the actual event, probably punishment enough.
This noncontroversy is being inflamed by people who were never going to vote for Sullivan anyway. It seems unlikely to me that reasonable undecided people could ever be swayed by any of this transparent nonsense.
Knee-jerk cries for the end of APOC are misguided. The organization is a mess, for sure. But this should surprise no one, considering political people — legislators — set the rules for their own oversight. That’s why whatever oversight APOC can still legitimately provide is not backed up with penalties that have teeth. So nothing of substance changes, and business as usual continues.
Classic example of the perils of inadequate vigilance in a form of government that functions best with an engaged citizenry.
John, thanks for the discussion.
All fair points, I grant you. I am not for ending oversight, but I find APOC quite ineffective and more often than not they appear to be used for political purposes, rather than remaining staunchly apolitical. You make very fair and reasonable points though and I thank you for the clarification. Have a good evening.
This Democrat supports the mayor’s position with APOC even though I’m not supporting his candidacy. APOC has grown out of control and needs to be stopped.
John, let me clarify my reasoning. Weakening the enforcement authority of APOC must be taken in the context of other actions our elected leaders have taken to make themselves virtually unassailable. Why don’t you attempt to gain access to a caucus meeting? Prior to the next session the majority caucus will ensconce itself in secret seclusion to decide the legislative agenda before they travel to Juneau. Last year it was at the Alyeska resort. Please ask if you can attend this event.
Then perhaps you might read the standards for an ethical violation? Perhaps you are not aware that the Governor, for example, cannot have violated state ethic law unless he or she personally benefits from an act. That means that the Governor could commit any crime and be found guilty of that crime yet there has been no violation of the Alaska ethics law unless the Governor received a personal benefit. Perhaps the final touch regarding the Governor is that an investigation regarding the Governor will be conducted by a contract attorney who has absolute power to exonerate the Governor with no requirement to even contact the person filing the complaint. How interesting that the current Attorney General was in that position to exonerate the current Governor from ethics complaints just before the Governor appointed him as State Attorney General.
I must have missed the comments stating that we should remove oversight, let politicians be exempt themselves from campaign law, and hollow out ethics laws. Stating that APOC is becoming irrelevant due to their inability to be consistent and the ability of clearly partisan Alaskans to use the office as a political tool (i.e. Vince Beltrami and the AFL-CIO), does not mean that oversight isn’t needed. Your post seems overly dramatic and lacks clarity of reason.
Vince Baldtrami is making a sensational event of something to do with union bully Dan (keep up the good work on towing the line Mayor Sullivan) that should be yesterday’s news. ADN took it further with the inflammatory headline–per usual. NAACP hasn’t said anything of late, which one may wonder–was this all for show? Gasp, couldn’t be. Moving along…
APOC needs reformed. As to Mr. Willis’ response, I think that people don’t have a problem with a campaign finance/lobbying reporting and oversight agency; rather, they objcet, as should you, to an agency that is arbitrary, inconsistent and alleged to be unethical. The current commission has become untrustworthy and eradict. Openess and transparency are important as is fairness. It is time to start over and creat a new organization with rules that are easily understood and administered. The current agency is a mess and the leadership and commissioners, in some cases, are arguably unethical if not outright corrupt.
For all of you calling for the emasculation of APOC remember that the Alaska State Government is always in the running for “most corrupt”. If we continue to allow our politicians to exempt themselves from open meeting law, continue to hollow-out ethics law, and finally take away all oversight then we might finally win the trophy.
Good luck Mr Mayor. I agree with your statement 100%. The only problem is that reason and logic doesn’t seem to be an influencing factor at APOC.