Let's get a little more specific about why I think this issue is not nearly as cut and dry as the report contends. Factors:
1. Mike Wooten's history and character 2. The timing of the original complaint 3. The legitimate interest of any citizen in questioning the state allowing a person's of Mike Wooten's character to serve as a trooper Mike Wooten allegedly had a very questionable character. Drinking on the job, tasering a child, and defrauding workers compensation are serious allegations. Add in the allegations of threats against the Palin family during the divorce, the allegations of a revenge plot, and the alleged conspiracy to have Wooten's photo sent to the Governor's desk for her autograph, and what emerges is an ugly picture of a man bent on revenge. The original complaint against Wooten was made prior to Palin's election as Governor. Why is that important? Because at that point, her complaint was made as a private citizen, not as Governor. After she was elected, she sent an email and had a conversation with Monegan about Wooten. Monegan told her to stay out of the issue and leave it to Todd. She agreed and complied. Remember, she had an ongoing complaint against Wooten that had not been resolved to her satisfaction. When Monegan first informed her that she would have to stay out of it, she ended her involvement. But no one told Todd Palin to stop. Indeed, no one could tell him to stop. As a private citizen, he was as free as any other citizen of the United States to seek a redress of his grievances from the government. Redress of grievances is an extremely important concept of our democracy, and one we have argued over in the past. The Bill of Rights says:----Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. ----- Todd Palin had a constitutional right to ask anyone and everyone in the government of Alaska about why Mike Wooten, a man of allegedly questionable character, who the Palins had personal knowledge of, was still employeed by the state of Alaska in a position of authority as a trooper. If you were in Todd Palin's position, would you reasonably think that you could ask your state government about why someone who had a grudge against you, who you considered dangerous, was employed in a job where he could legally shoot people? Would that intimidate you? It would scare the hell out of me. I would take my case to anyone who would listen until I got an answer to my satisfaction. The core argument of the report is that Governor Palin allowed her husband, Todd Palin, to use a conference table in her office during his legal and reasonable quest to get an answer about Mike Wooten. She clearly allowed Todd to use the conference room table in her office. Why? Perhaps because he didn't have any space of his own and he wanted to be in Anchorage rather than back in Wasilla, and he needed a place to work. Was Todd's use of the table a legitimate use of state property? The answer is complicated. Would a reasonable person conclude a spouse had the right to make use of space in the Governor's office? What was the nature of that use? He didn't have a desk of his own. He didn't have a nameplate. The state made no special accommodation for his presence. He simply used space that was already set up to accommodate work and was apparently otherwise not in use. Would it have been better for Todd Palin to have rented an office in private space in Anchorage? Perhaps. It would have made it physically clear that his prescence was separate from hers. Isn't that what we're arguing about- the location of his work space? Would it make any difference to you where he was sitting when he called you? He would still be the Governor's husband. Do you believe the prestige and influence of the conference room table in the Governor's office to be so great that it would outweigh the prestige and influence of actually being the Governor's spouse? The important connection here is not Todd's location but his relationship with the Governor. If he was unrelated to her and for some reason sitting at the conference table in her office making calls and doing his own personal business, would she be responsible for his behavior? No. Does Todd's marriage to Sarah Palin abridge Todd's consitutional right to a redress of greivances? The Constitution says no. What about the argument that state employees would feel undue pressue by the fact of Todd's marriage to the Governor? The employees in question knew that Todd, as a private citizen, had no legal authority over them. Could they feel pressured by Todd's behavior? Sure. But we go back to the question of Todd Palin's constitutional rights. Should he have been prevented from asking for a redress of grievances because of his relationship to the Governor? We already said no that question. His rights are his alone. Absent questionable behavior or threats of relatiation by the Governor, state employees simply must put up with a private citizen, even one related to the Governor, harrassing them for answers about their private complaints. Such duty is, in fact, a core part of their job description as public servants. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:274185 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
