Travelgate summary

While Governor of Alaska Sarah charged the state 40 times for travel expenses for her children. 

From Mudflats

Governor Sarah Palin yesterday agreed to pay an estimated $6800 for what she charged the state for her children’s travel expenses and related costs since assuming her role as governor.

This all came about as the result of an ethics complaint filed against Palin by Frank Gwartney, a retired electrical lineman who had had enough of Palin’s hypocrisy regarding cleaning up government, and stopping abuses. The complaint, which was filed in October after new information came out about her state paid family travel, was sent to the Personnel Board and investigator…..(wait for it)…..Tim Petumenos. You remember him. He’s the one that said (despite the Legislative Investigation into the Troopergate ethics scandal, and their finding that Palin was guilty of abuse of power under the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act) that Palin was innocent of any wrongdoing. And the fact that there was contradictory testimony from Palin and Walt Monegan? Well….that just wasn’t worth pursuing in his humble opinion.

So now, after looking at FORTY examples of the state paying for Palin’s children to travel with her, he’s come up with 9 instances where he found the personal benefit outweighed the benefit to the state, and Palin has agreed to pay for these 9 occasions in exchange for getting to say “I did nothing wrong!” and for Petumenos agreeing  not to file a formal accusation or take the case to a hearing. Not a bad deal.  Palin get’s to pay a small amount in order to stop an investigation, and also gets to claim, according to her attorney that she was “exhonorated.”

The charges at issue include the cost of airfare and one meal when daughter Bristol to accompanied Palin to New York City in 2007 for a women’s leadership conference, according to the settlement agreement. State travel forms put that cost at about $1,400.

There’s also airfare and hotel costs for daughters Bristol and Piper to travel with their mother to the National Governors Association meeting in Philadelphia last July. State travel forms say the flights and hotel room at the Ritz Carlton cost more than $2,500.
Other questioned trips were in Alaska, including one last year to the start of the Tesoro Iron Dog snowmachine race, in which Palin’s husband, Todd, was one of the contenders.

So, what were the other 31 trips, where the presence of the Palin children had more benefit to the state than to them, or the governor personally?  I’d like to hear what compelling reasons Mr. Petumenos found, that would make me feel good enough about the benefit to the state of Alaska that I’ll pony up money to send her kids along on the trip.

And what did Palin have to say about this?  What is her justification?

“This is a big state, and I am obligated to — and intend to — keep Alaskans informed and meet with them as much as I can, from Barrow to Marshall to Ketchikan,” Palin said in a written statement. “At the same time, I am blessed to have a large and loving family, and the discharge of my duties should not prevent me from spending time with them.”

So, she thinks that her job as governor shouldn’t prevent her from spending time with her family.  And it shouldn’t keep her from living in Wasilla, rather than the state capital, Juneau. And it shouldn’t prevent her from taking per diem payments to live there and work in Anchorage.   And it shouldn’t mean she has to pay taxes on that per diem, and her state vehicle, and on and on.

Nothing works out like it should for the governor, does it?

The policy found on the official state web site says that travel expenses by a state employee’s spouse, children or companions “are not reimbursable.”  But somehow when applied to the governor, the rules become “dizzying and circular” according to Petumenos.  And the other side agrees as well that things need to be “clarified”.

Palin keeps saying she did nothing wrong.  But when one governor’s actions constantly tiptoe over the line, meaning that ethics rules need to be “clarified” and reevaluated at every turn, and when public opinion sees the obvious lack of ethics that went into the decision making process, then it means they did do something wrong.  Whatever leads a governor to say “It’s OK to charge the state to live and eat in my own home” and

“Sure, the state should pay for my huge family to travel with me everywhere because I shouldn’t have to give anything up like other people do”  shows a basic disconnect, hubris, and a sense that the person feels that they are owed something.