By DAVID EASTMAN
The legislature recently held confirmation hearings for three appointees to the hyper-partisan Legislative Ethics Committee. I highly recommend watching the first hearing, as it offers a rare glimpse into why it is not at all surprising to legislators that Alaska was just again ranked the #1 most corrupt state in the union.
By the end of the hearing, Democrats on the committee were in full blown damage control mode.
Watch the committee meeting here.
For years, the unelected members of the Legislative Ethics Committee have operated as highly partisan quasi-legislators who have never actually been elected to any office.
Because they were never elected and are therefore not subject to recall, they don’t represent voters. Nominally, they represent the chief justice of the Alaska Supreme Court, who appoints them to 3-year terms. However, since most of the public members have worked with the committee for well over twenty years, for all practical purposes, they simply represent themselves.
This is what was on full public display during yesterday’s confirmation hearing.
While the committee is supposed to be politically neutral, of the six individuals currently appointed to the committee by the chief justice, four participated in the effort to recall Governor Dunleavy (a no-no for appointees to the committee), the fifth appointee has teamed up with the ACLU in her current lawsuit against the Division of Elections and received a $50,000 contract from the Ethics Committee itself (a clear no-no for appointees to the committee), and the sixth appointee is a Democrat megadonor with frequent donations to groups like “Stop Republicans” and the Alaska Senate Democratic Campaign Committee (again a clear no-no for appointees to the committee).
According to testimony from the returning appointees, they see nothing wrong with the current makeup of the committee and would like it to continue “for the sake of continuity”. Democrat legislators on the Judiciary Committee were also quick to applaud their “many years of service” on the Ethics Committee, despite the fact that all three appointees have participated in clear ethics violations since their appointment.
While the recall petition and lawsuit were each mentioned in passing, the bulk of the committee’s questions related to the fifth appointee, Joyce Anderson. She received the $50,000 contract from her long-time fellow members of the Ethics Committee (a no-no for an appointee to any committee, least of all an appointee to the ethics committee).
Her fellow members of the Ethics Committee saw nothing wrong with this arrangement. She asked the attorney they hired and he said it was ok.
Even so, when she was asked during her confirmation hearing what her hourly rate was under the contract she refused to answer.
It is an interesting study in human psychology to watch as individuals who have been sitting on the Ethics Committee, enforcing public transparency requirements for decades, come finally to view those same public transparency requirements as entirely optional in their case.
Imagine the state of mind required to have an hourly state contract of up to $50,000, paid by taxpayers, then to come before the legislature for a confirmation vote and refuse to answer questions about how much you were getting paid for your work.
The irony here is that when this contract was about to be voted on by the ethics committee a fellow member of the committee asked her on the record what her hourly rate was, and she declined to answer then as well. At the time, she dodged the question by saying that she didn’t know what her hourly rate was, but that her hourly rate had been approved by the committee at their previous meeting. Only, it never was.
The hourly rate for each of the committee’s contracted staff were discussed in detail and approved at a previous meeting; that is, the hourly rate for every contract, except hers.
The Contract That Never Was
The missing details from the contract sparked questions over how the contract had come to be approved in the first place, and by whom. Notably, when the Judiciary Committee requested a copy of the missing contract they were informed that a copy of the contract was unavailable because no such contract actually existed.
The contract that the public was told had been approved by the Ethics Committee turned out not to be a contract at all. The chair of the Ethics Committee, whom Ms. Anderson had worked closely with for the last twenty-three years, and whom she anticipated continuing to work closely with for another 3-year term, arranged for her to instead be hired as a legislative employee with full benefits.
Of course, state law (that same law the Ethics Committee is supposed to be enforcing) explicitly bars a legislative employee from being appointed to, or serving on, the Ethics Committee.
“A legislative employee may not serve in a position that requires confirmation by the legislature.” (AS 24.60.030(f))
“A committee employee, including a person who provides personal services under a contract with the committee, may not be…an elected or appointed official…” (AS 24.60.130(f))
“Public members of the committee serve without compensation for their services…” (AS 24.60.130(f))
Ms. Anderson, while serving as a voting member of the Ethics Committee, was also hired as a legislative employee of the Ethics Committee on July 17, 2023. At the August 10th meeting of the Ethics Committee, she sought blanket, retroactive approval of her employment, described then as a contract, She also requested a retroactive “temporary leave of absence” beginning on July 17th. As a voting member of the committee, when the vote was taken she abstained from voting on her own request.
Because of the inherent conflict of interest associated with hiring someone with whom you are currently working on a board (and in this case had served with on the same board for many years and intended to serve with on the same board for many years to come), our state ethics laws explicitly bar you from continuing to hold your appointed seat on that same board. This would be true for any legislative committee, least of all an ethics committee.
It is noteworthy that none of the permanent members of the ethics committee noticed anything inappropriate with this arrangement at the time. It is perhaps even more notable that when Ms. Anderson and Mr. Cook were questioned about it they continued to insist that retroactive approval from their fellow members on the committee fully resolved the conflicts.
Ms. Anderson’s employment with the committee began on July 17th and continued through February 21st. While employed by the legislature, Ms. Anderson continued to serve alongside other committee members on the committee’s official subcommittee. While employed as a legislative employee, she also went to meet with the chief justice and lobby him to reappoint her to the Ethics Committee, which he did. When questioned about the propriety of this, she did not see anything wrong with this.
As there were some concerns that the legislature might not immediately confirm appointees who had already served on the committee literally for decades, the committee requested that the chief justice delay reappointing members of the committee until their current terms of office had already expired. By intentionally delaying the reappointments until later in the legislative session, current members of the committee could stay on the committee an extra year, even if the legislature flatly rejected their reappointment. The chief justice did so. Again, when questioned, Ms. Anderson did not see anything concerning about this.
As Ms. Anderson reported, she appraised the chief justice of the circumstances surrounding her continued employment with the committee and he saw nothing wrong and went ahead and reappointed her, despite the fact that she was legally barred from accepting an appointment to the committee while continuing to be employed by the legislature.
- “A legislative employee may not serve in a position that requires confirmation by the legislature.” (AS 24.60.030(f))
No doubt a retroactive leave of absence from some of her long-time colleagues on the committee will be in the works for this latest appointment as well.
After all, the hyperpartisan character of the committee could be put in jeopardy if even one member of this committee ever retires.
Given that the four longest-serving members of the committee, including Ms. Anderson, average more than twenty years a piece with the committee, efforts to retain the current political orientation of the committee are likely to grow increasingly difficult over time.
Resumes for each of the three recent appointees to the committee are available on the House Judiciary Webpage.
Rep. David Eastman is a legislator representing Wasilla District 27.
Blatant disregard for the tenants the rest of us are held to are regularly disregarded by the elite that hold themselves exempt due to their self perceived lofty status amongst those of us that pay their bills. The very evident activities these criminals are engaged in should give anyone watching the proof they need that the Republic of the United States is operating under a broken system and that we are now living under bureaucratic tyranny.
I am ready for a change as I am waiting for the red flag event to help get the part started.
How is this possible?
Another good reason to move the entire capital northward. It would be a lot more difficult to hide this if the capital was more convenient to visit.
I disagree. We have a corrupt assembly in Anchorage that has commited misappropriation of funds, racketeering, money laundering, and graft and there has been zero accountability. No matter what, if the judiciary is in bed with the criminals, the citizen is hosed.
We need an almost complete purge of our state politicians.
Along with reducing the amount of money they can play with- which in turn will reduce corruption. No more government budget increases- esp. to unions (looking at you government schools).
David, I’m not one of your district constituents, but I and many others thank you for keeping an eye on the Juneau rats and reporting to us of their latest infestations.
+1
I agree also Artfull Dogger.
Eastman rocks…….
the boat.
Thus, we need Eastmans in every district.
100% agree
When there is no conflict, there is no interest?
Thank God we aren’t speaking German
Thank you David for bringing this to light. The Attorney General should be filing charges. The unethical ethics committee must be impeached. The Chief Justice must be impeached. Then we must implement a new strategy for appointing Justices – particularly to the Supreme Court – that removes, as far as is possible, political bias from our judicial system.
You are correct but that would require the Alaska DOJ to indict itself. The foxes are in the hen house.
The Department of Law and Attorney General Treg Taylor are just as corrupt and unethical in my opinion and personal experience Rich. The Department of Law, including under AG Taylor has handed down determinations that directly contradict the Alaska Constitution and State Law. No one in a position of authority is going to fix any of this. Until we get a Governor that truly cares about fixing corruption in this State, all of this will continue.
Total BS. The real corruption is from the unions, their puppets in the Legislature, and the left-wing media. Get your head examined. Dunleavy works for the people, not the corrupt left-wing interests. Dunleavy didn’t need union backed RCV to win his second term.
If elected I will fix the state problems.
Many legislators forget that they are ELECTED by Alaskans, but they begin to feel that they are somehow SELECTED by God. As such, they think they can do no wrong.
In order to call it an Ethics Committee…
You actually need ETHICS!!!!
They sit imperiously rather than ethically like the royal, rulers and emperors they truly are. Who is “safe” in Alaska a conscience glitched zone. Never mind free as described in the US Constitution and our great republican form of government they cry out against and seek imperiously and impiously to change each and every day in Alaska.
Ethically unethical has become the norm for the deep state apparatchiks. Without the Chief Justice in their pocket the Committee would fail to be dysfunctional. It seems that the road to governing is a few well placed votes and we’re off to the races, while cronyism and nepotism are high qualifications for those willing to bend the rules/law/statutes into ones favor. A well termed phrase like “retroactive after-the-fact as though it never happened” is key to ones continued service under contract at Bacon-Davis wages and hard to decline. A greased palm makes gladhanding bearable. Let’s toast the criminally ethical.
What a convoluted mess. Really need a scorecard to keep it straight.
I have a horse manure pile that smells better!
How many of you complainers will pick up your phone, dial your representative, and DEMAND these inept people are not appointed? I am! Are you? Stop complaining online if you’re not going to make the freaking calls! MAKE THE CALLS! CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES NOW!
My comment about Rep Slimey Jesse Sumner was not allowed. Free speech is not allowed. We are only allowed to speak in a manner that won’t make others feel butt-hurt.
As for Rep Eastman, it is about time that the public brings a lawsuit against the government for allowing this to continue. There is no reason for the continual harassment. It is up to the People to protect the rep that is trying to work for us and that House should be doing as we instruct – not acting of their own accord.
Speaker Tilton, shame on you for allowing this. Sumner, Wilson, McCabe and all other the other rinos without a spine, looking forward to you being voted out.
Keep it clean, and dial back name calling, and all will be well. – sd
I didn’t swear and I did not attack anyone’s families or their looks or their ages. I think that is pretty clean.
If all of that is true, that’s some pretty amazing unethical behavior by the legislative ethics committee. Of course Representative Eastman isn’t necessarily an unbiased third party…
Eastman has more balls and horse sense than anyone else in the Legislature. By a long shot.
True. Why do you think other legislators despise him? Because they lack courage to tell the truth.
Marla. Or. OR! Or Eastman is just an angry, petty spawned out salmon.
David is popular for a reason, because he actually REPRESENTS, and his votes show his alignment with his constituents. Unlike most other representatives and senators who represent special interests over their constituents.
Thank you Representative Eastman. Oh how I wish Representative Ruffridge would show the same kind of integrity and resolve to end corruption in our judicial system.
Dear Mark, so sorry to inform you, there will be no red flag, no party, just dull, hard work. Work like staying informed, voting in EVERY election, no just the big exciting one where your hero saves the day FOR you. You have be INVOLVED. Call your reps, call your local candidates, vote in those boring little local elections, know who to vote for. This is a your responsibility, live up to it. The State has a web site that tracks EVERY THING the legislature votes on. Use it, get informed, call your rep, if they vote against you , vote against them. Oh… that’s right… it won’t do any good, I hear it all the time, I should know by now. So, tell me about this red flag thing Mark.will there be sirens, bells whistles? And what will we be expected to do? Will we stamp our feet, hold our breath, scream like babies? Why was I never told about this?
The decade’s Ultimate Irony is there for all to see in David’s link.
(‘ktoo.org/2014/06/16/alaska-tops-corruption-rankings-policy-journal/)
.
Even the communist Chinese, the Biden crime family’s corporate partner, Alaska’s largest trading partner, give First Prize to Alaska for corruption!
.
Bad optics to say the least.
.
Should be sent to every talk radio show and conservative news outlet in the country, no?
.
Thanks for your work, David.
And what does all this say about the Chief Justice? After all, he continues to reappoint them….
After 50 plus years in Alaska, it’s disappointing to watch our state falling into the cesspool of failed liberal leadership.
Thank you, David Eastman, for this factual and informative post. You are a voice of truth crying out in a wilderness of corruption, and I will support you with a donation toward your legal fees, imposed for having the audacity to challenge the Alaskan leftist machine. Like David against Goliath, thank you for your courage to stand against the financial cancel culture. Prayers for you, and for your wife and children who stand with you.
Elections are coming. May all Alaskans act on their inherent sense of right and wrong, and vote to oust this status quo.
While legislator Eastman’s article indeed speaks with some merit, his allegation that “Alaska Named Americas Most corrupt State, Again” certainly lands upon the reader as a shocking statement. BUT, upon reading the original UNISHKA (unishka.com/alaska) a person of at least average intelligence clearly and quickly see’s the ludicrous rational the author uses. Eastman can do better.
Comments are closed.