A continuation of the hearing on the penalty phase of former Fairbanks Assembly woman Savannah Fletcher’s ethics hearings will take place on Friday, May 16 at 6 pm at the Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly Chambers.
The earlier hearing was full of irregular events, from the nullification of the proper succession of the gavel and uses of conflicts to deny quorum. The continuation of the hearing allows member Kristen Kelly an opportunity to participate. This is a meeting that all conservatives should watch, as there is nothing like a room full of eyes to serve as a check on shenanigans and maintain balance.
During the April 29 meeting, Fletcher was found by the board of ethics to have violated the ethics rules three times by running a series of radio spots on KFAR as a member of the FNSB Assembly.
The hearing, to be continued on the 16th, began with a nullification of the rules regarding the gavel.
Presiding Officer Mindy O’Neal walked the gavel over to member Brett Rotermund for the declaration of conflicts. The rules of succession regarding gavel handoff are that the gavel should go to the deputy presiding officer, who currently is Scott Crass, and next to the Chair of Finance, Kristen Kelly. Kelly was absent due to a medical reason. By handing the gavel directly to Rotermund, O’Neal nullified the procedures. The only way to reclaim the gavel from Rotermund is a vote of those who were not conflicted out.
The events of the April 29 meeting seemed pre-planned before the meeting in an effort to deny a quorum. O’Neal declared a conflict in that she was too good of friends with Fletcher to rule.
While Rotermund ruled she had a conflict, there is nothing about having an affection for a member in the rules — they are not blood relatives, spouses, or even business partners. However, Fletcher did implicate O’Neal in the wording of one of the radio spots. If O’Neal participated in the radio spots, then she would have a legitimate conflict.
Scott Crass declared he had too much animus against Rita Trometer, the complainant against Fletcher, to rule impartially, because School Board Member Bobby Burgess, with his own scandals, was an uncle to his children.
While Rotermund ruled that Crass had a conflict, this puts Crass in a very difficult situation.
If Crass’ family ties to Burgess are too strong to rule on this matter, then he should not have been able to participate in the censorship of Assemblywoman Barbara Haney, because the complainant was the wife of Bobby Burgess.
In addition, Assembly members are expected to put aside their animus and rule on law, and he clearly stated he could not perform his duties in this case. As Scott Crass has so aptly pointed out repeatedly at assembly meetings when threatening other Assembly members over votes, failure to perform duties is a basis for recall.
David Guttenberg and Liz Reeves Ramos are the only two with potentially legitimate conflicts on the record thus far.
Guttenberg certainly has a conflict, as he declared that he helped pay for the radio spots. He presented no proof and the statement conflicts with Fletcher’s statements in the record that she paid for the radio spots.
Perhaps David Guttenberg created an issue in an attempt to deny quorum and something upon which to base a recall. However, there might be proof or receipts of some kind to verify his conflict. If he did help pay for the radio spots and can prove it, it could save him from a recall.
Fletcher was, and may still be Reeves Ramos’s attorney. That is a disqualification under borough code and she cannot participate. Strangely, this conflict also protects her from a recall from failure to perform her duties.
While Fletcher tried to argue Assemblywoman Haney had a conflict on her Superior Court appeal, that matter is fully briefed and ripe for decision after oral arguments. The cases are also quite different. Haney’s editorial in the newspaper was a letter to the editor, signed by herself and was clearly an opinion column.
Fletcher’s case involves radio spots that were paid for and designed to sound like she was a spokesman for the Assembly when she was just an assembly member.
These paid radio spots had no disclaimer. Because the radio spots were purchased on broadcast media, it does not have the same first amendment protection as a letter to the editor in a newspaper.
Furthermore, Fletcher failed to identify her voice on the radio ads, and she did not have authorization to even place the ads. Since Fletcher is also a licensed attorney, and an appointed member of the Alaska Judicial Council, so her ethical violations as determined by the FNSB Board of Ethics now presents a greater concern at the state level.
I happened to be in the earlier meeting and I heard Fletcher allude to having personal knowledge of another individuals case in front of state court to which she is not a party and is not supposed to, so I’m wondering if we want a person representing us who believes is above the laws of Borough, State and Country, I also have concerns about Judges and attorneys integrity to Rule of Law in our Nation
Barbara Haney’s case is public knowledge and the court case is public.
The existence of the case is public knowledge but the specific filings and prehearing contributions are not available to public until after Judges rulings and then only as redacted within the judges rulings
With apologies to Rudyard Kipling’s Kaa character from Jungle Book…
Truthtthhht in meeeeee.
Juthhht in meeee.
This story is interesting. An unethical lawyer who is also an Assembly member, found guilty of violations by a multi-member Ethics Board. And her Democrat friends circling the wagons at an Assembly meeting trying to protect her. Isn’t this an obvious and typical operation of corruption?
All of them need to go.
Larry, Fletcher can’t face the music on her own. She buried Barb Haney last year. Now that the tables have turned, our little northern justice warrior Fletcher is hiding behind her Democrat friends and won’t face justice. She’s a liar and a hypocrite.
This does not sound like a convivial group of board members.
Face it, boys and girls, (D)ems are never truly held accountable. And if someone tries to hold them accountable, shenanigans like the gavel mis-hand-off occur. While there are clearly violations, law enforcement will not get involved. Especially in such a union stronghold as Fairbanks, where the (D)ems provide them so much cover and favor. Now, if Fletcher was a Republican, now that would be a different story. MUCH different.
What? Savannah Fletcher was appointed to sit on the Alaska Judicial Council after she was found to be in ethics violations? This is new territory for the Alaska State Bar Association. Sounds like a beckon call to hire unethical state judges. The entire JC is in big trouble. Like they say…….it takes one to know one.
Savannah Fletcher’s attorney status and position on the Judicial Council is in jeopardy. She didn’t think through the likely consequences of her own misconduct when she willfully helped to penalize Barbara Haney for misconduct. Now she is sweating bullets. See ya’ll at the Friday hearing and penalty phase.
As an attorney and politician, she violated the public trust. No way should she be on the Judicial Council. The Alaska Bar Association has failed all of us Alaskans.
Elaine–Fletcher was not found in violation of ethics as an attorney. She was found to be in violation of a technical and minor violation of Borough code. Although Assembly member Haney attempted to get Fletcher’s bar license revoked, Haney’s complaint was dismissed as not a violation of professional standards. Although Haney then called for an external investigation of the bar association’s decision, the external review also dismissed the complaint as not related to Fletcher’s bar license. Both the complaints against Haney and Fletcher are frivolous, and should not have created the brouhaha that has resulted. Both were trivial, minor, technical, and unintended violations.
Fletcher was the Presiding Officer during the Haney penalty phase and Fletcher signed the final document to censure Haney for code violation.
CENSURE FLETCHER!
SA,
An attorney is duty bound by the law 24/7/365. Especially, when it comes to ethics. They can lose their license. I doubt you went to law school.
Maybe everyone who is not working for an hour or so Friday should show up regardless of political affiliation to see if the borough is gonna provide equal/fair Justice for the community, or let it slide cause four of them have already decided to let Fletcher run the show
Title of this article should be Judicial Council appointee has ethics convictions
FNSB code grants the right to declare a conflict of interest to the individual Assembly member. If the Assembly member believes they have a conflict of interest, and the presiding officer rules that they do, indeed, have a conflict of interest, they then are excused. If the presiding officer rules that they do not have a conflict of interest, then they are not excused.
There is no procedure in Borough code to determine if a declared conflict of interest is “legitimate” or not. There is only the declaration of a conflict of interest and a ruling by the presiding officer to accept or decline the conflict of interest. Note that the concept of a conflict of interest in Borough code is whether or not the person believes that they could not refrain from bias in a decision because of their perceived conflict of interest. This was explained very clearly during the meeting by the Borough attorney.
In Barbara Haney’s case, although Savannah Fletcher noted that Haney had a conflict of interest because Haney had filed a lawsuit against the Borough and named Fletcher in the case, the Borough attorney stated that the decision to declare a conflict of interest lay with Haney. Haney said she would not be biased, and therefore had no conflict of interest. Rotermund then ruled that she did not have to be excused.
About the gavel transfer: At the beginning of the discussion, the presiding officer noted that she had a conflict of interest and asked who, on the Assembly, did NOT plan to claim a conflict of interest. Scott Crass indicated that he planned to claim a conflict of interest. So he would not have qualified to have the gavel handed to him as the article claims. As SD correctly noted, the next person in line for the gavel was absent. Because David Guttenberg also planned to declare a conflict of interest, Brett Rotermund was the next person in line in terms of seniority, and the gavel was legitimately passed to him.
So, Mr. Rotermund still has the gavel and will be running the meeting. He will keep the gavel, because the rules of succession were violated when the gavel was handed directly to Mr. Rotermund by the Presiding Officer, rather than down the line of succession. Mr. Rotermund does not have to return the gavel to the Presiding Officer. This will make for a very interesting meeting.
Charlie–the rules of succession were not violated. The persons in the line of succession were either absent or declared a conflict of interest. Of those members who were not planning to declare a conflict of interest, Rotermund was the next in line. Although he was initially unsure of his duties, he rightfully requested clarification from the clerk and the Borough attorney on procedures. He earned my respect that evening because he stepped up to the plate during a very tense moment. Keep in mind that the previous hour or so was filled with angry vitriol directed at the Assembly members.
Mr. Rotermund, you have the gavel. Refuse to relinquish the gavel to anyone else, unless it’s Tammie Wilson. That’s all.
Rotermund might just have it taken from him because he’s a limp wristed wimp that turns like a worm and then talks tough later. Yawn.
Even someone with a law degree from crayola tech know Haney did not file a law suit. She filed an appeal. Anyone claiming a legal background who doesn’t know the difference between an appeal and a law suit is not worth of being a member of the bar
Roll–my bad. You are correct. Haney filed an appeal, not a lawsuit. Thanks for the correction.
Public comments will not be allowed at the May 16 meeting. But you can watch the meeting, which starts at 6:00PM on Friday, here: ‘https://fnsb.portal.civicclerk.com/event/5584/overview Click on the little video camera icon in the column on the left entitled “meeting media.”
See if she floats.
Savannah Fletcher doesn’t care if she gets fined for her unethical conduct. It’s the CENSURE penalty that she wishes to avoid. As a licensed attorney in Alaska, censure has severe consequences to her licensure. And, as a member of the Judicial Council, it’s not a good look for the Alaska Bar Association to have a censured attorney deciding who gets the next judicial appointment in Alaska. Fletcher is in BIG doodoo.
Lou–a censure by a borough assembly carries no weight whatsoever at the level of the Alaska Bar Association. The censure would only apply to her actions as a member of the Assembly. The Alaska Bar Association has already declined TWICE to hear Haney’s complaint against her.
Haney is so obviously jealous, oh boy.
SA… Like they say, three is a charm. Fletcher violated the public trust and lied to the Board of Ethics. As a sworn attorney at law, and lying under oath during the investigation and by interrogatory, she will be reviewed by the ABA, if censured by the Assrmbly. She must forfeit her position on the Judicial Council too. Fletcher is not above the law.
I’ve heard that Savannah Fletcher is hoping to get picked as Mary Peltola’s running mate for Lt. Governor next year. An unethical white lawyer running with a Native woman for Alaska’s top jobs? Both women. You people up in Fairbanks never quit coming up with excruciating situations for the rest of us Alaskans. Please send us ethical candidates that we can trust. No to Fletcher.
Alaska is in BIG trouble if those two bimbo’s make their way to Juneau via rigged choice voting.
No matter what, someone or someone(s) are sinking
Just reviewed the April 29th meeting, got questions/observations.
1. Stand in attorney advised erroneously contrary to borough code that like/efection or disdain of a person was appropriate grounds to recusal.
2. It appears the whole special meeting was orchestrated along with the stand in attorney (Erickson) to deny a quorum capable of voting.
3. How did Roterman know to assemble complainant and respondent at the testimony table unless coached, one would quickly deduce that he (Roterman) was included in orchestration which likely might have included 5 members.
4. Erickson spoke extensively about expartae communication but it could be deduced that he(Erickson), Roterman and Fletcher may have indulged in just that “expartae” communication based on his erroneous direction to the assembly.
Disbar her *ss.
Ted, didnt you read Fletcher’s bio at Northern Justice Project? She clerked for AK Supreme Court chief justice Carney. I don’t know Justice Carney, but I’d be very uncomfortable having a former clerk boasting her creds, only to learn that she has lots of trouble with ethics and dishonesty. That kind of person doesn’t exactly bolster the Supreme Court.
How did Fletcher even get past the character and fitness part of the Alaska Bar?
Apparently,
A two-tiered system of justice at FNSB. Barb Haney’s letter to the editor ended in Haney’s censure. Savannah Fletcher’s three violations, compounded by her lies and cover-ups at the investigation part by the Board of Ethics has resulted in Democrats calling out their army of Assembly members and lawyers hell-bent on protecting her from any punishment. Why is that? Corruption!!!
Barbara and Rita really seem like such pathetic individuals
Compared to Savannah Fletcher and her Democrat cohorts on the Assembly? ……and Kristen Schupp who filed the complaint against Haney for her friend Savannah Fletcher? Sorry Nancy wright. You can whine all day about Haney and Trometter, but you are backing a pack of vicious liars and schemers . They are psychopaths who need to be banished from our otherwise peaceful community. Bad blood runs deep with Fletcher and her little squad of gangsters.
Well-stated Patriot. Fletcher had to bring her personal attorney to the meeting. Brave little Rita Trometter fought her without an attorney and WON tonight. Thank you David Guttenberg, Liz Reeves-Ramos, Brett Rottermond, Tammie Wilson, and Barb Haney for delivering equal justice. 👏👏
You all taught Savannah Fletcher a big lesson.
LOL. Savannah Fletcher is a very slow learner. Maybe she has some academic skills, but common sense is not in her wheelhouse. Her career and future as an attorney and as a politician is seriously in doubt. And it seems that some people out there are going to make damn sure of it.
So being a Democrat i am actually surprised at their extremism, fighting to not be consistent and actively avoiding/violating their oath of office, boy we need to cast Fletcher out of our favor, she is making a mockery of every Democrat she claims to be one of.
If an Ethics professional attorney blatantly violates code, lies then tries to run the body of the assembly while standing as the “defendant” and consequently/effectively trampling her own “friends” will obviously get a re examination by the Judicial council before consideration.
@Joe.
I’m with you. Also, as a Democrat, I watched the proceeding on line and I am dismayed at the conduct of the four Assembly members who supported the arrogant Savannah Fletcher. She is a vexation to the process and poison to the Democrat Party. She needs to be tossed from the Judicial Council and disciplined by the Alaska Bar Association. The Democrat Party will lay waste by keeping Fletcher around.
She’s not a Democrat, they just like her enough to fund her even though she isn’t in their party
Right, Jean. Fletcher is an Independent. Fortunately no one is buying that lie either. Savannah Fletcher has caused untold harm to Fairbanks. She is a blight on this community. Even her friends know it, but are doing their best to keep quiet.
Kinda curious, I believe the Haney Appeal is locked in court though that it exists and is pending is available to public information but aren’t the proceedings private and protected by law until Judgement.
So why and how was Scott Crass able to recite parts of Haney’s brifes in a public forum wherein only Savannah’s case was before the assembly, who released Haney’s brifes and who all received them. Definitely looks like some obvious Legal shenanigans going on here, I think we need a full D.O.G.E. quality investigation, charges, censors and or disbarment with prosecutions of some Attorneys and where appropriate any Judges who may have circulated protected/private legal documents
Don, here’s a plausible answer to your question. Haney’s appeal is from a final administrative decision by the FNSB. Ms. Haney is a party and the Borough is a party. Their attorneys write the briefs on behalf of their clients. The briefs are filed with the court. Presumably, the only people who know what’s in the briefs are the attorneys, their clients, and the Court (Judge). So, all Assembly members (current), the Borough Clerk and the Borough attorney would also get to see the briefs and view the arguments. Did all of the Assembly members get copies of the briefs? Or did just a few? I think that is your question. A discussion with the borough clerk is in order. He or she would be in charge of distribution of the briefs. Keep in mind that no decision has been made yet by the Court. It would be unfair to all parties if the briefs were leaked before then, or if the media received copies. Leaking the material in the briefs, and commenting on them before the court decides on the matter, is akin to trying to influence the court. But you have asked a good question, because most people don’t know. Take, for example, reporter Dermot Cole. On his May 15, 2025 column he states that Haney filed a nuisance suit with the court. Further, Cole said Haney’s believed that the Assembly’s action on her was illegal. For a reporter who has been in the trade for 45 years, that is one of the most ignorant statements I’ve heard. It demonstrates how clearly partisan and inaccurate Mr. Cole really is.
Even with Fletcher’s lawyer trying to protect her, Rita Trometter slayed the dragon. Long live equal justice under the law!
Comments are closed.