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.