The real question.........
NEW! Subscribe to RSS Feed
Today, Governor Palin's aide Frank Bailey who was put on paid state leave for making a recorded phone call to Alaska State Trooper Rodney Dial in an attempt to get the governor's ex brother in law, State Trooper Mike Wooten fired, was scheduled to be deposed by independent investigator Steve Branchflower.
However Bailey lawyered up and cancelled his appointment. This is unfortunate and shows the Palin administration is no longer cooperating in an investigation that they have promised all along to cooperate with.
In fact it was the reason given why Bailey was put on administrative leave and not fired according to the governor's office. It was so he could be compelled to cooperate with Mr. Branchflower's investigation they said at the time.
"Alaskans should be offended, that Frank Bailey is on paid leave and will not do an interview that he already committed to with Mr. Branchflower," said Representative Jay Ramras, a Republican from Fairbanks and the chair of the House Judiciary Committee.
"My intention is to call Chief of Staff Mike Nizich, who is an honorable man, and tell him he better kick Bailey in the butt and get him over here, or else he will be asking for scrutiny. We have a million people from the national media here. Alaska does not need to air its dirty laundry in a public way," Ramras told KTVA News.
So while the Judiciary Committee is considering issuing subpoenas for Mr. Bailey and others, there is another question lurking out there that no one is asking about:
Why was Chuck Kopp paid $10,000 when he resigned?
Three weeks ago we broke the story about a $10,000 severance package that was quietly given to short time Public Safety Commissioner Chuck Kopp who was hired just days after former Commissioner Walt Monegan was fired.
Kopp resigned after just two weeks on the job after public and media pressure about a prior sexual harassment complaint filed against him in 2005 refused to go away.
Until we broke the story, the severance agreement was never mentioned by the Palin administration. In fact it was not publicly known until the Attorney General was questioned about it at a later press conference.
Attorney General Talis Colberg defended the severance pay by claiming that Kopp left a comfortable 19-year career on the Kenai Peninsula and took a job that lasted less than two weeks.
Colberg's explanation raises some questions.
First, the governor stated in the press on August 1 that she was surprised and disappointed to find out that Kopp had in fact been issued a letter of reprimand. Before it came out in the media, Palin stood firmly behind Kopp. So why, if this whole downfall was caused by Kopp being less than forthcoming about the letter, would the state pay him 10k as a severance?
Second, hasn't the governor been defending her firing Monegan for the last four weeks by saying that commissioners are at will employees and can be fired for any reason? So if she can fire a commissioner for any reason without paying them severance, why would she feel obligated to cut Kopp a check for $10k when he quit.
To put this into perspective; Monegan was on the job for 74 weeks and received no severance pay. Kopp was on the job 2 weeks and received $10,000 in severance pay.
Third, the agreement specifically states that the $10,000 is "not compensation for lost wages." So if it's not based on lost income, why is Colberg leaning on the argument that it's necessary because he gave up a good career for a job that only lasted two weeks?
Furthermore, Colberg had no logical explanation when he was asked about how they arrived at the $10,000 figure.
Something is not right here.
In addition, according to the agreement (attached) Kopp signed a release that prohibits him from asserting any claims "against the State of Alaska, its officers, employees, agents, representatives, insurers, servants, successors in interest..and demands for damages, costs, expenses or attorney's fees that arose" related to his employment.
This guy supposedly quit on his own. Why would the state need to pay him ten grand and require a signed release from future claims of damages?
And exactly how much did $10,000 buy the Palin administration in liability protection from Chuck Kopp?
The only reasonable answer could be that the Palin administration recognized that Kopp had significant grounds for future claims surrounding his hiring, short tenure in office and subsequent resignation. Or it could have been just old fashion payola to get him to go quietly into the night.
To read the settlement agreement click attachment
| See this Article in Print! | |
|---|---|
| Download Article (PDF) | 590.79 KB |
NEW! Subscribe to RSS Feed