I question the necessity of the proposed rule change allowing Alaska’s Department of Law to represent the governor and attorney general in any ethics violation. Where is the needs-assessment identifying necessity? I haven’t seen one.
There should be some essential missing benefit the state would gain due to the change, but that appears to be lacking. The only people benefiting are the governor, his lieutenant governor and the attorney general. Why only these three? Why not the head of every department? That’s because it’s intended to benefit only the chief and his innermost circle of power. This is an outstanding example of how powerful people use their influence to rig the system so it works for them.
This is really one of the finest examples of how not to run a government. Why doesn’t Gov. Mike Dunleavy attempt this change through the Legislature instead of by decree? The obvious answer is because that body is extremely unlikely to back the change because of the obvious implications of impropriety.
Any state employee charged with an ethics violation should provide for their own defense. It’s the man occupying the position that is accused, not the state. From what I’ve seen coming from this administration so far, there could be a lot of ethics violations. I guess their thinking is “So what, we’ll fix it so the state foots the bill.”There should be vigorous opposition to this rule change.
— Albert Bowling
Anchorage
Have something on your mind? Send to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Letters under 200 words have the best chance of being published. Writers should disclose any personal or professional connections with the subjects of their letters. Letters are edited for accuracy, clarity and length.