First, the editorial inappropriately suggests that the Department of Law may have tampered with witnesses by conducting an inquiry before Stephen Branchflower began his legislative investigation in the matter known as Troopergate. The facts show otherwise.
When Mr. Branchflower interviewed me as part of the Legislature's investigation, he said that the department's inquiry "resulted in material that (was) very helpful to (him) in doing (his) job," that it was "very much appreciated," and that "without (my) willingness to share that evidence ...the ultimate production of (his) report would have been delayed."
Second, the Department of Law did not hire a private lawyer to represent Governor Palin because of any perceived conflict of interest on my part. We did so because I was concerned that having state attorneys represent Governor Palin in the investigation would hamper the department's ability to effectively perform its other statutory duties.
By statute, the attorney general's duties include serving as legal adviser to state officers, representing the state in litigation, prosecuting violations of state law, and administering state legal services. Normally the attorney general gives legal advice both to the governor and to other state departments, including the Department of Public Safety. But the point of the Legislature's investigation was to consider whether Governor Palin used her public office for a personal purpose. Without separate counsel to represent the governor, the department's effectiveness as legal counsel to both the governor and other state agencies might have been impaired.
To address those concerns, the department hired Mr. Van Flein to represent the governor and other members of her office, expressly limiting the representation to their official actions. The department remained involved in the legislative investigation because its attorneys continued to represent employees of other state agencies.
Mr. Van Flein later expanded his representation to Governor Palin in her personal capacity and to Todd Palin. That work was never covered by his contract with the state. But because Mr. Van Flein assumed these new responsibilities, he decided that he could no longer represent other members of the governor's office, so the department resumed representation of those employees.
The editorial incorrectly asserts that I said at a press conference that Mr. Van Flein was no longer a state contractor. In fact, I confirmed at the press conference that Mr. Van Flein was still under contract to represent Governor Palin in her official capacity. I have never stated otherwise. (Editor's note: A correction on this point appeared Thursday on page A-3.)
Third, contrary to the editorial's assertion, I did not advise state employees that compliance with subpoenas is voluntary. Subpoenas are never mandatory until they are served. Before the employees were served with the subpoenas, the department asked legislators to consider withdrawing them. Once the subpoenas were served, the department filed a court action, seeking a ruling on their validity. Although the editorial suggests that the department delayed in challenging the subpoenas, in fact the department filed the lawsuit just two days after service was completed.
Finally, the court in that case did not, as the editorial suggests, decide that the subpoenaed employees had no grounds for challenging the subpoenas' validity. Instead, the court declined to address that issue, concluding that the challenges must be resolved by the Legislature, not a court.
Bottom Line: The Daily News editorial was based on a distorted view of what actually happened.
Talis J. Colberg is attorney general of the State of Alaska.
Important warning about e-mails purporting to be from the adn.com staff.