Elizabeth Hickerson asked a good question Thursday morning at the Alaska Public Offices Commission hearing on a consent agreement between APOC staff and backers of the 2008 Clean Water Initiative. "What does the public gain out of this?"
The commission chairwoman never got a good answer.
So on Thursday afternoon the commission rejected the agreement.
Hickerson asked the question of Tom Dusik, an APOC staff attorney who worked out the agreement with lawyers for financial manager Bob Gillam, political consultant Art Hackney, Richard Jameson and Michael Dubke. These men worked together and raised money to pass the clean water ballot measure. At $12.5 million, the initiative was the most expensive electoral battle in Alaska history.
Dusik replied that the agreement included a promise to abide by Alaska election campaign laws in the future.
But as Hickerson pointed out, the respondents to the complaint didn't admit to anything in the agreement. They maintained they had followed the law all along, and the agreement included no admission of wrongdoing. Basically, the four men promised not to do again what they never admitted was wrong in the first place, and for that and paying $35,000 toward the state's costs, would have everything go away.
What was so striking about the agreement was the contrast to what APOC investigators concluded in their June report. Then they found the respondents in violation on 17 of 18 allegations made by opponents of the clean water initiative -- and found some of their explanations unbelievable. Further, they found even more violations, recommended maximum civil penalties for the respondents which could exceed $300,000, and suggested the commission consider referring the case to the attorney general for criminal prosecution.
How did commission staff go from ringing indictments and maximum penalties to a gentlemen's disagreement and clubby settlement? What happened between June and October?
Lawyers. And that's not a lawyer joke.
Attorneys for the respondents did a good job of pointing out ambiguities in the law, their clients' cooperation with the investigation, how they suffered tarnished reputations and how much time and expense both sides would spend on further litigation. One lawyer, Scott Kendall, said APOC and his clients would be "unwilling combatants" in further litigation.
So why not take the settlement on offer?
Because, as commissioner Kathleen King pointed out, this case is about our election process and the public trust. It's not merely a case where two private parties are settling a dispute because they're weary of the fight. The lawyers for Gillam, Hackey, Dubke and Jameson are trying to get the best deal for their clients. But it's not APOC's job to make them happy. APOC's job is to ensure the integrity of Alaska elections and to make sure political players of any and every stripe follow the law.
This case is about Alaskans' right to know who the political players are in any election, how they're playing and how much they're paying. This case is about forcing the political players to stand up and be counted, and to account for all of their contributions and spending. Real names, real numbers and nothing less.
APOC staff hasn't changed the conclusions of its June report, which include serious violations of Alaska's campaign laws and strong evidence Gillam and his colleagues conspired to hide the extent of his financial support for the Clean Water initiative. A wrist-slap settlement just isn't enough.
The case is now bound for a hearing before an administrative law judge. APOC may yet work out another consent agreement. Gillam and company may fight the case; maybe they'll get parts of it thrown out on First Amendment grounds. So be it. Let's conclusively address the complaints at issue and assess fair penalties as necessary -- not just walking-away money.
BOTTOM LINE: APOC's first concern is the integrity of Alaska elections, not conflict resolution.