You've probably heard a lot about the Alaska National Guard scandal lately, but you probably don't really know what happened. None of us do, and that's unfortunate, because we deserve answers.
We start this Alaska guard matter with one central question: Why was there not an investigation into the overall leadership and health of the guard immediately upon Gov. Sean Parnell finding out that problems existed?
What is clear is that leadership failed on a number of different levels, including the highest level -- Gov. Parnell. The same person who since December 2009 has urged Alaskans to "Choose Respect" when it comes to domestic violence, stood by while a culture of sexual assault festered in the guard.
So naturally the Watergate question comes to mind, as it always does in these scandals: What did the governor know and when did he know it?
KTUU reporter Grace Jang asked Parnell in an interview last week when he knew there was a "serious problem" in the guard. Parnell said "Well, my recollection is they were first reported to me in kind of the fall of 2010, and it came through different forms, different people, whether the chaplains or through several other individuals in the guard who alleged other misconduct."
There were two major types of misconduct allegations in the guard. First were allegations of sexual assault. Second were allegations of fraud and gun trafficking within the guard. Both are serious problems and warrant serious investigation.
After realizing that there was a serious problem, Parnell says he "acted on it immediately." By acting on it immediately, he ensured that the individual allegations were referred to law enforcement. However, more was necessary; the problem was bigger than a few cases.
One of the problems with a culture of sexual assault in a military environment is that victims can truly feel trapped. When guard leadership is corrupt, there is no help in sight for military members, especially when the governor has said that they've looked into it and everything is being handled properly.
Things were not just fine, however. Regardless of what Parnell heard and whether or not he believed that things were acceptable and being handled properly in the leadership of the guard, there was clearly a crisis of some sort.
From what I can gather, and from what little information Parnell is willing to make public -- I cannot find a single investigation into the overall problems in the culture of the guard between when Parnell said he first knew there were "serious problems" in Fall 2010 until 2014.
Investigations into the culture of the guard finally came about in 2014. The Investigator General's Report is fairly interesting, if for no other reason than it presents a different picture than the more in-depth report from the National Guard Bureau's Office of Complex Investigations.
The OCI report, which was released Sept. 4, was very critical of the command in the Alaska guard and led to the termination of Gen. Katkus and then a number of others after him.
The IG's report, which is dated Apr. 8, concluded, "The allegation that MG Katkus failed to foster a healthy command climate was not substantiated."
The report, does however, include some issues that should show concern in the quality of leadership, but not necessarily resulting from Katkus. In the "Analysis/Discussion" section, the report says, "Evidence indicated that over the past two years MG Katkus was aware of at least eleven sexual assault cases by the SARC. All eleven sexual assault cases involved military victims; seven cases involved an AKNG member suspect and four involved a civilian suspect." It continues to say that all the allegations were met with prompt action.
Parnell would like you to believe that the fact that he ensured that all cases were handled by law enforcement is enough -- it isn't. The reports he received as early as fall 2010 should have alerted him that there was a serious crisis of culture in the guard, and he had a duty to act swiftly to ensure that was investigated and rectified immediately. Instead, he trusted that all was well because that's what he was told.
In six days, you will be asked to cast a vote for someone to lead Alaska and the guard for the next four years. While walking into that voting booth, one of the issues that should be at the forefront of your mind is the mismanagement of the guard and this one question: Why did it take Gov. Parnell four years to independently investigate the crisis of culture that existed in the Alaska National Guard?
Mike Dingman is a fifth-generation Alaskan born and raised in Anchorage. He is a former UAA student body president who has worked, studied and volunteered in Alaska politics since the late 90s. Email him at michaeldingman@gmail.com.
The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, e-mail commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com