Talk:Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Reliable source?

The following source alleges that Wilkes has reversed her testimony, implicating Palin in pressuring her company to deny Wooten worker's comp. Is this source a WP:RS? I'm not familiar with it, but it certainly looks pretty professional.

http://www.pubrecord.org/component/content/359.html?task=view

Homunq (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the article is not well-sourced. Also, there are some issues with Leopold's history as a reporter. I would suggest holding back until that angle develops in a more reliable way. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 07:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/100508/sta_340549719.shtml seems to indicate that this story is not yet being generally reported on. Grr. Homunq (talk) 03:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC)

This article describes the Alaska Public Offices Commission as a "state ethics watchdog agency" (though they don't list it by name), and this story lists it as one of three watchdog agencies in Alaska. Has there been any discussion in the media about why APOC has not become involved in the issues discussed in the article? Or is it (somehow) outside of the scope of APOC's jurisdiction? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Political Spin by placing WOOTEN at the center/beginning

Article is way too long! Especially, Wooten's "crimes" are not what this article is/should be about. Seems simply a method of distraction to me... Maybe also a way to make Palin's behaviour more understandable...

I'm curious to see what the article will look like a while after the US elections. Probably depends on who is to win :-( --84.59.190.116 (talk) 09:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

We have been working to trim those sections down without removing all context.--Koncorde (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

How to phrase the findings

I would suggest that anyone, as a prerequisite to weighing in here, read page 8 of the report - http://download2.legis.state.ak.us/DOWNLOAD.pdf . Finding #1 says that Palin "abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act", which says "the legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust". Finding #2 says that the Wooten issue was "likely a contributing factor" but that "Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority". Any language that says that Palin committed a crime or illegally fired Monegan is NOT appropriate from my reading of this; she violated a provision of the ethics rules, but did not violate a provision of the criminal code. --B (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I know that the given source says she abused her authority by firing monegan. But that's not what the branchflower report says. It says she abused her authority by pressuring Monegan to fire Wooten, but that firing Monegan was perfectly OK. Homunq (talk) 04:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for us to interpret the primary source. Let secondary sources do that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine, except to the extent that secondary sources say something that is verifiably untrue, slanted, or only telling half of the story. Any secondary source claiming that she committed a crime or broke the law is incorrect. To liken it to sports, what she did is the equivalent of a personal foul penalty (think Oakland Raiders), but not something like using an ineligible player that requires a forfeit (think Fab Five). --B (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The legality will be down to Alaska's Personnel Board apparently.[1] so "allegations" will have to rest on their next move.Koncorde (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Trim the lede?

I think that now the branchflower report has been released, we can drastically trim the lead-in summary to get to those findings as quickly as possible. I will not do that right now because I would like to see some consensus/discussion. (Note that I am not proposing any reorganization of the other content, much less any deletion). Homunq (talk) 04:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The article is a touch confusing once again I feel. With the removal of the starting information at least giving a small amount of background we're relying on the "Report" section to do so. Instead the Report section starts with the findings...then drifts into what looks like used to be in the intro...then jumps back 8 years to the hiring of Wooten. I think whilst the opening section could be trimmed, upon release of the report, the length to which it has been culled is detrimental to the article.

"The Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal, also known as Troopergate,[1] involves the July 2008 firing of the Public Safety Commissioner for the State of Alaska by Governor Sarah Palin."

What? Who is the Commissioner? What's the fuss? etc--Koncorde (talk) 14:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

See WP:LEAD:

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Possible factual inconsistency section

I find that to create a section dedicated solely to contrasting different statements is not the norm for this encyclopedia. In other Wikipedia articles, it is almost universally found that any such contradictory statements are included in related background material, so as to give them context. It is unusual to find a section seemingly dedicated to portraying an entity as habitually dishonest (at least, not unless it is a reference to a valid source). This information IS important however - I suggest that we work together to slowly dissemble this section, and merge the various statements in with the relevant material. This would improve the flow of the page, and also allow for additional review on the various examples (as the section points out, these are only potential discrepancies, and new information that has come to light since their inclusion here can possibly explain some of them).

Please read the section above called "Logical Flow." What you are suggesting is exactly the way it used to be. You will see that various people saw that as a problem. Therefore a separate section was created. I would recommend that we leave well enough alone, with regard to this issue.

"New information that has come to light." Could you be more specific?

Also, please sign your comments here. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 06:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies on lack of signature, first - was an oversight, not used to posting on talk pages. I also had not noticed the Logical Flow section, I'll put any future discussion I offer there. As for the new info comment...I was just speaking in general, I have no particular examples because I have not read the section. I was just tossing out another minor argument in favor of the reformatting. -- Drlight11 (talk) 00:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Could use some help repairing vandalism

At 15:25, 14 October 2008, 151.199.195.113 did some damage, and removed an entire section ("===Police investigation into allegations==="). I'm too much of amateur here to understand the best way of restoring it. Could someone please help? Jukeboxgrad (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Accomplished, thank you. A different anon removed the vandal's "You r gay" but didn't restore the deleted section, which I've now done. JamesMLane t c 00:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Too much Wooten

This report is on Branchflower report on Monegan's dismissal. The information about Trooper Wooten is not relevant here and should be in its own article. NickAtNight500 (talk) 02:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The Branchflower interview with Cockerell and Holloway makes it clear that dismissal was over the lack of security being provided for the Governor.

Palin Exonerated

In a telephone interview reported by the Anchorage Daily News, Palin has declared herself exonerated by the Branchflower report: "Well, I’m very very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing … any hint of any kind of unethical activity there. Very pleased to be cleared of any of that." And again, "So no, not having done anything wrong, and again very much appreciating being cleared of any legal wrongdoing or unethical activity at all." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.54.84.84 (talk) 02:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note, I removed the [sic] from the Sarah Palin quote "About the Tasergate [sic] issue..." I am not aware of any "official" name for the alleged scandal ending with the suffix "-gate." Calling it anything-gate is slang. Palin's opponents routinely describe it as "Troopergate," while her supporters prefer "Tasergate." There is no right or wrong here, only POV. Xrlq (talk) 13:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Troopergate is a bad name for it because it has already been used. At least put

a II after it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NickAtNight500 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

DVPO

This term is not found in wikipedia in other articles. It may be generic american juridical term, but at least I do not know what it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.16.187 (talk) 07:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Alaska Fund Trust

There's some discussion about the "Alaska Fund Trust", created to pay for the costs of defending Palin, over at Talk:Sarah Palin#Palin Legal Fund Ethics Challenge. While there's a reasonable question over whether it should be mentioned in the main bio article, it seems highly relevant to this article, though there's not to say beyond a sentence or two. Thoughts?   Will Beback  talk  21:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Col. Grimes' Report

No mention is made of Colonel Grimes' investigation that found that some charges had been wrongly dismissed in the initial Memorandum of Findings. All that is mentioned, referenced, or cited here is Col. Grimes' suspension letter. This is a huge gap. --Posted from Spoofed IP 71.203.125.108 (talk) 13:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)