Charges against Ogan are unfounded

Spectrum, by Tom Baird

I have filed a lawsuit against the Alaska Division of Elections. This lawsuit asks for an injunction against the Division of Elections in certifying the recall petition against Sen. Scott Ogan. I did this because I firmly believe that Sen. Ogan has been defamed by false charges against him. I know Scott to be a God-fearing, honorable man and I am proud to be defending him. It appears the only people that may have broken the law are some of the folks throwing the stones.

The recall petition is not sufficient for several reasons. First, the grounds set forth for recalls are not violations of law, nor do they constitute any statutory grounds for recall. Second, allowing the recall to proceed would violate the doctrine of separation of powers. Third, the grounds for recall are not alleged with sufficient particularity, as required by statute. Fourth, the Division of Elections improperly revised the petition. Fifth, the people instrumental in starting the recall improperly used the recall effort in order to gain an advantage.

The main complaint aired by the recall supporters is that Ogan "took $100,000," and then enabled Evergreen to acquire coal-bed methane leases knowing it would deprive his Mat-Su constituents of actual notices of leases.

Baloney. State law says, "A part-time legislature implies that legislators are expected and permitted to earn outside income."

Scott had a real job and actively worked for the company, but only in the interim. The income was for two and a half years of real work on the job here in the Valley. The action that "enabled" Evergreen to acquire CBM leases occurred in 1996, when AS 38.05.177 was enacted. At the time, Ogan was in the House of Representatives and was not even aware of Evergreen.

The leases were publicly noticed and went through a coastal zone management review, which was also publicly noticed. In fact, after public notice, the Mat-Su Borough submitted comments in favor of CBM leases, subject to mitigation measures. During this time, Robin McLean's husband, Chris Rose, was on the borough planning commission. Robin's name, phone number, land e-mail address were listed as the primary contact on the original recall Web page.

The Legislative Ethics Committee, at Sen. Ogan's request, issued a binding formal advisory opinion, 2004-02. Although it did not specifically address Sen. Ogan's conduct with respect to House Bill 69, the opinion had the effect of confirming that Sen. Ogan had acted properly and in accordance with law. In fact, the opinion proved beyond any reasonable doubt that he "recognized his obvious conflict" and took steps far in excess of what the law and policy required to declare his conflict and recuse himself from the issue.

He did not sponsor HB 69 or chair or attend any subcommittee meeting where the actual amendment work was done on HB 69. He only voted once, and only when required by the Senate Uniform Rules.

Even Myrl Thompson, chairman of the recall effort, testified on the record that the ethics committee is "far more balanced and apt to come up with fair and equal guidelines." (House Judiciary Committee on HB 563, May 5, 2004.)

The most egregious issue for me was when I found out that people instrumental in starting the recall actually offered to end the recall "in a heartbeat" if Sen. Ogan would introduce and support their legislation, the "Property Owner's Bill of Rights."

This was on the record while Sen. Ogan's chief of staff was taking notes. This is customarily considered admissible evidence in court. In essence, the recall supporters attempted to coerce Sen. Ogan into violating the law by using, or rather, abusing, the recall process. Such conduct should not be encouraged or allowed, as a matter of justice and judicial policy.

Recall supporters should not be permitted to misuse and abuse constitutional right to recall, as they did here. Since the recall supporters do not have "clean hands," the recall petition should be deemed improper and insufficient, as a matter of policy and justice.

Stripped to its essence, the present recall is all about legislative policy. The conduct alleged in the recall petition does not involve misconduct or other statutory recall grounds, as it must. Rather, the allegations relate to primarily matters of policy, and to an elected official's vote on a particular bill. There is an appropriate electoral procedure for debating policy and challenging a senator's voting record, but it is not recall. Recall is simply not the proper vehicle for discussing policy issues and voting records. Re-election is.

Tom Baird heads Valley Residents for a Citizen Legislature.