In attorney general's case, devil is not in the details

Frontiersman editorial board

In the continuing debate over the actions and fate of Attorney General Gregg Renkes, no one has escaped unscathed. At the center of the storm, and thus taking the brunt of the damage, are Renkes himself and the administration of Gov. Frank Murkowski. Also taking heat, however, are legislative Democrats, many of whom continue to call for serious disciplinary action against Renkes. Even the media are under fire, accused of being too fervent in attacks against the attorney general.

Once the mud begins to fly, it becomes tempting to turn attention away from the flood that's producing the mud and focus instead upon the people with the strongest arms. Such seems to be the case here as we focus on the minutiae of the case at the risk of missing the wider point.

Amidst the din we would all do well to remember the salient points. Special investigator Robert Bundy opened his report by reminding us that he was bound to base his findings within the scope of the state's existing legislative ethics code. Given those parameters, he found that Renkes had stepped close to, but had not crossed over, the ethical line, but that he did break at least one administrative law.

Further, within the scope of Alaska's ethical standards, it is in the governor's hands to decide Renkes' fate. Many in the media, including the Frontiersman, have lamented that this arrangement is inadequate. On the heels of those complaints, however, the greatest effort has so far been expended in attempts to persuade the governor to deal harshly with Renkes. That's not likely to happen, at least not until the state personnel department's investigation is complete.

We'd be better served at this point to focus our energies upon the real culprit - the faulty ethics code that allowed the state's leading law enforcement official to tread far too close to serious conflict and essentially encourages legislators to participate in conflict.

Alaska does not have to invent the concept of strict ethical guidance. Nearly every other state has had sufficient regulations in place for decades.

It is no longer acceptable to say that Alaska is different, and therefore its citizens must accept less accountability from government officials.

We must admit that ethics and morals exist independently of codes and laws, and that we are capable of identifying where the limits of moral and ethical behavior lie. If we focus only upon Renkes and lose sight of the greater picture, we'll be back here again. Soon and often.