Mat-Su Borough clerk throws out petition to recall Assemblyman Mokie Tew

Matansuka Susitna Borough clerk Lonnie McKechnie has kicked out a petition to recall borough assemblyman Mokie Tew.

McKechnie said complaints against Tew in a petition filed by Terry Gorlick and Irene Crowley, who live in Tew’s assembly District 5 in the Big Lake area, do not constitute sufficient grounds for recall, which would require a special election.

McKechnie based her decision on a legal opinion prepared by attorney Scott Brandt-Erichsen that complaints about Tew cited in the petition by Gorick and Crowley are not specific enough in backing the allegations.

The matter may not be not so clear cut, however. Alaska’s supreme court has found that specifics of misconduct are not always needed in citizen petitions for recall.

Susan Orlansky, with the firm of Reeve Omodio. Orlansky handled the successful appeal to the state’s high court in a similar denial of petitions to recall Gov. Mike Dunleavy. The court found the recall effort against Dunleavy could continue, although the recall was ultimately not continued.

Based on the Recall Dunleavy decision there may yet be grounds to challenge the borough clerk’s decision in the Mokie Tew recall, and Gorlick said Monday he is still considering options.

The petition for recall filed by Gorlick and Crowley charges that Tew, “violating MSB ethics code provisions … which prohibit self-dealing and nepotism by introducing Matanuska Assembly Resolution No. PC 22- 02,” which would have terminated an existing road service contractor in the Big Lake area and established a time-and-materials contracting method for road service work.

Gorlick and Crowley said that this, “directly benefits Tew and his family members despite the additional costs to Borough taxpayers.” In another charge in the petition, “Tew committed removable misconduct by providing confidential information to friends regarding calcium chloride contracts (for road work) between March-August 202,” in violation of the borough’s procurement code.

In her letter rejecting the petition McKechnie said there was insufficient evidence supporting the charges. “The allegation (of personal gain) does not identify what benefit Assemblymember Tew and his family would receive from this legislation” (the road service contract resolution.

Also, the resolution amounted to borough-wide law applying to all road districts, not just that for Big Lake, the area Tew represents. Also, the resolution was not adopted.

In the matter of the calcium chloride contracts, “The code provisions provided in the recall application have to do with competitive bidding procedures and not confidential information as it pertains to sealed bids. There was no allegation on how the sealed bid procedure was violated,” McKechnie wrote.

On another allegation that Tew was “disruptive” in meetings of the Big Lake road service area, McKechnie wrote, “Assemblymember Tew attending RSA (road service areas) or BLCC (Big Lake Community Council) meetings is not part of an assembly members official/statutory duities. Allegations of misconduct in office must be associated with that office holders official/statutory duties.”

Orlansky said he review of McKechnie’s decision was preliminary but that she disagrees with some of the conclusions while agreeing with others.

A key part of McKechnie’s analysis, on the allegation of personal gain, “says this is not specific enough because it doesn’t say how Tew and his family would benefit. I disagree that this is required,” in a recall petition, Orlansky wrote in a letter to Gorlick.

“I see general analogies to the allegation in Recall Dunleavy that the governor violated the law by using state funds for partisan purposes; no additional detail was provided, and the Supreme Court found the allegation sufficient. I think specificity is met by alleging that Tew improperly sponsored a resolution from which he would benefit,” Orlansky wrote in her letter.

On the matter of Tew ‘s alleged behavior at the Big Lake road service area and community council meetings, “I agree the petition could not state a ground for recall if it targeted personal behavior, no matter how unseemly. The question is how explicit does the petition need to be in alleging that the recall target was acting in an official rather than personal capacity,” Orlansky wrote.

“It would be useful to know in what capacity Tew attended those meetings. … if there is a basis for contending he attended as an Assembly member,” McKechnie’s rejection of that point may not be valid.

However, “in a small town, everyone knows the Assembly member and may believe he is acting officially even when he thinks he is not, which seems to strengthen the argument why an explicit claim of acting in his official capacity may not be required,” Orlansky wrote.