Ogan challenges recall effort with court filings

MAT-SU -- Three days after more than 4,300 signatures from constituents requesting the recall of District H Sen. Scott Ogan were turned in at the Alaska Division of Elections, Ogan spoke about a filing of a different type -- this one on his behalf.

Attorneys from Foster, Pepper, Rubini and Reeves LLC filed a request Thursday for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction that would prevent the recall from going before voters on the November general- election ballot.

According to Thomas Amodio, the lawyer handling the case on behalf of Valley Residents for a Citizen Legislature, the motion was triggered by the recall committee's turning in of signatures.

"We were preparing this document while they were gathering signatures," Amodio said. "Once they filed the sufficient signatures, it required us to act quickly to get it before the court."

Amodio's decision to file quickly will allow Anchorage Superior Court Judge Sharon Gleason time to fully consider their case.

The initial complaint in the case was filed in May by Houston resident and former mayor Tom Baird, with Valley Residents for a Citizen Legislature.

It listed four primary counts: That Division of Elections Director Laura Glaiser's decision to certify the application was erroneous because the recall grounds were not sufficient for certification; that Glaiser improperly revised or edited four of the five grounds for recall; that "one or more sponsors" of the recall committee "informed Ogan and others present that, in exchange for Ogan's introducing and getting the bill passed, they would stop the recall" and that Ogan did not receive due process or the ability to prove false the allegations in the grounds for recall.

The meeting between Ogan and the recall committee members, unnamed in the original complaint, was further discussed in affidavits from Ogan and his staff member, Linda Hay, in the restraining order request.

Ogan stated in his affidavit that he met with Robin McLean and John Vinduska in March. The two, he said, demanded that Ogan introduce and support the Alaska Property Owners' Bill of Rights.

"At the meeting, Mr. Vinduska told me: 'This recall can go away in a heartbeat -- introduce this bill,' (or words to that effect). I understood Mr. Vinduska to mean that he would have the recall effort against me stopped if I introduced their bill," according to Ogan's affidavit, which was filed with the court.

Ogan said McLean talked with Ogan outside his office at 8:03 a.m., March 22. He said McLean reiterated Vinduska's statement.

"Outside my Juneau office I met Ms. McLean, who told me: 'When we see it [i.e.. APOBR] moved out of both sides [i.e.. the House and the Senate], we will be ready to call off the dogs,' or words to that effect," Ogan stated in his affidavit.

Ogan said he did not capitulate, because "I believed then, and I continue to believe, that had I acceded to their demands, I would have violated the Alaska Legislative Ethics Code … which prohibits a legislator from taking or withholding legislative action, including support or opposition to a bill, as a result of a person's decision to 'provide or not provide a thing of value.'"

Both Vinduska and McLean deny the allegations.

"That is a complete fabrication on his part," Vinduska said. "I don't know how he feels this is going to help him."

Vinduska said he and McLean had spoken with Ogan about the Property Owners' Bill of Rights, as part of an effort by a group of residents who held demonstrations in Juneau and talked to legislators about the proposed legislation. There was no deal made or offered, Vinduska said. He said he had spoken with Ogan previously about what he perceived was the reason Valley residents were in favor of the recall.

"I told him, 'If you would just represent the people, there's no way this recall would get any traction at all,'" Vinduska said.

He said he told Ogan that although he was only a signature gatherer, he betted that introducing the Property Owners' Bill of Rights would change people's minds about where Ogan's loyalties lie and it would probably go away "in a heartbeat."

Those three words, Vinduska said, are the only recognizable phrase in what Ogan wrote in the affidavit. "There were three words or so that I said -- he fabricated all the rest to try to make it look like a deal," Vinduska said.

At a press conference Thursday, Ogan said he had heard Vinduska specifically denied the allegations.

"He is entitled to say that," Ogan said, and said his signed affidavit and that of Hay serve as proof the comments were made.

The argument may seem unrelated to the recall effort, but the lawsuit states that the alleged attempt to bribe Ogan with dropping the recall sullies the motives of recall participants.

"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," the motion stated.

The next action expected in the case will be a rebuttal from the state, expected on Aug. 16.

Contact Rindi White at rindi.white@frontiersman.com.