Ogan may be first victim of changing sentiments

Frontiersman editorial board

It seemed to go on interminably, and now it seems as though it's over before it even got started. After a failed bid to thwart a recall effort through the courts, Sen. Scott Ogan abruptly resigned effective Wednesday at 4:30 p.m.

The recall, spearheaded by a group of Ogan's constituents, was filed largely on the claim that Ogan's relationship with coal-bed methane developer Evergreen Resources created a conflict with his responsibilities as senator. That group worked hard to gather enough signatures to place the recall on the November ballot.

Ogan resigned from Evergreen when the voices of his detractors reached a fever pitch last September. Ogan never publicly accepted that his actions represented a conflict, though he did say people close to him felt there was at least the perception of one. One of Ogan's primary arguments was that the nature of Alaska's citizen-style legislature, combined with Legislature's Uniform Rules created an environment that made his actions legal and acceptable -- in fact, unavoidable. He also argued that a large number of Alaska legislators are involved in similar conflicts, and that it was actually a healthy environment for legislation.

Those arguments all technically hold water. It's true that the part-time nature and low pay afforded Alaska's legislators all but forces them to seek additional employment. It's also true that a legislator's schedule makes it difficult to work in a traditional career. It's also true that the rules make it virtually impossible for a senator to abstain from a vote in conflict. The problem is that the Legislature's rules and culture are too tolerant. It's one thing to encourage legislators to seek additional employment. It's unacceptable to leave the source of that employment completely to the discretion of each legislator. What little definition there is of conflict is clearly insufficient if the chairman of the resources committee can take employment with a resource development company during his term. The crucial point of this recall is that it is one of several incidents in the past year that call attention to the hazy ethical atmosphere of Alaska politics.

It could be argued that Ogan is as much a victim of a flawed system as he is a beneficiary of it. He suffered through a painful public process, but it's important to remember that the battle was not for Ogan's senate seat as much as it was for the rights of citizens. It was the first shot in the battle for reform of our state government.