home

Ethics Complaint Filed Against Sarah Palin Over Kids' Travel Expenses

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 11:30:39 AM EST
Tags: Sarah Palin (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

A new ethics complaint has been filed with the Alaska State Personnel Board against Gov. Sarah Palin over her charging the state for non-government related travel expenses of her children. The complaint is here (pdf).

When Palin returns to Alaska next week, hopefully for good, she may face different approval ratings than when she began her most non-excellent VP adventure.

< Unhinged | "Thirteenth Amendment" Wins CNN i-Film Grand Jury Award >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Ethics Complaint Filed Against Sarah Palin Over Kids' Travel Expenses | 38 comments (38 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    As a feminist who has worked hard to (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by hairspray on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 01:02:43 PM EST
    get industries to accomodate the corporate culture to working women, I have cheered the on-site nurseries at some organizations.  I have also tried to implement them in hospitals I have worked in (imagine an all female staff) without a nod to child care.  I have cheered the family leave act, and wrote women legislators to institute female worker friendly policies including those with children who could attend work related meetings.  Now we have a vicous backlash on the first woman governor with young children who has done the most reprehensible acts of taking her kids to work.  If she did these things without legal rights to do so, maybe there should be review, but if we want women in higher office, we are going to have to look at the obstacles we put in their way.  And liberal women seem to be just as mean as what I once thought were the sole characteristics of the Phyllis Schlafley's of the world.

    Indeed! (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by NYShooter on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 01:20:09 PM EST
    Even if there was some violation regarding the children, don't the people who can't seem to contol themselves with their Palin bashing consider the motive? She wanted to be with her children, for Crissake!

    A little context?

    Parent

    as someone who has to travel (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 01:34:53 PM EST
    as part of my job, I would love to be able to write off on my taxes taking my kids with me. So, I would expect my representatives not to abuse that unless of course they will allow me to take my children as well....

    Parent
    It would be nice to also be able to (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by scribe on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 01:41:04 PM EST
    tell your employer that you wanted to take your kids along for the ride and get free day-care once you got where you were going, and to be able to get it taken care of - paperworkwise - after the fact.

    In fact, Palin didn't even bother to tell her employer in advance.  She just did it, then had a story made up when it came out.

    Parent

    the thing is (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 01:43:43 PM EST
    Even if she can somehow finesse what appear to be glorified vacations, in every state I can think of changing expense reports/ documentation after the fact, and without oversite is illegal, heck if you tried to do it in private enterprise there's a very good chance you wouldn't just be fired, you wouldn't just be audited, you would in fact be charged with embezzlement (or other related crimes).

    Parent
    Let me say it (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by NYShooter on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 01:41:20 PM EST
    slowly....G o v e r n o r......F e m a l e  G o v e r n o r.

    Please refer me to the link where Obama's children's travel arrangement have been investigated?

    Context? Overkill?  

    Parent

    what does her sex have to do with it (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 01:48:18 PM EST
    ????


    Parent
    So what would the male equivalent be? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 01:57:15 PM EST
    If "Joe" Palin had charged his employer for a trip to the Final Four, or a night out at the Strip Club with the boys that'd be cool too? Sorry, equality under the law means just that, Palin can't wave the gender card and get away with things that would get a male politician censured at the very least.  For God's sake its not like Palin's a single mother, she does have a spouse, my Mom's a CEO for a reasonably large non-profit, and she's basically required to pay out of her own pocket if she wants to take my siblings with her on a trip or to a conference.

    My step-dad's a Doctor, and we've gone to medical conferences as vacations all through my childhood (even now we do it occasionally for family get togethers)-- guess what, beyond a simple hotel room for the duration of the conference, all charges are personal and not to be charged to a business.

    If this was just her paying say the set state rate for hotels and trips, that'd be one thing many businesses allow employee's to use the company discount on personal purchases (made with personal funds), this is Palin charging the state more than 20 Grand to take her kids on vacations, then covering it up after the fact to make it look like official state business.

    As to your point about Obama-- I gotta say I don't really understand what your getting at: travel currently is covered, for McCain, Obama, Palin, Biden and there families that's a basic campaign expediture (indeed its required to be logged as such-- that's why John got in trouble for using Air Heiress or whatever Cindy's jet is called-- its officially a corporate vehicle and thus had to be paid for as a campaign expense); if your talking about travel while Obama has been a Senator, then I seriously doubt Barack dragged Malia and Sasha through the Caucauses with Lugar, or to Afghanistan and Iraq with Hagel.

    Parent

    Re: Obama. (none / 0) (#17)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 02:23:28 PM EST
    Just like the accusations against Palin, I think the point is not current campaign-funded travel, but pre-campaign gvt-funded travel.

    While I doubt there's and "there" there, there it is.

    Parent

    uh... 'any "there" there' (none / 0) (#18)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 02:25:22 PM EST


    Parent
    That's kind of what I figured (none / 0) (#24)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 03:28:21 PM EST
    But, as I said I really don't remember Obama taking the girls through the former Soviet States with Indiana's senior Senator, or on a tour of the Green Zone with Chuck and Chet.

    Parent
    Oh, yep, sorry. Missed that. (none / 0) (#26)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 03:34:35 PM EST


    Parent
    Obama doesn't take his girls along because (none / 0) (#27)
    by MoveThatBus on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 08:53:37 PM EST
    they travel with MICHELLE.  Now, let's hear the screams for investigation.

    I cannot believe the ignorance.

    GOVERNOR, State of Alaska. Which is worse to you: her bringing her children along, or her leaving her children behind?  The people knew she was the mother of 4 children when they elected her.

    I have never heard one peep out of anyone when Obama's girls show up at events with one or both of their parents about who paid their way!


    Parent

    Michelle has spoken (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Amiss on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 01:21:24 AM EST
    many times about her mother coming into their home when she and Barack are out on the campaign trail to care for their girls so there is no more interruption in their lives than has to be.

    Parent
    This isn't about Campaigning (none / 0) (#35)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 02:44:58 PM EST
    Campaign trips are covered, this is about actions taken when Palin was merely the Gov. of the people's Republic of Alaska.

    Parent
    Somehow I can't make the connection (none / 0) (#37)
    by hairspray on Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 12:52:55 AM EST
    between the ordinary job requiring some travel and an expense account and a governor traveling on official business and the expenses associated with that. Of course there are rules for the former.  We just assume they are the same as for the latter.

    Parent
    Are you a governor? Or do you have to (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by hairspray on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 09:54:54 PM EST
    travel on state business with staff?

    Parent
    Forget writing it off (none / 0) (#6)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 01:41:03 PM EST
    Just do what Palin did and charge your employer for it-- what the heck extend your trips 2 or 3 days more and bill them for that as well :) !

    Parent
    Are you sure there is no coverage (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by hairspray on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 09:52:11 PM EST
    for taking her children with her on official business?  If she is entitled to a suite of rooms with a staff person and communication center as a governor would, why would an extra room for children(when school is out) be the most horrendous thing that has ever happened on this earth?  Everyone here seems to have all of the receipts and rules written in stone and are saying 1) she wasn't allowed to do these things 2) she went to every state in the union 3) she brought her kids on the state's dime.  Can't everyone wait until this whole thing plays out before we get into such outrage?

    Parent
    when the gov't (none / 0) (#34)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 08:36:51 AM EST
    says I can take my children on their/our dime for my travel, I will not argue their right to take their children on state sponsored trips that we the taxpayer pay for.  

    I would love to take my kids on my travels to see Europe, New York, California etc, but asking the people to pay for it seems rather selfish no?

    And forget the public servant argument, think of all the consultants and sales people who have to travel for their jobs who earn less money than the governor and don't get to see their kids because that is how they make their living.

    Parent

    Are you a governor, state official or (none / 0) (#36)
    by hairspray on Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 12:44:17 AM EST
    someone who has those perks?  Life is not fair, but there are some jobs that do allow officials to take their families with them.  Tony Knowles, former AK gov. said he never took his kids with him.  They stayed home with his wife.  Ahh the good old system!  When women get into high office and have small children the people who hire them (citizens) are going to have to allow some leeway here, no?

    Parent
    when I travel (none / 0) (#38)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 11:00:23 AM EST
    My wife would prefer the kids go with me.  When she travels and does so at almost the same pace as I, I stay home with the kids happily.

    What do i know about the male governors family situation and whether or not his wife prefers the kids stay with her?  If my wife and I had the option I would take the kids with me.

    She took her kids on trips that the taxpayer paid for, and if that is the standard for elected officials than as an american who pays their salaries, i want that option as well.

    Parent

    own my own biz (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 01:47:25 PM EST
    so I guess i could try and slip it by myself...

    Parent
    Don't do it! (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 01:58:38 PM EST
    What if you catch yourself-- then have to embezzle more funds from yourself in order to hire a hitman to prevent you from turning yourself in to the Feds?

    Parent
    i get a reward if i turn myself in (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 02:02:23 PM EST
    so it will require some deep thought.

    Parent
    What a tangled web we weave.... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 02:15:36 PM EST
    when we try to force others to carry our freight:)

    Nothing wrong with bringing your kids to work...just do it on your own dime.  When my old man used to take me to the machine shop as a boy, he paid for my lunch...as it should be.

    Now if an employer wants to set up some daycare or something as an employee benefit, I say that is awesome...but that is something else entirely.  I don't think the taxpayers of Alaska ok'd these extra costs.

    Parent

    do dad's not want to be with their children? (none / 0) (#20)
    by of1000Kings on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 03:02:47 PM EST


    Parent
    There's a big difference (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 01:39:54 PM EST
    Between taking your kids to work, and taking them on the state's dime on Junkets and Vacations (what else do you call a 4 day stay in a $700 a night hotel, for a 1 or 2 hour meeting?)

    Parent
    Would she not have that for her (none / 0) (#31)
    by hairspray on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 09:57:33 PM EST
    stay anyway?  Just where do they put up governors?  How about the other governors?  Weren't they all housed in the same hotel where the meeting ocurred?  That is the way it usually is arranged.  I doubt that you have any context for your diatribe.

    Parent
    I don't get it (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Steve M on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 03:19:39 PM EST
    Taking your 17-year old daughter to a conference in New York City, at considerable taxpayer expense, is the sort of thing we have to be okay with if we want women in higher office?  I feel like you made a nice speech that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual facts under discussion.

    Parent
    Wait it was the 17 year old?! (none / 0) (#25)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 03:31:11 PM EST
    I kind of sort of just thought she was being sloppy and arrogant-- "y'know it's okay to bring the little ones, dontyaknow." But seriously, how could she justify bringing her 17 year old daughter as anything other than a junket (was this pre-pregnancy- its possible she could spin it as "crisis parenting" though admittedly that wouldn't cover the other trips and 10s of thousands of dollars in expenditures).

    Parent
    Considering the inaccuracies (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by MoveThatBus on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 08:59:16 PM EST
    In the "Blog Ad" here titled "A Neiman Marxist" it's hard to take seriously the claims in this post, as well.

    I'm all for criticizing Palin and McCain for things they deserve to be criticized for because the claims are accurate, but this is crying wolf and the real negatives are just going to end up being ignored.

    I'm sorry, maybe (2.66 / 3) (#16)
    by NYShooter on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 02:19:29 PM EST
    If you googled "context' it would be clearer.

    Obama solicited countless thousands of dollars from a half dozen Chicago developers. He then procured between 300 and 500 million federal dollars earmarked for low income housing, which he then steered to these very same developers. Being the sponsor, and a Harvard Law School graduate, he was instrumental in tweaking the rules so that the developers weren't liable for shoddy work. The work (we wish it was only shoddy) was so bad that many, if not most, of the developments are being torn down. As one of the "lucky tenants" stated, "before Obama, we only had rats to worry about; now we have the ceilings crashing down on us."

    The entire story was chronicled in The Boston Globe.

    Where's the outrage?

    Right, when you're done with Sarah's children, you'll get to it.

    Maybe November 6th?

    Context.

    Nice OT (none / 0) (#22)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 03:23:00 PM EST
    Nice, bit of off topic trollery there- hey maybe we should talk about McCain going to Keating's vacay spot in the Islands on Keating's jet, or Palin having the contractors she made her city a debtor to pay, do a little home improvement. Or, maybe we could address the topic at hand and not try to derail the thread simply because you can't defend Gov. Palin's apparent misappropriation of state funds, followed by her blatantly unethical attempts to alter public records to exonerate herself.  

    Parent
    Additionally (none / 0) (#23)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 03:25:37 PM EST
    Her Children? In what way does this thread go after her children-- I mean Piper looks bright and follows her mother on the trail all the time, but somehow I doubt she's the one who altered public records, or charged Alaska over 20 grand for the Palin Family Vacations during her mothers term in office.

    Parent
    Please explain the 20k vacations that she (none / 0) (#32)
    by hairspray on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 10:01:31 PM EST
    has charged to the state illegally for family vacations.

    Parent
    Heh. (none / 0) (#1)
    by scribe on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 12:09:09 PM EST
    One has to wonder whether altering documents that are requested in a FOIA request, then providing the altered documents, constitutes a crime as well as being a palpable ethics violation.  A lot of states have criminal penalties for altering official documents or presenting false documents for an improper purpose.

    Remember Palin Says She is a reformer (none / 0) (#19)
    by bobalaska on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 02:40:07 PM EST
    Palin's claim to fame is she is a reformer, very ethical, etc.  In fact she filed an ethics complaint against the head of the state Republican Party- who like her had been given a patronage job at the state oil & gas commission by Frank Murkowski.

    Palin's charge was that the guy had been doing party work on the state dime.  He was fined.

    At first she said her kids were invited to all the events, and that was sufficient to make it "official state business."  Later the rationale changed when it became clear that the kids had not been invited to many of the events.

    Regarding sexism: do other states pay for the kids of governors- male or female- do accompany them whenever they want?

    Parent

    Ethics Complaint Filed Against Sarah Palin Over Kids' Travel Expenses | 38 comments (38 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment