Gov. Mike Dunleavy and Attorney General Kevin Clarkson have a perfect record with their plan for an end run around the state ethics law, a proposal to allow them to provide free legal help to each other.

All of the public comments submitted to the state are opposed to the Dunleavy-Clarkson Mutual Aid Society. (If I have missed a comment in the 321-page file that Dunleavy and Clarkson regard as supportive, someone will let me know.)

The governor and attorney general have been quiet about the unanimous response or the future of the DCMAS regulations, though a department spokeswoman says the plan is on hold.

That’s fine, but Dunleavy and Clarkson should officially cancel the mutual aid society in light of the public response and because it is unconstitutional and unethical.

Current rules allow the state to pay for legal expenses, but the employee has to pay it back unless he or she is exonerated of the charges. There is no need to change those rules. The Legislature is considering a plan, HB 201, to block the Dunleavy-Clarkson deal and keep the current system. The next hearing is Monday at 1 p.m. in the House Judiciary Committee.

In proposed regulations released last fall, Clarkson’s office said that if the governor or lieutenant governor are accused of violating the ethics law, the AG should be allowed to provide a free defense with state money. And if the AG is accused, the governor can make the same gift to the attorney general.

The scratch-my-back conflict of interest was obvious and unaddressed by Dunleavy and Clarkson. The AG owes his or her job to the governor and will always be inclined to sign off on free legal help, regardless of circumstances. Likewise, the governor will always want to keep the AG happy unless he or she wants a new one.

Here is a sample of the public comments:

“I am concerned that the adoption of these regulations will encourage corruption, malfeasance, lack of transparency, and an erosion of public trust in the Office of the Attorney General, the Department of Law, and the Governor's Office,” said attorney Libby Bakalar, who was fired by Dunleavy for her political views and is in court charging a violation of her right to free speech.

“Hire a lawyer like everyone else. This is ludicrous,” said Cherime MacFarlane.

“The AG has an inherent conflict of interest in that he/she has to decide whether or not the state will pay legal expenses for their boss! This is completely unreasonable,” said Peter Bangs of Juneau.

“The odds of an Attorney General refusing to help defend the governor are about as high as the odds of a ConocoPhillips-employed legislator supporting higher oil taxes,” said Eric Treider of Soldotna.

“The drafters of this proposal are simply trying to change the statutory process, enacted into law by the legislature, by means of a regulation, which is not within their statutory authority. The governor and attorney general may not unilaterally change a statute,” wrote Doug Mertz, a former assistant attorney general.

“This administration is acting like it's amateur hour,” said Katherine Ellison.

“AG Clarkson revamps ethics laws to self serve himself, the Governor and Lt Governor. Unconscionable and unconstitutional,” said Lin Davis of Juneau.

“The changes create a situation that at minimum appears to be a conflict of interest and at worst self-dealing,” said Randi Baranowski-Sweet of Seldovia.

“What the governor and attorney general are trying to do is against our state constitution. Do not allow it!” said Connie Giddings of Anchorage.

“This is unacceptable and Clarkson’s new regulations ought to be sent directly to the circular file (garbage can). I can’t begin to tell you how much this aggravates me but suffice it to say this attempt at covering their misguided butts is unadulterated BS!” said Stephen Hendricks.

“I am completely opposed to the proposed change in ethics rules that would allow the attorney general to represent the governor in ethics complaints. This creates a complete conflict of interest as clearly outlined in legal opinions delivered to your department. Moves such as these are why the recall movement has had such success in so short a time. This self-serving change of ethics rule will be just one more nail in the coffin of this administration. Do not support yet another move toward corruption,” wrote Kathleen Swick of Anchorage.

“The AG has presumably signed a loyalty oath to the governor which makes him unable to make a dispassionate determination at all, and would put his own Alaska Bar license in jeopardy for pretending to do so. He is obliged to uphold the Constitution and laws of the State of Alaska, not the will of the Governor or Lt. Governor. The Attorney General has spent a good deal of time writing opinion pieces for the media trying to advocate for the Governor. That is not his job either, and demonstrates his political aims and lack of neutral judgment,” wrote Roger Brunner, a longtime attorney in Fairbanks.

Your contributions help support independent analysis and political commentary by Alaska reporter and author Dermot Cole. Thank you for reading and for your support. Either click here to use PayPal or send checks to: Dermot Cole, Box 10673, Fairbanks, AK 99710-0673.