In 2019, Gov. Mike Dunleavy claimed he was gathering signatures on a petition to submit to legislators to support a Permanent Fund Dividend of $3,000.

“We need your help to make sure that we follow the decades-old statute,” Dunleavy said in an appeal on Facebook to Alaskans.

“Please sign the petition that we have online and let your legislators know where you stand on following the decades-old calculation so that a full PFD can come out of this legislative session,” he said on Facebook ads, paid for with public funds.

He also claimed he had a petition to cap government spending. And a petition to pay back PFDs.

But now we know there were no petitions on which Dunleavy collected signatures to submit to the Legislature for a bigger dividend or to cap spending. He was collecting names and addresses.

It was a data-mining expedition by the governor’s communications employees, designed to gather names of people that the governor’s office could call upon in the future for marketing and partisan purposes.

The details are revealed in a 22-page report that Dunleavy refused to release in a settlement announced at the start of the Labor Day weekend, when no one was paying attention.

Alaska Public Media obtained this report under a public records request and was the first to report on it. I understand why Dunleavy didn’t want it in public circulation.

The phony petition drives are just one aspect of the improper behavior described in the document.

Dunleavy’s attorney told the investigator for the state personnel board that “these ‘petitions’ were only used to gather constituent information and were not used to directly petition the Legislature or to advocate for the subject policies in any manner.”

“Further, an Excel spreadsheet disclosed by the governor listing the ad purchases made by the governor’s office refers to these petition ads as ‘lead generation,’” attorney John Tiemessen wrote.

“A curated lead list may have value to the governor’s office for future targeted communications with self-selected groups of citizenry,” he wrote.

In other words, the governor lied to Alaskans about his so-called petitions and the purpose.

But Tiemesson, the independent counsel in the case, excuses the governor and his staff by saying that since Dunleavy is not yet a candidate for reelection, none of this is improper.

“There is insufficient evidence to conclude that these ‘petition’ ads were intended to differentially benefit or harm a candidate, potential candidate, political party or political group,” wrote Tiemessen. “There is also no current indication that the resulting lead list has been sold outside of the governor’s office or that it is being used for personal gain by any individual.”

The “future use” of the mailing list could be a violation of the law, says Tiemessen. Was the list given to any candidate for use in the 2020 primary races targeting Republicans? That’s not covered in this report.

Contrary to Tiemessen’s claim, Dunleavy, as governor, is a potential candidate. The lawyer claims that the governor is not a potential candidate because he hasn’t officially taken steps to run again in 2022. The governor can’t any official step toward running again years in advance, but he remains a potential candidate.

Dunleavy should tell Alaskans whether he knew the petition was a fake. If so, why did he lie? If he did not know when he asked Alaskans to sign it, when did he know and why hasn’t he told Alaskans what happened? When he went on Facebook did he know the petitions weren’t real?

As to the results of the data-mining expedition, what use has been made of the information.

Dunleavy’s attorney did not provide copies of the petitions, when asked by the investigator. He said the information gathered from those who responded was “used to engage with the petition signers on the issues addressed in the petition.”

Dunleavy’s attorney claimed that the governor had “no involvement in the details of these communications.” That’s clearly not true, given the video in which Dunleavy asks Alaskans to sign the PFD petition that didn’t exist.

There are several points raised in Tiemessen’s report that warrant a complaint to the Alaska Public Offices Commission. I expect that someone will take that step, given what this footnote in Tiemessen’s report, which reads like an invitation to ask the APOC.

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.

Comments? Write to me at dermotmcole@gmail.com