Update: The two state-funded mailers that the independent counsel found objectionable were those that the governor’s office created to support two legislators who backed him on the dividend, according to Alaska Public Media.

In an announcement buried on a holiday weekend, Gov. Mike Dunleavy agreed to pay $2,800 to try to end one of the complaints against him in the recall.

Dunleavy doesn’t admit that he did anything wrong when his office spent public funds both defending and attacking legislators in 2019 over the permanent fund dividend and various other partisan issues.

An independent counsel has concluded that two state-funded mailers supporting Sen. Mia Costello and Rep. Josh Revak in 2019 were partisan, but only because Costello and Revak had announced plans to run again. State money spent on partisan communications directed at other lawmakers doesn’t count as partisan, according to independent counsel John Tiemessen’s interpretation of the law.

In a prepared statement, Dunleavy said the mailers were created without his knowledge or approval of the specifics.

“I did not know about these communications before they were sent, and had no personal role in drafting, designing, publishing, reviewing, or approving the advertisements,” he said.

“I never intended for state resources to support a partisan political purpose, and I don’t believe I violated the Alaska Executive Ethics Act. Nevertheless, I believe it is in the best interests of the state to resolve these complaints, and, for this reason, I am reimbursing the state for the cost of these advertisements and ensuring that my staff undergoes all appropriate ethics training. I am also taking this opportunity to remind the devoted public servants in my office of the very high ethical standards that Alaskans rightly demand,” Dunleavy’s statement said.

Dunleavy’s apologist, Suzanne Downing, wrote that the $2,800 payment ends the matter. Not so fast.

The ethics complaint probably explains why Dunleavy and former Attorney General Kevin Clarkson tried last fall to change state regulations and allow each to sign off on free legal help for each other in ethics cases. The administration dropped the plan after the public raised numerous objections.

The independent counsel in the case for the state personnel board, John Tiemessen, concluded that the “circumstances support an inference that these communications were for a ‘partisan political purpose’ as that term is defined by the Executive Branch Ethics Act.”

The communications in question were those that urged people to contact two legislators who had already declared an intention to run again. The communications that urged people to contact legislators who had not already declared an intention to run again were permissible, according to Dunleavy’s attorney and Tiemessen.

The attorney has taken the most narrow definition possible. Under his logic, it would be possible to use public money in any amount to target or support legislators who had not declared plans to run again or push political ideas backed by Dunleavy.

If this claim is correct, it is a flaw in the ethics law. If the claim is false, it points to a flaw in Tiemessen’s analysis.

The governor spent public funds trying to lobby legislators to approve a spending cap, attacking those who opposed his plans on the dividend and other issues. The Anchorage Daily News said the campaign cost $35,000 and included “messages on social media, text messages and automated phone calls to voters in particular legislative districts.”

Dunleavy used state funds for Facebook pages that called for a cap on state spending, repeal of SB91, higher dividends and the defense of public safety commissioner Amanda Price.

In 2019, almost no incumbent legislators had already declared whether they would run again a year-and-a-half later. The attorney contends most of the $35,000 in public funds spent by Dunleavy to influence the public and pressure legislators was appropriate.

The agreement by the lawyers said “the parties disagree as to the proper interpretation of the definition of ‘partisan political purposes’ under the Executive Branch Ethics Act, and whether the governor can be found liable under the Executive Branch Ethics Act for violations committed by employees of the Office of the Governor done without his knowledge or approval.”

“The governor shall within sixty days reimburse the state $2,800, and this amount shall not be considered a fine or penalty. This is reimbursement for the estimated amount of public funds that the independent counsel believes should have been paid from a non-public source,” the agreement with Dunleavy said.

One of the allegations in the recall is that “Dunleavy violated Alaska Law and the Constitution, and misused state funds by unlawfully and without proper disclosure, authorizing and allowing the use of state funds for partisan purposes to purchase electronic advertisements and direct mailers making partisan statements about political opponents and supporters.”

The independent counsel’s report supports that assertion, in part.

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