Today is the day Sarah Palin has to pay the state the $10,000 for her children's travel because she's TOTALLY ethical and innocent, according to her Personnel Board.
The (frivilous?) complaint over children's travel was filed by Frank Gwartney, a retired electrical power lineman from Anchorage, in October 2008.
Sarah Palin's argument was:
"This is a big state, and I am obligated to -- and intend to -- keep Alaskans informed and meet with them as much as I can, from Barrow to Marshall to Ketchikan," Palin said in a written statement. "At the same time, I am blessed to have a large and loving family, and the discharge of my duties should not prevent me from spending time with them."
A settlement was signed by Sarah Palin Palin and Anchorage lawyer Tim Petumenos, who was hired by the state Personnel Board to investigate the complaint.
Petumenos evaluated the children's travel in terms of whether it "serves an important state interest."
Palin offered acceptable justification for the vast majority of trips that included the children, Petumenos said. In all, he said he examined more than 40 trips, some of which involved several legs.
But for nine trips, the personal benefit outweighed the public benefit, he found. For some, only a portion of the children's expenses will be repaid because parts of the trip were determined to be legitimate, according to the agreement.
Could somebody explain to me how the presence of Sarah Palin's children at any event "serves an important state interest"? Sarah Palin herself said that the discharge of her duties shouldn't prevent her from spending time with her children.
What's the state interest in that?
The outcome of this ethics complaint shows us the complaints are not frivolous or malicious. Sarah Palin's responses to them are. Will she pay the bill out of her own pocket or will her trusted trustee find a way to use money from the begathon?
Original "Sarah Palin blessed with large, loving family" post
.
