Aides to Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin improperly obtained her former brother-in-law's state police personnel files and cited information from those records to raise complaints about the officer, the head of Alaska's state police union said Thursday. |CNN|
Addendum: The defense is both credible and damning:
In response, the McCain-Palin campaign told NBC News that the files were not protected, and that Wooten himself had signed a waiver allowing a divorce lawyer to gain access to his personnel records. They added that Todd Palin, the governor's husband, was the source of information for Bailey, and that the information came from Wooten's divorce proceedings.
In other words, the McCain campaign is saying that Todd Palin gathered damaging information on Mike Wooten by looking through his divorce proceedings, then passed it on to an aide to the governor, who later used it to try to have Wooten fired. |TPM Muckraker|
...don't know about you, but I'd like to hear Bailey testify under oath about this. Too bad he's refusing.
Let's assume that Bailey really did get the information from Todd Palin, and that he found the information by looking through divorce proceedings.
There are, to begin with, a lot of questions that need to be asked about Todd Palin's access to the information. What is the status of the divorce proceedings that Todd Palin looked through? In other words, was Palin sharing something that was part of the public record, or was he sharing something private? And, was his source the legal record or the personnel file itself? If his source of information is the actual personnel file, then it is doubtful that any release Wooten signed would have authorized Palin to make this sort of use of it.
More importantly, what condition was the information in when Bailey received it, and what did Bailey know about its provenance? If Bailey knew that it was likely from Wooten's personnel file, and I don't see how he couldn't have realized that, then it would have been improper -- and pointless -- to use that information to try to get Wooten fired.
...apparently I didn't hit publish when I updated this post four hours ago. At any rate, the McCain campaign appears to be in possession of the waiver Wooten signed, and they are declaring that because Wooten signed the waiver "the information is in the public domain."
Speaking as someone with familiarity with the rules that typically surround personnel files for state employees, that's doesn't strike me as a credible statement. I'd really like to read a copy of the specific waiver, but suffice it to say that waivers almost universally have a clause which says something like, 'the recipient shall retain all information in confidence' and another clause which allows the information to be shared on a very limited basis with those directly involved in the relevant proceedings. The idea that anyone would sign a waiver which put personal information in the public domain just doesn't pass the smell test.
Now, it is possible that the information is in the public domain if it is included in the divorce proceedings and the divorce proceedings are not under seal. States differ in their practices regarding divorce proceedings, so its possible that the relevant records are open in Alaska.
...I can't find an answer one way or another in Alaskan law. What circumstantial evidence I have from the law would suggest that divorce records are *not* sealed (because there are various provisions which allow confidential information (e.g., social security numbers) to be excluded from the public record. That said, I looked at one of those sites that handles record requests for a fee, and the information contained there indicates that in Alaska "Divorce records are sealed for 50 years."
...Luckily, there are plenty of scandals, so we have lots of opportunities to learn about how they do things up North:
Todd Palin's former business partner files an emergency motion to have his divorce papers sealed. Oh God.|Source|
No comments:
Post a Comment