You are here
Unethical Harassment and Wearing Logos
Wednesday, March 25th, 2009
Robert Wechsler
When I saw the headline from the Anchorage Daily News, "Palin Calls Blogger's
Ethics Complaint Bogus," and saw that it had to do with clothing the
governor wore, I thought I might write a piece about using ethics
complaints for the purpose of political harassment. But when I read the article, I
realized that the complaint was not frivolous, and that the governor's
criticism of it was worthy of taking note. And there's even an issue here that local government officials could learn from.
First the complaint. It involved the governor wearing Arctic Cat logo gear during this year's Tesoro Iron Dog snow machine race. Arctic Cat is the sponsor of the governor's husband in this race. In other words, the governor's family is paid, at least in goods, by the company she was advertising by wearing the gear (in fact, the governor's spokesperson could not say whether or not the governor's gear had been provided by the company, which would bring up other, more serious ethics issues). The governor appeared, wearing the logo, in Sports Illustrated and most likely in local newspapers, as well. Was this an appropriate use of her office?
Here is the governor's response, not verbally, but in a press release:
First the complaint. It involved the governor wearing Arctic Cat logo gear during this year's Tesoro Iron Dog snow machine race. Arctic Cat is the sponsor of the governor's husband in this race. In other words, the governor's family is paid, at least in goods, by the company she was advertising by wearing the gear (in fact, the governor's spokesperson could not say whether or not the governor's gear had been provided by the company, which would bring up other, more serious ethics issues). The governor appeared, wearing the logo, in Sports Illustrated and most likely in local newspapers, as well. Was this an appropriate use of her office?
Here is the governor's response, not verbally, but in a press release:
Yes, I wore Arctic Cat snow gear at an
outdoor event, because it was
cold outside, and by the way, today, I am wearing clothes bearing the
names of Alaska artists, and a Glennallen Panthers basketball hoodie. I
am a walking billboard for the team's
fundraiser! Should I expect to see an ethics charge for wearing these,
or the Carhartts I wear to many public events? How much will this
blogger's asinine political grandstanding cost all of us in time and
money?
Are Alaskans outraged, or at least tired of this yet -- another frivolous ethics charge by a political blogger? This would be hilarious if it weren't so expensive for the state to process these accusations and for me to defend against these bogus harassments.
An elected official wearing the logos of local teams is not only acceptable, but good politics. And Carhartt does not sponsor the governor's husband. If these are the best analogies she can make, even in writing, the governor should immediately admit to unethical conduct, so that the state will not have to expend money investigating or holding a hearing.
In addition, it is common and part of the democratic system to have elected officials, especially high-level ones, harassed by citizens. It may not be nice, it may not be desirable, but it comes with the territory. What doesn't come with the territory is elected officials harassing citizens. Even if this ethics complaint were truly frivolous, rather than simply minor, a governor should not personally attack the person who brought it. Ignore it, settle it, laugh it off. But words like "asinine" and "bogus" do not belong in an elected official's public statement against a citizen.
What should an ordinary local government official do about wearing logos, even when there isn't a question of sponsorship, and Sports Illustrated isn't taking their picture, but the local paper might be? It's not something worth a lot of thought, but on the other hand, it's not good policy to wear a hat bearing the logo of a local company, or a shirt bearing the name of a local store -- both instances of preferential treatment that make people wonder if you owe these companies anything. It's best to stick to local teams and neutral companies with small logos, and keep logos and corporate names out of the picture as much as possible. It was easier in the old days when politicians just wore suits and cloth coats.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Are Alaskans outraged, or at least tired of this yet -- another frivolous ethics charge by a political blogger? This would be hilarious if it weren't so expensive for the state to process these accusations and for me to defend against these bogus harassments.
An elected official wearing the logos of local teams is not only acceptable, but good politics. And Carhartt does not sponsor the governor's husband. If these are the best analogies she can make, even in writing, the governor should immediately admit to unethical conduct, so that the state will not have to expend money investigating or holding a hearing.
In addition, it is common and part of the democratic system to have elected officials, especially high-level ones, harassed by citizens. It may not be nice, it may not be desirable, but it comes with the territory. What doesn't come with the territory is elected officials harassing citizens. Even if this ethics complaint were truly frivolous, rather than simply minor, a governor should not personally attack the person who brought it. Ignore it, settle it, laugh it off. But words like "asinine" and "bogus" do not belong in an elected official's public statement against a citizen.
What should an ordinary local government official do about wearing logos, even when there isn't a question of sponsorship, and Sports Illustrated isn't taking their picture, but the local paper might be? It's not something worth a lot of thought, but on the other hand, it's not good policy to wear a hat bearing the logo of a local company, or a shirt bearing the name of a local store -- both instances of preferential treatment that make people wonder if you owe these companies anything. It's best to stick to local teams and neutral companies with small logos, and keep logos and corporate names out of the picture as much as possible. It was easier in the old days when politicians just wore suits and cloth coats.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
Lee Franklin (not verified) says:
Fri, 2009-03-27 15:39
Permalink
It's heartening to hear your analysis of the complaint. So many others are decrying it, denying it, excusing it, and getting very upset at the complaint filer as a result.
Once again, thank you.
Linda Kellen Biegel (not verified) says:
Fri, 2009-03-27 15:58
Permalink
As a former 15-year Federal employee, I was incensed by Governor Palin's flagrant misuse of her position. After the Sports Illustrated article, which was planned in advance so they could follow Todd Palin on the Iron Dog trail, it was clear to me she knew the outfit would be seen by national and international media. I felt that I had to act.
While I knew my Governor has a tendency to...errrr...complain quite a bit, I was totally taken aback by her unprofessional press release and the firestorm that was unleashed by her "fans."
I've been blogging about it daily: http://divasblueoasis.com
Thank you very much for your supportive post!
Concerned Alaskan (not verified) says:
Fri, 2009-03-27 16:06
Permalink
Mr. Weschler, When I first heard about this latest ethics complain, I too had the initial reaction that this was just another ethics complaint that was filed mainly for partisan harassment against a high profile politician.
However, upon examining the claim, it does indeed have merit in my opinion, and I feel that is why the Governor reacted in such a knee-jerk reaction to it on her government page, rather than simply blow it off as a more experienced politician might do.
I think this article does a great job summing up the implications in this matter, and explaining why politicians should pay more heed to this matter, especially when it involves conflict of interest.
crystalwolf aka... (not verified) says:
Fri, 2009-03-27 16:22
Permalink
That was excellent commentary! And lets not forget...The Palins did at one time own a "snowmobile" shop, so she would of know exactly what she was doing, in other words, It was not a "accident" and there were other teams that also had Team Arctic gear, but theirs were not personalized as the Palins was. So this was specially personalized FOR HER!
Visitor (not verified) says:
Fri, 2009-03-27 16:26
Permalink
Thank you so very much very expressing the views of many Alaskans who have watched this story unfold here. For some odd reason the governor seems to have a problem with clothing much like Barbie with her dream wardrobe. Unfortunately, for every complaint leveraged against her she retaliates with another ridiculous rebuttal. Search your news headlines for her choice of AG, Wayne Allan Ross, a red hummer driving individual who will never say no to Sarah. His work history only reflects his love of guns and chasing ambulances.
What will we do....
the problem child (not verified) says:
Fri, 2009-03-27 17:07
Permalink
Thank you for this clear-eyed analysis. I'd like to point out that Ms. Kellen Biegel has been subjected to incredibly foul and threatening e-mails and phone calls in the days following the filing of this complaint. When a person in a position of power feels it is acceptable to abuse a constituent using state resources, can we really be surprised that others will feel free to pile on?
Visitor (not verified) says:
Fri, 2009-03-27 17:12
Permalink
The governor is not what she projected in her run for state office. I don't know if this has turned in to her getting in WAY over her head and panicking or if she was just not a nice lady to begin with. I know that I idolized her-- she was just like me, a mother with a big family, with ambition. She was changing the way women with large families were perceived. She was blazing a trail for not just women, but women who wanted to have it all.
Now I feel like she has destroyed what I thought she was accomplishing while claiming to restore trust in government. The only thing she has done is prove what my anthropology professor told us in college, being that people not in power oust the people in power. . . and become just like them.
Linda K-B was right to do as she did. Even if I didn't agree with her, I would support her in having this right. How does our legislature respond? Ralf Seekins (Fairbanks, R) just wrote a bill making complaints anonymous until proven. It will probably get passed.
MichaelSF (not verified) says:
Fri, 2009-03-27 18:39
Permalink
I took snapshots of Palin's official page in the event she takes down her immature and unethical response.
I opined elsewhere that I have never seen a government official post such stuff on a government page. Such indicates that Palin has real mental issues.
Can you imagine her in the White House with her finger on the button to launch missiles. Man, did we dodge the bullet on Nov 4.
Anyway, there's mountains of evidence that this is all more than the Governor wearing a jacket to protect herself from the cold.
If this was all "bogus" as she says, she would have issued a response that was detailed and immediately proved that it was as she said,it was cold and that is why she wore a jacket.
All in all though no one should be surprised by Palin's attack and immature response. My understanding is that she viciously attacks people she perceives her enemies. And wasn't Trooper-gate all about Palin chasing and harassing Wooten in any way that the Palins could.
And there's people whom have said that Palin in her Wasilla mayor days forward has exhibited a vindictive, revengeful manner.
I suspect that the reason Palin has lost her marbles and posted a public attack is that she has finally gone postal. It's not an excuse, but consider that she can't go more than a couple weeks without something happening or someone hitting her on the side of the head.
She is not used to being in the public eye. I suspect that when she accepted to run for VP she looked at it as being fun and a blast (as she has said) and did not realize that national scrutiny and vetting is a lot more difficult to survive as compared to running for mayor or governor of a state with a population of 650,000.
She has gone from the happy days of being an AK personality to where millions of people now watch her every move and act on anything negative they find.
Palin no doubt thought she was qualified for national office and perhaps was even so delusional as to think that the campaign would would not include putting her life under a microscope.
I suspect that she also thought that after the election the scrutiny would end and she could make plans for 2012. Instead, her reputation has imploded, no one who matters likes her and she knows it), she has been blacklisted from Washington, McCain hates her, and MSM is slapping her down almost on a weekly basis (E.g., just yesterday on Chris Matthews' show a pundit said she was like Dan Quayle with the exception that he was intelligent.)
So I don't think it's surprising that in March 2009 Palin has finally lost it. Another ethics complaint notwithstanding, what you focus on is spot on, that Palin would use a ".gov" website to lash out about the situation and use the Site to tell her supporters to break out the pitch forks.
Memphis, NY (not verified) says:
Tue, 2009-03-31 11:04
Permalink
I also agree with your analysis of the situation and would like to thank you for backing up Linda.
I am a fan of The Mudflats blog and would really like to read your opinion on the outing of an anonymous blogger? Are there any ethics violations here?
http://www.themudflats.net/2009/03/27/in-exposing-the-identity-of-mudfla...
Robert Wechsler says:
Tue, 2009-03-31 11:19
Permalink
Not all unethical conduct is an ethics violation. Taking lying, for example.
What Rep. Doogan did was personal in an offensive way -- taking revenge on a citizen -- and it was done for his personal benefit. It was also done to hurt someone personally, and I say this although I personally hate online anonymity and do not practice it myself. He apparently feels that what he did was in the public interest, but it appears that the motivation was primarily personal.
However, I doubt that what he did broke any ethics law.
As the Mudflats blogger says, this action says a lot about Doogan. He is apparently a very petty man. The question is, will his constituents care?
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
LettersfromEurope (not verified) says:
Fri, 2009-04-03 12:06
Permalink
I have just bookmarked your page. Ethical behaviour is a subject very dear to my heart. When are we private, when are we public, where does a public official have to draw the line? We might not always get it right first time, but we can try and apologize when making a mistake. This has not happened in this case and it is a shame.
Thankyou for giving your analytical and well-balanced opinion on this sensitive issue.