News from Patrick Flynn

Returning to the saga wherein many question what happened during the last couple months of the Begich administration, we left our Assembly heroes steadily working on an ordinance aimed at strengthening financial reporting requirements such that any similar miscommunication wouldn’t recur.  And yet, it hasn’t been that simple.

First off, Sullivan administration officials have approached this endeavor with a remarkable lack of urgency.  To their credit several did manage to attend a work session on January 15, after failing to provide feedback for several weeks, wherein the Assembly learned they have many concerns that need to be addressed.  So we’re working on that, hopefully with their help, finally.

Meanwhile, three of my Assembly colleagues have prepared a resolution calling for an “independent audit” of municipal financial activity in the waning months of 2008.  I know it’s true, because I read it in the news!  Independent is an almost magical word in political circles but what, really, does it mean?  Let’s look at some recent history for a little perspective:

• During the middle of 2009 two of the aforementioned three Assembly members procured an independent legal review, authored by Joseph Levesque, looking at the process leading to the approval of collective bargaining agreements.  That independent review, which based its conclusions on an irrelevant section of municipal code, deemed two contracts invalid.  That conclusion was immediately contested by a union whose contract was not questioned and, ultimately, rejected by the municipal attorney.  That, of course, leads us to:
• The now-infamous Wheeler report, which I voted to procure, that dismissed the Levesque report’s conclusions but raised other questions about the Begich administration’s financial conduct and called for both further review (enthusiastically endorsed by some) and changes to the law (as indicated above, all but ignored by the same some).  During that process:
• Sullivan administration officials spent a few thousand bucks to obtain an independent revenue forecast, ostensibly to bolster the administration’s case for very conservative revenue projections but, somehow, morphed into yet another shot at the Begich administration.  (I’ll pause for a moment to tip my hat to those able to successfully predict an unprecedented economic downturn almost a year after it occurred.)  Moving forward:
• An addendum to the Wheeler Report further documents perceived misdeeds, notes that alleged miscreants involved in this alleged malfeasance have not publicly disproved the allegations (probably because their lawyers told them to keep quiet, but what do I know?), and again calls for more independent investigation, which:
• Brings us to today.

One of the three Assembly members calling for yet another “independent” review was recently quoted saying, “It’s pretty clear that for the last couple years of that administration, they were robbing Peter to pay Paul and they weren’t being straightforward with the Assembly.”  Another of my colleagues sends me e-mails with the subject line, “Begich misdeeds.”  (Interesting aside here, that same colleague has now asked at least three Assembly chairs, including myself and one of the three calling for latest review, for subpoena authority.  None of us granted it but I did research the topic and learned an Assembly chair can’t grant said authority.  But I digress…)  Others, who approach this matter from a different political perspective, refer to this latest development as, “good political hatchet work,” and posit that, “an audit isn’t going to prove anything.”  In each of these cases it appears conclusions have been made and whatever facts are unearthed will either be highlighted or ignored in order to bolster the case made by a particular viewpoint.

Given all the circumstances surrounding that holy term, independence, allow me to offer a humble observation – no one and nothing about this matter is truly independent.  If the Assembly decides to authorize and pay for an “independent” review of 2008 municipal finances said auditor can’t possibly hope to achieve real independence.  Let’s take the aforementioned independent revenue forecast as an example, which didn’t dispute administration predictions of a drastic drop in tobacco tax revenue.  During a Budget & Finance committee meeting Cheryl Frasca, the administration’s OMB director, allowed that the 2010 number was likely too low but the Northern Economics review was silent on the issue.  That’s not necessarily an indictment of Northern Economics – perhaps they were focused on other revenue streams, were never provided with historical tobacco tax revenue numbers (which were consistently higher than administration projections), or maybe that wasn’t part of their review (the Assembly wasn’t privy to that procurement).

The point is this, any review will be colored by the information provided.  Because the Wheeler report has essentially charged former Begich administration officials with criminal behavior they are unlikely to provide any perspective or background that might flesh out the inquiry.  That means an auditor will be largely dependent on information provided by the Sullivan administration which, fairly or not, is hardly considered independent.  So where are we?

2010, meaning now-Senator Begich has three or four years to prepare for the inevitable assault on his municipal record that will accompany any challenger’s campaign for his current seat.  Also meaning that, no matter what the Assembly does, a “cover-up” drumbeat will be continued at least through April’s municipal elections (if you don’t believe me, I’ll happily share a few e-mails from folks sure that the Wheeler report had been sequestered, despite the fact it’s been posted on the Assembly’s web site for months).

In any event I’m looking forward to some delightful political theater this coming Tuesday.  Hope you enjoy the show!

Regards,

Patrick