08/03/2020
Is there a difference between “Official Misconduct” and “Misconduct in Office?”
After being corrected publicly about the lie Sumner told about his opponent's responsibility for the Heartbeat bill's failure, the people of MSB District 6 decided Sumner will not act ethically on their behalf when his own benefit is a consideration.
Jesse Sumner corrected the lie he told only after receiving notification that his constituents in MSB District 6 had begun petitioning for his Recall.
However, Sumner's correction was only a static post on his page. There's no indication that his retraction of his lie has been distributed as widely as the original lie, nor that he spent the same money advertising the correction as he spent advertising the original lie about his opponent.
And while Sumner continues the baseless attack on his opponent for not passing any bills, Sumner's dishonest smear campaigns, since very few Republicans passed ANY bills in the 31st Legislature - including Sumner's most enthusiastic supporters.
It is for these reasons and many others that our efforts to Recall Jesse Sumner will continue despite the news we received today that the Establishment in Palmer wants to protect one of their own instead of allowing the legal process of holding elected representatives accountable for their actions.
That's right. The Mat-Su Borough has rejected our application for recall based on these two primary criteria:
1. Our 199-word application violated the Borough's 200 word regulation because our application contained two hyphenated words. To be fair, the Borough's letter indicates the 199-hyphenated-words could easily be replaced and such an amendment would be allowed.
2. The Borough and their independent attorney report that we do not have sufficient standing for a recall. We find this egregious, as the Alaska State Supreme Court’s found in Von Stauffenberg that the statutes “implicitly recognized that “misconduct” included not only criminal acts subject to prosecution under AS 11.56.850, but civil violations as well. Accordingly, under established precedent, “misconduct in office” must be broader than the limited scope of the crime of official misconduct.
The Statute that allows the people to recall their elected representatives based on “misconduct in office” requires the law to be interpreted broadly “so that the people are permitted to vote and express their will…” The Borough and their attorney have violated this principle by narrowing their interpretation so that only “official misconduct” is grounds for recall, rather than the broader (and legally accurate) text of the statute, “misconduct in office.”
*** In plain English, the Borough interpreted the “misconduct in office” so narrowly that it violated the precedent in Meiners, 687 P.2d at 296 which says recall statutes “should be liberally construed so that the people [are] permitted to vote and express their will….”
In this case, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough has taken our rights to “vote and express [our] will” by so narrowly interpreting “misconduct in office” to mean only “official misconduct.”
So is there a difference between “official misconduct,” meaning misconduct in the performance of official duties – and “misconduct in office,” meaning misconduct by a person who holds public office?
The obvious answer is YES! The problem here is that the Borough’s attorney chose to protect Jesse Sumner instead of reading the statute and precedents accurately, meaning misconduct is “liberally construed so that the people [are] permitted to vote and express their will.
Mr. Sumner’s deceitful actions while on the campaign trail have been exposed – and there’s more to come.
If you value honest, ethical representation at every level of government, stay tuned, as there is more to come.
Nothing of value or consequence is won easily, or on the first attempt. There is much more to discuss with the Borough and their attorney as we push on for ethical representation and honest transparency from our elected representatives.
