Alaska Town Spends 7k Appealing $37 Fine
Okay, it was $37.50, for an election-law fine against the mayor of Fairbanks.
Click here for reuse options!The Alaska Public Offices Commission ordered City Mayor John Eberhart to pay the $37.50 fine in May after concluding he broke a state law in the October 2013 election by sending an email on his city council email account, The Fairbanks Daily News-Miner reports…
Fairbanks has paid about $7,000 during appeals, city attorney Paul Ewers said. The funding comes out of the city’s claims budget. The Fairbanks City Council held a closed-door executive session about the city’s appeal strategy earlier this month.
The city government is paying for Eberhart’s appeal costs because it’s obligated, in most cases, to defend public officials who are sued as part of their official duties under the city’s indemnification law, the newspaper reported.
Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Cheston Catalano
Cheston Catalano is a Kentucky-based journalist whose work has been featured in the Chattanooga Times Free Press and the Clarksville Leaf Chronicle. He is a long-time contributor to Liberaland.
16 responses to Alaska Town Spends 7k Appealing $37 Fine
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
MIAtheistGal September 1st, 2014 at 08:28
Oh, Alaska. The crazy cherry on our America sundae.
I’d be pissed if my tax dollars were being wasted like this!
M D Reese September 1st, 2014 at 13:05
The Koch Brothers are pretty much buying up Alaska, so it shouldn’t be a problem too much longer.
MIAtheistGal September 1st, 2014 at 08:28
Oh, Alaska. The crazy cherry on our America sundae.
I’d be pissed if my tax dollars were being wasted like this!
M D Reese September 1st, 2014 at 13:05
The Koch Brothers are pretty much buying up Alaska, so it shouldn’t be a problem too much longer.
Larry Schmitt September 1st, 2014 at 08:36
What the hell, it’s not their money.
Larry Schmitt September 1st, 2014 at 08:36
What the hell, it’s not their money.
Larry Schmitt September 1st, 2014 at 08:42
One question: If he sent the email, and it violated the rules, why are they fighting it?
MIAtheistGal September 1st, 2014 at 09:02
I’m sure he’s covered under some sort of bond the city holds, much like a company’s executives are covered. I think it’s a joke though, to spend so much defending so little.
Larry Schmitt September 1st, 2014 at 08:42
One question: If he sent the email, and it violated the rules, why are they fighting it?
MIAtheistGal September 1st, 2014 at 09:02
I’m sure he’s covered under some sort of bond the city holds, much like a company’s executives are covered. I think it’s a joke though, to spend so much defending so little.
tiredoftea September 1st, 2014 at 12:42
This seems like a recurring theme for him! From the Politico article:
“The city is not paying Eberhart’s legal bills in his other October 2013 election appeal, which does not relate to his city council service.
In that case, the elections commission concluded the Eberhart campaign’s occasional use of a work phone and copy machine at the Tanana Chiefs Conference office amounted to an illegal corporate “in kind” contribution to his campaign worth $384.
The commission fined him $2,884 in that case. The fine also covered a $500 check Eberhart accepted and later returned from the Cafe de Paris Catering Company. The check wasn’t considered a legal campaign contribution because it came from a corporation instead of an individual.”
tiredoftea September 1st, 2014 at 12:42
This seems like a recurring theme for him! From the Politico article:
“The city is not paying Eberhart’s legal bills in his other October 2013 election appeal, which does not relate to his city council service.
In that case, the elections commission concluded the Eberhart campaign’s occasional use of a work phone and copy machine at the Tanana Chiefs Conference office amounted to an illegal corporate “in kind” contribution to his campaign worth $384.
The commission fined him $2,884 in that case. The fine also covered a $500 check Eberhart accepted and later returned from the Cafe de Paris Catering Company. The check wasn’t considered a legal campaign contribution because it came from a corporation instead of an individual.”
edmeyer_able September 1st, 2014 at 13:17
Not voting has unforeseen consequences.
edmeyer_able September 1st, 2014 at 13:17
Not voting has unforeseen consequences.
Denise September 1st, 2014 at 13:59
Gotta be Republican. Who else would waste taxpayer money like this?
Denise September 1st, 2014 at 13:59
Gotta be Republican. Who else would waste taxpayer money like this?