Sullygate: If there is a contractual agreement, Mayor Sullivan, show us the contract

Mayor Dan Sullivan (center)

Crossposted at
Celtic Diva’s
Blue Oasis

Alaska Dispatch
Alaska Commons

For other news stories
& posts on this topic,
see my bibliography on
all things Sullygate

Damn, I hate when I want to do my own writing, but along comes some political situation poking its thumb in my eye so hard I have no choice but to remove it.  Well, nothing for it but to roll up my sleeves & go at it.

It’s a long story.  But it is kind of interesting.  Please read on.

At issue is a putative insurance payout of $193,000 from the Anchorage municipal treasury to a trust — the George M. Sullivan Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust — led by George M. Sullivan’s son, Anchorage Mayor Dan Sullivan, which was approved by the Anchorage Assembly by a 9-1 vote on February 16.  The thing is fishy enough that over the past two weeks it’s been the subject of a story apiece in the Anchorage Daily Planet [Ref #1] & the Anchorage Press [Ref #2] & no less than three stories in the Anchorage Daily News (two by Sean Cockerham [Ref #3, 4], one from the Associated Press [Ref #5]).  There’s also been commentary in the blogs Progressive Alaska [Ref #6], The Mudflats [Ref #7], & Immoral Minority [Ref #8].  I’m sure we’ll see more — the one I’m writing right now, f’r instance.  Haven’t read ‘em? — there’s a complete list of references with links at the bottom of this post.  As is my habit when writing posts like these.

The most comprehensive reporting on the putative insurance payout comes from Sean Cockerham, who in my book continues to rank at the top of the Anchorage Daily News‘ dwindling reporting staff — at the top statewide, for that matter.  As mentioned, he wrote two stories on the putative insurance payout, a brief one called “Benefits for a former official” [Ref #3] and a longer, more comprehensive one called “City life insurance payout for former mayor raises questions — $193,000: Assembly honors ‘82 deal that puts city money into George Sullivan’s trust” [Ref #4].  The latter is especially essential reading if you’re at all interested in this matter.

[Correction 3/8/10: David Hulen of the ADN, who was editor on Sean Cockerham’s stories, wrote to tell me that both stories were posted at the same time, with the shorter story as a sidebar to the longer one. For some reason the timestamps on the stories as they appeared on ADN’s website made it appear that one was posted two or three hours before the other.]

I’ll use some of its opening paragraphs to set the stage:

The Anchorage Assembly has agreed to pay $193,000 to meet the obligation for a one-of-a-kind life insurance deal the city made 28 years ago after Mayor George Sullivan left office.

Sullivan died last year at the age of 87. The assembly voted Feb. 16 to pay the money to his life insurance trust. The trustee is Sullivan’s son, Dan Sullivan, the current mayor of Anchorage.

He told The Anchorage Daily News it’s an odd coincidence he’s dealing with this both as mayor and trustee. He’s not saying who will get the money as beneficiary of the trust.

In 1982, the assembly agreed the city would continue life insurance to George Sullivan for the rest of his life at the same rate he had been paying as mayor. Until his death, George Sullivan had paid the city $19,663 in premiums, which were deposited into a city account.

The current Sullivan administration recommended to the assembly that the insurance be paid, with City Attorney Dennis Wheeler describing it in a Feb. 2 memo as a contractual obligation.

Several Assembly members said they felt they had no choice but to pay it.

“I don’t believe it was an appropriate thing to do when it was done … But what do you do? You’ve got to honor your commitments,” said Assemblyman Dan Coffey.

The one Assembly member to vote against it, Harriet Drummond, said the payment, and the arrangement that led to it, made no sense. “The municipality is not an insurance company,” she said. “This whole situation is incredibly bizarre to me.” [Ref #4]

No kidding.

Now, three times so far I’ve called this a putative insurance payout.  That’s because, like Harriet Drummond, I don’t buy that the Municipality of Anchorage is an insurance company.  And as I’ve read through the over 230 comments left at the ADN website on that story, I’ve gotten pretty weary of those repeating the meme that Dan Coffey used in that passage above: the $193,000 payout honors a “commitment”.  Or an “obligation.”  Or, as Mayor Sullivan himself told Sean Cockerham, repeating City Attorney Dennis Wheeler’s claim,

It was simply honoring a contractual agreement. [Ref #4]

Really?  Then show us the contract.

But they can’t. Because, as Cockerham reported,

there’s no evidence a written contract was ever drawn up spelling out the terms of the arrangement. [Ref #4]

Now here’s where I get geeky.  The Anchorage Daily News was kind enough to provide PDFs of Muni documents that are pretty darn helpful in understanding this story.  But for some reason they didn’t put them in chronological order, or give them a table of contents, or anything.  And, well, I find chronological order & tables of contents to be kinda helpful.  So, being the publication specialisty geek that I am, I spent some time this evening downloading the PDFs & rearranging them. And adding bookmarks as tables of contents so they’re easier to navigate.  I’ll be referring to them frequently from here on out, so here they are:

[Update 3/8/10: David Hulen of the ADN told me that ADN posted the PDFs exactly as they were provided to ADN by the Municipality as a result of public records requests.]

Let’s start at the beginning.  Mayor George Sullivan ended his last term in 1981.  Assembly Resolution AR-30, dated January 19, 1982, resolved

That the Commission on Salaries and Emoluments be requested to consider directing that life insurance coverage be provided to former Mayor George M. Sullivan for the remainder of his life at the same rate and with the same coverage as in existence on January 1, 1982. [Ref #9, page 1]

But what was the same rate and the same coverage? In a memorandum dated February 18, 1982, Susan Lindemuth, Manager of Records and Benefits, wrote in a memo,

When he left office, Mr. Sullivan’s life was insured for $193,000. The figures I am quoting are based on a continuation of that level of insurance.

If the Municipality continues Mr. Sullivan’s coverage as a member of the group, it will cost the Municipality $86.85 per month or $1,042.20 per year…. This premium could be paid either by the Municipality or Mr. Sullivan.

Mr. Sullivan is eligible to convert his insurance to an individual policy.  At his age, continued coverage would cost Mr. Sullivan $961.00 per month…. [Ref #9, page 2]

But big question: would the insurance company go with the plan? Minutes for the February 24, 1982 meeting of the Commission on Salaries & Emoluments state,

There was still concern by the Commission whether the insurance company would allow someone who was no longer employed by the Municipality to remain part of the group plan and pay the month premiums out-of-pocket. [Ref #9, page 6 (page 2 of minutes)]

After a short recess, Susan Lindemuth responded to those concerns:

In response to questions by Mr. Lounsbury, Ms. Lindemuth stated there is no problem as far as the insurance company is concerned in continuing George Sullivan in the insurance program after his completion of service with the Municipality and has drawn his last paycheck.  She further stated that the Municipality would just add an amendment to the policy saying George Sullivan is eligible to continue participation. [Ref #9, page 6 (page 2 of minutes)]

The Commission ultimately passed its Resolution 82-1, which provided life insurance coverage to Sullivan at the the same rate — presumably the “$86.85 per month or $1,042.20 per year” cited in Susan Lindemuth’s February 18 memo — and the same coverage as on January 1, 1982 ($193,000). Sullivan would bear the full cost of providing the insurance coverage — i.e., he’d pay the premiums. [Ref #9, page 9]

Several months later, on November 10, 1982, minutes of the Salary & Emoluments Commission show that there were already problems with the resolution as passed:

Chairman Millsap stated that attached to the Agenda was a status report on the life insurance coverage for Mr. Sullivan. [included in Ref #9 on page 14] He stated the letter was very self-explanatory and that everything had been taken care of.

Ms. [sic] Lounsbury stated he was questioning the last sentence — “to the extent that the premium amount exceeds that paid by Mr. Sullivan, the mayor’s office benefits account will be charged for the difference.”

Ms. Gotham stated that is not what this commission said.

Mr. Lounsbury continued by saying that Mr. Sullivan is to pay what the premium is.  The commission didn’t set any certain amount, they just said you pay the premium.

Chairman Millsap requested the Recording Secretary obtain clarification from Susan Lindemuth. [Ref #9, page 12; emphasis in original]

Susan Lindemuth replied with a memorandum on November 17, 1982:

Judy Flitter has asked that I clarify the last sentence in paragraph two of my November 10 memo.

When planning for the implementation of Resolution 82-1, the meaning of “at the rate in effect as of January 1, 1982″ was questioned.  Municipal Attorney Jerry Wertzbaugher interpreted it to mean that Mr. Sullivan would not be required to pay for increases in life insurance premium payments subsequent to January 1, 1982.  To the extent that those rates will increase… the Municipality will have to pick up the difference. [Ref #9, page 15]

This, of course, went contrary to Section 2 of Resolution 82-1, which established that Sullivan would bear the full cost of the premiums — as Judy Flitter, who provided staff support to the Commission, subsequently pointed out in a memorandum on November 22, 1982 –

The decision from the Salary and Emoluments Commission was to allow former Mayor George Sullivan to retain the policy but to pay any premiums himself.  They did not intent [sic] for any monies to be taken from the current Mayor’s budget.  The statement from the commission is: The bill is to be sent to Mr. Sullivan for the difference per thousand per month. [Ref #9, page 16]

So problem solved: in spite of the “at the same rate” provision of Section 1 of the resolution, Sullivan had to pay the full premiums himself.

But turns out that wasn’t the biggest problem with resolution.  In fact, it appears that Susan Lindemuth’s reassurances to the Commission on February 24 that “there is no problem as far as the insurance company is concerned in continuing George Sullivan in the insurance program after his completion of service with the Municipality” was incorrect. Though nothing in the record we have so far tells us exactly when this problem was discovered.

But wait, you might ask. Didn’t Sean Cockerham’s ADN story tell us when it was discovered?  Here’s the relevant passage:

Twenty years later, in 2002, Deputy Employee Relations director Karen Moore was baffled when Dan Sullivan, who was on the Assembly at the time, came to the city to make that year’s premium payment, according to e-mails from the time. She asked the city’s insurance carrier about a policy for Sullivan. The company didn’t know about it either. The premiums paid by Sullivan and his family had been deposited into a city account, not given to Aetna.

Top officials in the administration of George Wuerch, who was mayor in 2002, spent months trying to figure out the history of the deal and what to do about it, according to the e-mails, released to the Daily News this week.

The city’s life insurance carrier, Aetna, told the city in 2002 that it had no policy on Sullivan and wouldn’t cover him anyway because its agreement was only for active city employees, according to the e-mails. Aetna made clear it wasn’t liable for Sullivan, who was 78 years old by that time. The insurance company’s legal department recommended the city just return the premiums to the Sullivan family. [Ref #4]

But here’s the thing: the real point of discovery that Aetna wouldn’t cover Sullivan wasn’t 2002, when the Wuerth administration came up against the problem.  The real point of discovery was sometime between 1982 and 2002.  Someone — we don’t yet know who — made a decision to place the premiums in a city account, presumably because the insurance company would not take them, because Sullivan was not on their rolls.

As of January 30, 2002, Susan Lindemuth was apparently under the impression that Sullivan was still covered by Aetna under the Municipality’s group plan, or at least so she said. In an email to Karen Moore, she wrote,

He was covered as part of the MOA group and therefore, part of that “risk”. There was no separate policy with Aetna or any other insurance carrier for him…and no separate “premium” was paid to any outside party. [Ref #10, page 4]

As the life insurance rates changed over the years, he was informed and paid the appropriate premium amount…or the kids paid on his behalf.

We had a split funded agreement with Aetna…so we paid the “retention” monthly and funded the life insurance claims when incurred. His coverage amount ($93,000 [sic]) was included in the volume reported to Aetna. [Ref #10, page 4]

But Lynda Gable of Aetna — identified in one email by Karen Moore as “long time account executive for Aetna’s MOA coverage” [Ref #10, p. 9] — who received a copy of Susan Lindemuth’s email, informed Karen Moore –

This means Muni kept those dollars on hand in the claims funds. I don’t know if intent was to have them handle a death claim directly, but Aetna never received any premiums. The insurance fund was the reserves that Muni held and those funds were never submitted to Aetna nor included in any of our premiums from a risk standpoint to the best of my knowledge. How much insurance is he supposed to have??? [Ref #10, page 4]

Later that day (January 30), Karen Moore told David Otto –

Lynda [Gable] tells me they [Aetna] would have denied payment when it became evident that he [George Sullivan] was not an active employee. Susan [Lindemuth] indicated that premiums received from Mayor Sullivan were deposited into the insurance fund. I suspect she intended to have the MOA pay any death claim from the 603 account, rather than have Aetna pay the claim and then reimbursing Aetna. [Ref #10, p. 9]

– implying that she believed Susan Lindemuth knew Sullivan wasn’t covered by Aetna & that someone, perhaps Lindemuth, had already decided on an alternate way to pay Sullivan’s eventual death claim: from MOA funds.

Here’s the thing: no one had authority to find alternative methods to provide Sullivan with life insurance except the Assembly and and Salaries & Emoluments Commission. As soon as anyone learned — Susan Lindemuth? somebody else? — that Aetna wouldn’t cover him, that person should have informed the Commission & the Assembly so that they could decide what to do, because they were the only people who were legally empowered.

Remember: it was an Assembly decision to ask the Commission if it would provide Sullivan with life insurance in the first place; & it was the Commission’s decision to actually provide it. But the Commission based its decision on the understanding that Sullivan could be included in the group insurance plan. It did not contemplate having the Municipality itself act as an insurance provider.  It did not contemplate having the the Municipality itself pay a death claim. Whoever decided between 1982 and 2002 during the Knowles, Fink, or Mystrom administrations to take that route — without apparently  passing the word along to the relevant people in the Wuerch adminstration  — took upon themselves authority that did not belong to them — that belonged only to the Assembly & the Commission. It was not legal.

At least, that’s my best guess. I’d like to know what an attorney independent of the Mayor’s office would say.

If I’m right, the Wuerch administration, by formalizing the “MOA is now an insurance company” arrangement — assuming one could call the flurry of emails in early 2002 “formal” — also took upon itself authority that it did not have: it did not inform the Assembly. It did not inform the Commission. It was not legal.

At least that’s my best guess, once again.

But guess I’m right. By February 4, 2002, several high-level people in Wuerch’s administration were coming to an agreement that an option Karen Moore had presented — to set up a sub-fund for the premiums and pay out the difference upon Sullivan’s death “and with Assembly approval” [Ref #4, page 9] — was the best option. One member of that group, Kate Giard, the city finance director, wrote to the others:


We had better get together on this issue. We just can’t make payments of this nature from the self insurance or any fund without assembly approval. Mr. Sullivan had an insurance policy, apparently, for the last several years for which he paid premiums. The policy in effect was an illegal commitment unless the Assembly approves it…. [Ref #9, page 12; emphasis added]

An illegal commitment unless the Assembly approves it. But the Assembly in 2002 did not approve it. Sean Cockerham:

It didn’t go to the 2002 Assembly for approval, and there’s no evidence a written contract was ever drawn up spelling out the terms of the arrangement. [Ref #4]

To the best of my knowledge, based upon the record that has been disclosed so far, the Assembly was not even made aware that there was an issue.

But there was at least one Assembly member who had to have known there was a problem: the former mayor’s son, Dan Sullivan — who was the guy, after all, who brought the whole deal to the Wuerch administration’s attention in the first place when he came in to pay the life insurance premium in January 2002. [Ref #4]

Now, I’m not supposing that Dan Sullivan was privy to all the emails going on back & forth between the various members of the Wuerch administration about the situation, but I find it difficult to believe that he, an Assembly member, was entirely ignorant of what was going on next door in the executive branch on an issue that was of vital interest to him & his politically connected father. Surely Karen Moore didn’t keep him in the blind that they were trying to work out a problem regarding the insurance, or about what their solution was. At the very latest, he would have learned in 2009, when he became mayor, & his father died shortly thereafter. At that point he & his administration had access to all the relevant documents — & would certainly have been looking at them after his father’s death. He had to have known that the solution Wuerch staffers had come up 8 years before wasn’t — y’know — a legal commitment. At least not yet.

Okay, so jump ahead to just a couple of weeks ago, February 16, 2010: the Assembly approved it. Making it, finally at last — eight years after Kate Giard wrote that bolded sentence — a legal commitment.

But recall why they did so:

Assembly Chairman Patrick Flynn said he believes the Sullivan estate could have sued the city for breach of contract if it did not pay, although Flynn said he doesn’t think that anyone on the Assembly requested a legal analysis before appropriating the money. [Ref #4]

Why would they think there was a contract when there wasn’t one?

Perhaps it could be because of the memorandum of February 2, 2010 prepared by the MOA Department of Law, approved by Municipal Attorney Dennis Wheeler, and submitted by Mayor Dan Sullivan to accompany the resolution asking for the payout:

This resolution requests appropriation of One Hundred Ninety Three Thousand Dollars ($193,000.00) from the Areawide General Fund (Fund 101) to the Employee Relations Department 2009 Operating Budget Fund (Fund 101) for disbursement under a life insurance contract to the George M. Sullivan Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust. [Ref #11, page 1; emphasis added]

Again: what contract? As I think I’ve clearly established by now, there wasn’t one. Not only was there not a contract, but the entire deal was, as Kate Giard wrote in 2002, an illegal commitment unless the Assembly approved it.

The strategy was, clearly, mislead the Assembly into believing there was a contract in order to push them towards voting in favor of the disbursement.  By voting yes, they made the commitment legal.  And simultaneously — conveniently for the Mayor-Slash-Trustee — authorizing the payout.  Had they known the full story, they may well have voted differently.

Or maybe they wouldn’t have. But they should have been told.

There’s some other misdirection in the memorandum, too. For example,

In March 2002, Aetna informed the Municipality that Mayor George M. Sullivan was not eligible for group life insurance plan because he was no longer an employee…. [Ref #11, page 1]

Technically true: early 2002 was when the Wuerch administration was “informed” by Aetna. But the phrasing is ambigous, making it easy for readers (that is, the Assembly) to believe that up until then, Aetna had him covered.  Or that Aetna wasn’t completely flabbergasted when Karen Moore asked them about him.

Besides, as I think I’ve established, there are clear signs that someone at the Muni knew before 2002 that Aetna wouldn’t cover George Sullivan; and the 2002 email correspondents knew it. Remember what Lynda Gable of Aetna wrote to Karen Moore –

The insurance fund was the reserves that Muni held and those funds were never submitted to Aetna… [Ref #10, page 4]

Remember what Karen Moore wrote to David Otto –

Lynda [Gable] tells me they [Aetna] would have denied payment when it became evident that he [George Sullivan] was not an active employee. Susan [Lindemuth] indicated that premiums received from Mayor Sullivan were deposited into the insurance fund. I suspect she intended to have the MOA pay any death claim from the 603 account, rather than have Aetna pay the claim and then reimbursing Aetna. [Ref #10, p. 9]

Then remember that Dennis Wheeler and the Department of Law had access to this email record when they wrote the memorandum. In fact, they had to have it, because it was the email record that instructed them what the Wuerch administration had decided about how to handle the death payment after George Sullivan’s death.

So why were they so cagey in making it sound as if Aetna simply changed its coverage in March 2002?  Well, one would hardly want to bring the truth to the Assembly’s attention, because otherwise its members might question this –

To meet the directive from the Salaries & Emoluments Commission, the Municipality added Mayor George M. Sullivan to the MOA group life insurance plan with Aetna. The amount of insurance purchased by Mayor George M. Sullivan was $193,000; the annual premium has varied, from a high of $1,042.20 in 1982 to $555.84 since November 1995. [Ref #10, p. 9]

But since Aetna didn’t cover Sullivan since some unknown date prior to 2002 — who set those premiums? And why were those premiums so much lower than what they were in 1982? Remember that the Salaries & Emoluments Commission originally charged that Sullivan’s coverage would be at the same rate and the same coverage as it was on January 1, 1982; and that Susan Lindemuth had informed the Commission that the rate was “$86.85 per month or $1,042.20 per year”. Who decided in November 1995 (that would be during the Mystrom administration) to “vary” the annual premium by subtracting $486.36 from the 1982 rate? I can guarantee you it wasn’t Aetna.

A total of $19,662.84 in premiums was received by the Municipality and deposited into Fund 603 prior to 2002, and then into the 735 Fund thereafter. [Ref #10, p. 9]

One wonders how much higher that total would have been had someone-who-is-not-Aetna not “varied” the annual premium to such a low amount.

Clearly something rather shady was going on for quite awhile with this life insurance policy, spanning the administrations of three Anchorage mayors — Tony Knowles, Tom Fink, Rick Mystrom — even before it got to Wuerch’s.

This was done by somebody. It’d would be nice to know by whom. But it’s easy to know for whom. As recorded in the minutes of the Commission on Salaries & Emoluments on February 24, 1982,

Ms. Gotham said she felt this was not a benefit to George Sullivan but was rather a benefit to the Sullivan family upon his death. She did not feel this was a responsibility of the Municipality. Therefore she was opposed. [Ref #9, p. 3]

Cheers for Ms. Gotham.

And cheers for Harriet Drummond, who, alone among the 10 Assembly members voting on the putative insurance payout on February 16, voted no.

“If there were enough (Assembly members) who realized this was stupidity and voted no, then Anchorage’s taxpayers would still have $200,000 in the bank,” Drummond said later. “And the Sullivan estate could have gotten the $20,000 in premiums back. Maybe that was the appropriate thing to do. But it was certainly not appropriate for the city to be acting as an insurance company, which it is not.” [Ref #4]

Assemblymember Harriet Drummond

Update 8 Mar 2010

More stories/blog posts have been written since I posted my story on March 5.  Most important in terms of the questions it asks is Phil Munger’s March 5 post, “Did Wheeler Commit Fraud and Extortion at the February 16th 2010 Anchorage Assembly Meeting?” On Sunday, Phil posted a poll which asks “ Should Fast Sully Return the Dough?“  Also on Sunday, The Mudflats posted a letter written by Anchorage resident Thomas Van Pelt to the Assembly and Mayor Sullivan questioning the appropriateness of the payout.

I’ve added these & other posts to a secondary bibliography below my main reference list, & will continue adding to that list as further posts come to my attention.


  1. 3/2/2010. City to pay life insurance claim for former mayor” by Kirsten Adams (Anchorage Daily Planet).
  2. 3/3/2010. “An insurance anomaly” by Brendan Joel Kelley (Anchorage Press).
  3. 3/3/2010. “Benefits for a former official” by Sean Cockerham (Anchorage Daily News).
  4. 3/3/2010. “City life insurance payout for former mayor raises questions — $193,000: Assembly honors ‘82 deal that puts city money into George Sullivan’s trust” by Sean Cockerham (Anchorage Daily News).
  5. 3/4/2010. “Anchorage pays $193,000 for late mayor’s insurance” by the Associated Press (Anchorage Daily News). Also at the Juneau Empire.
  6. 3/4/2010. “Two Banally Retentive Grifters Again Make the News” by Phil Munger (Progressive Alaska).
  7. 3/4/2010. “Payday for Mayor/Trustee Hybrid Dan Sullivan” by AK Muckraker (The Mudflats).
  8. 3/4/2010. “Anchorage Mayor Dan Sullivan learned much from his idol Sarah Palin” by Gryphen (Immoral Minority).
  9. Sullygate 1: 1982 Municipality of Anchorage documents relating to former Mayor George M. Sullivan’s life insurance. Contains the same documents provided in a PDF by the Anchorage Daily News, except that I’ve placed them in chronological order & provided bookmarks (table of contents).
  10. Sullygate 2: 2002 Wuerch administration emails relating to former Mayor George M. Sullivan’s life insurance. Contains the same documents provided in a PDF by the Anchorage Daily News, except that I’ve placed them in chronological order (as best I could) & provided bookmarks (table of contents).
  11. Sullygate 3: 2010 Assembly Resolution & memorandum relating to a payout of $193,000 to a trust in the name of former Mayor George M. Sullivan. Contains the same documents provided in a PDF by the Anchorage Daily News, except slightly reordered & provided with bookmarks (table of contents).

Additional stories  (posts I missed first time around, or posted after my story was written)

  1. 3/4/2010. “Sullivan’s Insurance Folly” by Ryan Knight (The Back Porch).
  2. 3/4/2010. “Assembly members have no room to talk” by Dan Fagan (The Alaska Standard). Supports the Sullivan “insurance” payout.
  3. 3/5/2010. “Credit the Sully Trust, Debit the Public Trust” by Melissa S. Green (Henkimaa). Satire from A Trustworthy Friend.
  4. 3/5/2010. “Anchorage Edition: March 5, 2010″ (KSKA-FM). KSKA & KAKM’s weekly review with commentators of the week’s news, politics and public affairs included discussion of the Sullivan “insurance” payout.
  5. 3/5/2010. “Mammoth Oyster Roundup!” by AK Muckraker (The Mudflats). Summary of news stories, including two items about the Sullivan “insurance” payout.
  6. 3/5/2010. “Did Wheeler Commit Fraud and Extortion at the February 16th 2010 Anchorage Assembly Meeting?” by Phil Munger (Progressive Alaska).
  7. 3/6/2010. “Dan Sullivan Offers to Donate $193,000 to Kids’ Cancer Research if Sarah Palin Shaves Her Head” by Phil Munger (Progressive Alaska).
  8. 3/7/2010. “It is time for Anchorage residents to stand up and demand that Mayor Dan Sullivan show us a contract or give us back our $193,000!” by Gryphen (Immoral Minority).
  9. 3/7/2010. “Mayor Dan Sullivan – You’ve Got Mail!” by Thomas Van Pelt (posted at The Mudflats).
  10. 3/7/2010. “New PA Poll – Should Fast Sully Return the Dough?” by Phil Munger (Progressive Alaska).
  11. 3/7/2010. “E-mail to the Anchorage Assembly regarding Dan Sullivan’s $193,000 payout” by an Anchorage resident,  name not given (Immoral Minority).

Update 3/10/2010: I’m now maintaining this continuing bibliography on my Sullygate page, so go there for links to later stories.

This entry was posted in Alaska politics and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.