Hi Alexa, Thanks for your clarifying questions.

I agree with you that we don't 100% know what the protocol was for charging; it could very well be that the city's police department kicked in if the victim didn't have insurance. (Although, as pointed out in the article, other criminal investigations do not even get charged to the victim's insurance in the first place.)

The main claim that I have to prove here is that a) this was a new policy, and b) Mayor Palin signed off on the new policy. (You and I agree, I think, that this was the policy, according to Police Chief Fannon in that article.)

If you go to Wasilla's website, they have a page for recently requested documents (http://www.cityofwas...), including one about charging rape victims which concludes that no one was charged, though as I note in my response to Nkviking75, that raises the question of why Fannon was supporting a policy that he (or someone) was evidently not enforcing.

But that's, of course, not my point--my point is merely to indicate that this was a new policy, approved (or ignored) by Palin.

If you go to the Wasilla website, and slog through the yearly Annual Financial Reports, you'll see that the previous Police Chief Irl Stambaugh has included a line item "contingency" cost for such exams: in his last year (1996-97), the contingency budget was $13,000 of which he spent $11,625 (p. 58).

(Full disclosure: I was directed to these files by an article at HuffPo (http://www.huffingto...), from which I also take the claim that "contingency" has to do with forensic exams. However, they didn't include page numbers, so that bit of research is mine.)

The following year (1997-1998), with Fannon in charge, the "contingency" fund shrunk to $7,298, and he spent $3,454 (p. 41); in 1998-1999, Fannon requested $3,000 and spent only $205 (p. 41), which is great fiscal responsibility, but which raises the question: how did he save the money?

Now, I think there's an answer here--and I don't think it's that the police weren't paying for rape kits. (Although I still don't get why Fannon defended the policy his department was not enforcing). Because no "contingency" line reappears in the later Annual Reports, my guess is that, after 2000, rape forensics services got lumped together with another line, like "other professional services."

Of course, that raises the question of why the "contingency" line shrunk so precipitously in the first place (instead of being eliminated all at once, with the cost placed onto another area of the budget), and it also leaves the question of why Fannon was defending the policy.

So, I intend to prove (a) that this was a new policy by showing that Stambaugh had a line item in the budget to pay for forensics, which shrunk under Fannon, who declares that his policy to not pay saves the tax-payers money. Or to put it really quickly: Stambaugh claims he didn't charge, Fannon claims he did, therefore it's a new policy that was instituted under Mayor Palin (if we trust what they say).

Now, as for proving (b) that this policy was approved or ignored by Palin (which is the problem that Nkviking75 raised), the budgets for each year are signed by Palin (literally: signed), so she must have either been aware of the shrinking "contingency" fund for rape forensics exams or she must have ignored the fact that they were shrinking. 

(We can argue about which is worse--making it policy to charge victims or being unaware that your appointee is making it policy to charge victims.)

Now, part of my argument falls apart if, as I suppose above (and hope), the city was paying for forensics out of another line of the police budget. It would make me feel more comfortable to know that was the case; and I would also like an explanation of why Fannon was defending the policy if he (or someone) wasn't enforcing it.

(As I said, not water-tight--have at!)

Hi Nkviking75,

Thanks for the link--I was just about to post the link to the city documents in my response to AlexaShrugged. (I'm still writing that answer--in that answer I address your first concern about Palin signing off on the budget.)

You are right, the first pdf directly addressing this issue does deny that anyone or any insurance company was charged for a rape kit, and the pdf does go on to note that after 2000 it would have been illegal to do so.

So, according to the Wasilla records, no one was
charged--but according to Fannon, charging people was still the policy, and the Governor had to step in to outlaw this policy.

Which, of course, raises two questions: why did the Governor of Alaska make a law to make it illegal if no one was doing it?; and why did Police Chief Fannon defend the procedure in that article and claim that changing that policy would cost tax-payers if he, in fact, was not following the policy?

That second question is particularly curious to me. If they weren't doing it, why is Fannon defending it? (It could be one of those policies that don't get enforced, but in that case, whose policy was it, and why wasn't it enforced?) And why is he defending it on a financial basis if, in fact, the police are not charging the victims but paying for it themselves? (I.e., if the police department was already footing the bill, then it already cost tax-payers--so if no one was charged for a rape kit, why is Fannon claiming that it would cost the tax-payers more to pay for the rape kits that they were already paying for?)

For more about the financial aspect, see my response to AlexaShrugged.