Murkowski flubs chance to do right.

<snip>

What other opportunity could possibly be better than America's Fish Czar?

It may not be obvious to people who haven't used "c/o Some Cannery" as a temporary mail address, but there is no bigger deal than fish policy in this state. It affects every other industry. Billions of dollars of fish wealth have been consolidated and transferred into private hands over the last decade under the guise of "rationalization." Many of those decisions were driven by Mr. Fuglvog during his time on the North Pacific Fisheries Council and subsequently as one of the most influential advisers to Sen. Murkowski and others in Washington, D.C.

This week, after days of silence on the matter of her aide's resignation, Murkowski finally provided a tortured explanation. The reasons she offered for allowing Fuglvog to stay on the job don't reflect well on her law degree, the management of her staff or her respect for constituents.

She says she believes in innocent until proven guilty -- so much so that she believed in Mr. Fuglvog's innocence even after he'd told her he was guilty. How much evidence must there be for him to accept 10 months in prison and $150,000 in penalties six years after the incident? If he'd told her he had backed a truck up to Costco and stolen $100,000 worth of fish, might the senator have found that a cause for firing?

What he did was arguably worse. Fuglvog stole public resources and was on the run for six years, hiding in her office. Even after Sen. Murkowski admitted knowing of his guilt, she let him collect another $7,500 check from the same federal government that will soon be his jailer.

<snip>

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, facing questions from news outfits around the state about fisheries aide Arne Fuglvog, decided to give some answers last week. Her answers only raised more questions.

• Murkowski said that she learned from Karen Knutson, her then-chief of staff, in December 2010 or January 2011 that there were allegations against Fuglvog but that she took no action then because she didn't know "much more beyond that."

Why didn't she know more? A United States senator has a fisheries aide about whom there are federal allegations of fisheries violations. At the least, Murkowski should have had Fuglvog tell her exactly what the allegations were and ask him flat out what he had done. That wouldn't disrespect the legal process but the senator would find out if there were storm clouds gathering over her office.

You'd think a senator would make it crystal clear to every staff member that she would have to know about any criminal investigation of any of them, and any change in the status of those investigations. Even given the presumption of innocence, staffers often go on leave or suspension until a criminal matter is resolved. Murkowski's explanation that these things "can go on for years or turn out to be nothing at all" is stunning. Shrug off a federal criminal investigation of one of her staffers?

<snip>