Showing posts sorted by relevance for query gottstein. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query gottstein. Sort by date Show all posts

Sunday, May 20, 2007

Jim Gottstein - Shining Lights Award 2007

Jim Gottstein tonight was honored by Temple Beth Sholom, Anchorage, as this year's Shining Lights Award winner. Jim comes from a prominent Anchorage family, and as he said tonight, his privileged life has enabled him to doggedly fight for social justice for those who can't fight for themselves. As an attorney, he has pursued rights for the mentally ill. [In the picture he has just gotten an Alaska Legislative Proclamation from Rep. Max Gruenberg.] He was critical in the establishment of the Alaska Mental Health Trust, which put aside money and land for the benefit of the mentally ill. He also won an Alaska Supreme Court case severely restricting forced medication of the mentally ill and has helped established a number of organizations to help the mentally ill. Jim's own mental health story, obviously and important part of this story is told, partially, by Jim at the Alaska Mental Health Consumer Web.

The Psych Rights site gives a more about the projects Jim has worked on. Below is a sample from that site:

PsychRights
Law Project for
Psychiatric Rights

James B. (Jim) Gottstein
(President)

Jim Gottstein grew up in Anchorage, Alaska. After graduating from West Anchorage High School in 1971, he attended the University of Oregon and graduated with honors (BS, Finance) in 1974. Subsequently enrolling in Harvard Law School, Jim completed his formal legal studies in 1978, graduating with a J.D. degree.

In addition to over 25 years of private practice, emphasizing business matters and public land law, Jim has been an attorney advocate for people diagnosed with serious mental illness:

  • Co-founded the Law Project for Psychiatric Rights (PsychRights) in 2002. Jim is currently president. See, http://psychrights.org.
  • Co-founded Soteria-Alaska, Inc.,, in 2003, to provide a non-coercive and mainly non-drug alternative to psychiatric hospitalization. See, http://soteria-alaska.com/. Jim is currently president.
  • Co-founded CHOICES, Inc. (Consumers Having Ownership in Creating Effective Services) in 2003 to provide peer-run, alternative services, especially the right to choose not to take psychiatric drugs. See, http://choices-ak.org/. Jim is currently president.
  • Co-founded Peer Properties, Inc., in 2002, to provide peer (mental health consumer) run housing for people diagnosed or diagnosable with serious mental illness who are homeless, at risk of homelessness, or living in bad situations. See, http://peerproperties.org/. Jim is currently vice president.

Tuesday, February 09, 2010

Divesting Alaska Funds From Iran

The State Affairs Committee didn't start this morning until 8:15am, which meant I wasn't late. The topic was a bill sponsored by Rep. Gatto.

HB (House Bill) 241 An Act relating to certain investments of the Alaska permanent fund, the state’s retirement systems, the State of Alaska Supplemental Annuity Plan, and the deferred compensation program for state employees in companies that do business in Iran, and restricting those investments; and providing for an effective date.”
[You can get the whole bill itself (It's five pages) here, but as I write, the committee substitute isn't yet available there.  Here are the links to documents related to today's hearing from the State Affairs Committee:

ocument Name Bill or Subject
(if assigned)
06 CPD position paper on Iran.pdf
10 witness bio 2-9-10 David Gottstein.pdf
11 David Gottstein accompanying material.pdf
12 witness bio 2-9-10 Akiva Tor.pdf
13 witness bio 2-9-10 Sarah Steelman.pdf
02 HB0241A.pdf HB 241
03 explanation of changes HB 241.pdf HB 241
04 sponsor statement HB 241.pdf HB 241
05 sectional summary HB 241 Version R.pdf HB 241
07 background info 1, HB 241.pdf HB 241
08 background info 2, HB 241.pdf HB 241
09 background info 3, HB 241.pdf HB 241
14 HB241-REV-TRS-02-05-10 Iran Divestiture.pdf HB 241



Introduced by Representative GATTO, Ramras (The capitalized name indicates he is the person who introduced the bill, then any others are co-sponsors who signed on later.)

I've been wondering about the usefulness of these rough notes here on the blog since many of the meetings are recorded by Gavel to Gavel and available online. This one was broadcast live and you can listen to it now here.

I've decided that when I take my notes on my laptop, I might as well post them.  Even though you can listen, it's easier to scan the notes to get a sense of it and decide if you need to get the details by listening to it.

Quick Overview

Basic Premise:  Companies doing business in Iran enable the government to continue to develop nuclear capability to fulfill their threat to wipe out Israel and also to continue to develop weapons - notably IED's - that kill American soldiers in Iraq.  Thus, by investing in those companies, the State of Alaska is assisting in the killing of American soldiers and in Iran's goal to destroy Israel.  The bill calls for the Permanent Fund, State Retirement Funds, etc.

Questions: 
1.    How will the divestment happen?
2.    What will it cost?
3.    Will it make a difference?

Answers:
There are about 20 states that already do this and the Federal government already has something like this in place.  The state will only have to use existing lists of 'scrutinized' companies already identified by the other states and not have to do the research itself.  The bar would be a $20 million investment. 

More Questions:
1.    Are Alaska oil companies on the list?
2.    If we are partners with the oil companies on the list, does that make Alaska a terrorist supporting organization?

It was an interesting discussion and witnesses included the Commissioner of Revenue Pat Galvin, Alaska Permanent Fund Director Michael J. Burns.  Also the former State Treasurer of Missouri, Sarah Steelman. testified by phone about the Missouri experience and the philosophy of terror-free investing.  David Gottstein, Alaska's AIPAC chair, testified by phone from Anchorage about the threat of Iran.



Rough Notes - DISCLAIMER - I typed as fast as I could, there are gaps, and probably mistakes where I couldn't keep up or hear.  Check the Gavel to Gavel tape for more accurate details. 

Opened at 8:15am by Chair Lynn.

Bill sponsored by our good friend and Committee member, co-sponsored by Ramras and Keller.

Gatto: My aide will introduce it

Tom Reiker: Not just a symbolic bill. Iran is diffeent from a hostile country such as Venezuela, Iran is actually sponsoring military action against us in Afganistand and Iraq. A nation we are at least indirectly fighting on the ground. The bill is to make all Americans, not just the soldiers on the ground, safer.

Make a list of scrutinzed companies. $20 Million is the bar for investment in Iran. The funds covered (see above). Department of Revenue makes a list of scrutinzed companies and turns over to the funds. For other funds where our money is co-mingled, we would encourage fund managers to divest. Based on Massachusetts doing a similar bill, and our size, it is estimated we would pull out half billion dollars out of Iran which would decrease their ability to pursue nuclear weapons and military in Iraq.

Provisions significant undertaking to enforce, so we did taylor the bill to piggy back off of lists other governments have compiled, which is why we changed the language to ‘scrutinized companies’ and the same with the $20 million bar, so this is consistent with other governmental.

We have several witnesses we are excited about.

Gatto: Thank you. We had a different bill before us, divestiture from Sudan. That was because genocide was being practiced. That isn’t the case in Iran. It is difficult to know who is elected in Iran??. We do know they are producing nuclear materials. They are awash in oil, so don’t know why they need nuclear. But we know they are arming their allies, and they want to eliminate Israel from the face of the earth. Israel is already talking about boots on the ground. Word is they are producing and will want to sell it and it won’t be to US or Canada. Iran, for all the oil they have, they have to import gasoline. So sanctions against their ability to import things they need.

In earlier legislation, we had difficulty of seperating money going to military, it’s hard for APF to separate those stocks going to iran.

We have to take a good look at those people whose goal is to wipe another country off the face of the earth. We can’t stand by and hope for the best when we have an opportunity to do something.

Lynn: What are the other states and how many?

Tom Reiker: About 21. Missouri was the first, through executive branch. California, Mass, Maryland.

Questions?

Johnson: You indicated on page 2 line ? Is importing gas a direct investment?

Tom Reiker: I don’t believe, need further guidance, that a direct exchange like that, that our influence the kind of thing our bill is targeting…

Johnson: Do we have a list of companies?

Gatto: We do, People will testify.

Johnson: What about oil companies in Alaska on the list? Exxon?

Reiker: I don’t think any oil company in Alaska.

Johnson: I want to see a list.


Pat Galvin: Commissioner of Revenue: Not here representing Permanant Fund or other boards, but for Administration and Dept. of Revenue. We will be responsible for implementing the bill. And the sponsors have drafted the bill i a way that makes it easier to implement than most such bills.

Impact, if any, diversion of funds from companies that otherwise would be appropriate investments.

Seaton: Page 2 starting line 12-21. Commissioner shall update quarterly, shall make reasonable efforts to examine all companies to see if they are scrutinized company. As I read it, you are required to scrutinized. Gives you things you can use, doesn’t say you can’t use others. This is not a significant item?

Galvin: I also landed this morning, and haven’t had a chance to read the CS [Committee Substitute], and my understanding from the sponsor is it is intended to allow the department to utilize existing lists and previously prepared investigatory material. We’ll look at the language to see it doesn’t exceed that.

Seaton: I would like the dept to make that analysis. As I read it it’s more difficult.

Galvin: i would like to comment on behalf of the governor on the general policy carried out through this bill. Generally the governor would be skeptical to mix our investment policy with social or political goals. But he does recognize that on occassion we need to isolate nation states, particularly when there is an attempt to avoid armed conrflcit. The Gov. will look at the bill to determine if it meets those circumstances. I’m not here to say the Gov approves, he will check to see if it is appropriate.

Lynn: Not so much social, as political and possibly national security.

Gatto: I don’t know if it’s a secret to anyone, but a lot of the weapons that show up in Iraq are made in Iran. They are very much involve in a war with our soldiers. if there is anything we can do to prevent the killing and maiming our boys and girls. We don’t know if this will affect our profits. The last thing we should be doing is to support Iran in any way. Our moral obligation.

Burns: Michael Burns, Exec Dir. of Permanent Fund. No testimony prepared. Just here to answer questions.

Lynn: We discussed divestiture in Darfur. Not the same. Any comparison, remarks comparing - is this apple and oranges, or just fruit?

Burns: Just saw this morning. Board has longstanding opposition to social investing. Darfur was a major exception. This is different.

Lynn: Wasn’t there some change you approved when discussing Darfur?

Burns: We did pass a resolution in support of those bills proposed. We did support it, but just narrowly and didn’t change policy for tha specific blll.

Lynn: This, appears more political and national security bill, would you agree?

Burns: Yes sir I do.

Petersen: I notice there is a zero fiscal note. Charges to sell stocks? Possible losses in selling stocks?

Burns: At times we’e looked at trading epenses, The differnce in the cost here, is the Commissioner of Revenue has the montioring responsibility. I don’t know tht we hae anything that rises to the $20million mark. I was surprised to hear the half billion level. I haven’t seen the list.

Gatto: With 21 states already establishing list of companies to divest. Would that not have a downward pressure on those stocks and so it would be wise to divest?

Burns: I don’t know.

Gatto: One would expect that pressures from so many countries to divest, this would be a good time.

Burns: Might would be the operative word.

Galvin:

Seaton: Page 3, line 11, business operations. List oil related activities. Retail sales of gasoline and related products. If you look at sales of one of our major producers going intto that country, what would you have to do to be sure this fuel wouldn’t go into military vehicles. Does that mean any oil company that sold diesel or gasoline would automatically be on this list? You need to get back to us on that.

Galvin: Wil have to gt back to you. My reading of the bill, would not, if a producer would refine a gasoline product that was sold to company outside of Iran which then sold it to Iran, not our job to follow the chain of product. It would be the company tht makes the final sale.

Seaton: If we had a wholly owned subsidiary of one of our refiners, if they sold related products - not sure what that means - say jet fuel, that subsidiary sold that product w/in Iran, without certificant for retail sale only, so I’m trying to figure out, what kind of chain of ownership would you the commissioner be required to look at? If a subsidiary of major oil company, would that throw them onto the list? You’ll need to look into that.

Galvin: Following up that line of inquiry, the intent to which the subsidiary will affect the determination as well.

Seaton: If someone forms a subsidiary, they could do whatever they liked and avoid the intent.

Gatto: I believe SEaton mentioned jet fuel and diesel. Iran has refineries and make those products, but they have more trouble with gasoline.

Seaton: Maybe the commissioer will get back to us - “and related products” what does that mean? While we produce jet fuel in Alaska, we may import it too.

Sarah Steelman by audio - Pleasure to share with you about this important issue. Former state treasurer of Missouri, and started this in Missouri, we were the first to divest. Speaking at request of Rep. Gatto. I’m also in charge of a divestment free fund. I will tell you about what happened in 2005 in Missouri. When I took office it was shocking for me to find out we were funding the people we were fighting. The previous treasurer was using foreign companies to invest the state’s money, which did the oil for food scandal and is still investing in Iran today. I started asking questions about our inevestments. Found we were doing nothing to prevent us from investing in companies investing in iran. We started the first terror free fund. We screened out these companies from our folio. We showed we could make the same return on investment by keeping the same type of portfolio. We then had UBS and other investors.

Set up nations first terrorism free policy for pension fund, and police and fire fighter terror free investment plan. A lot has changed in last five years, but much remains the same. I applaud you for taking this up today. The threat posed by Iran has increased, yet we still invest in Siemens and Nokia who are helping the Iranian government stifle the people.

Pleased that your fund manager isn’t taking a position opposed to this bill. There is defiitely room for debate, but the arguments we heard were wrong, untrue. - States shouldn’t set foreign policy, poor investments, costs too high. I know it is too high NOT to do this. Empowerment Financial Group offers fund for individuals to have terror free investments. No US $ should ever end in the hands of terrorists. Be happy to answer any questions. I’ve listened to your questions earlier about potential oil companies. Petro China signed a deal. French oil company. BP Got out. Royal Dutch Shell was there.

Lynn: Thank you. Questions. Did you miss the snow storm?

Steelman: We got more snow here than you have up there.

Lynn: Juneau has no snow ont he ground.

Steelman: You’re kidding?

Mr. David Gottstein: Thank you for allowing me to testify. Thank you. There has been a lot of thought and detail put in this so you know what we are asking here. I’m also Alaska chair of the AIPAC.

Sobering issue. US and the world under attack from radical islam. Terrorists incidents happening weekly. Radical islam that controls most of the muslim world. Arrests around US and Christmas airplane show we are under siege. All sahre embracing of Jihad against the west. Heart of radical Islamic movement and most dangerous is Iran. Their vast wealth and radical Islam, allows them to build nuclear power. Prospect of nuclear Iran with ability to launch missiles including Europe, with Israel in their sights.

Only good outcome is we get iran to change their behavior. ARsenal includes diplomacy, sanctions, blockades, then military. Sanctions have mixed results. We should use all non-violent means possible before more …

Digress from my prepared remarks to address the issues.

1. Divestiture in Iran package, 1996.
2. Iran refined petroleum ??? whatever fuel

Both passed by US Congress. It makes moot some of the questions asked earlier, because the president has the right to say it is illegal for insurance companies to insure tankers going to Iran. This is aimed at reducing the ability of Iran to raise money through use of their refineries. One day the state would own shares in a company, the next day they would not. It wouldn’t change any other relationship the state had with the company.

Reading… chance to influence positively, Iran’s president aims to wipe israel from the planet and would have serious consequence and middle east would turn into a firestorm. Seldom are you asked to grasp with national issues. Able to join in the ost serious war effort since the fight against Nazism.

provided committee with lists I’ve faxed during the others’ testimony.

Lynn: Thank you very much. I appreciate most of your comments.

Anyone else on line? In the audience? Close public testimony. Committee discussion.

Seaton: I appreciate some of the testimony, but i think in some ways we’re beyond our level of expertise. We’re talking about alqaeda and racical islam. We need to be aware we need to be much more clear, I’m not an expert on these things. Make sure we aren’t indicting all of a religion and we have bill before us and need further definition on the bill.

Lynn: I agree with that, and I think the distinction between radical islam and islam. Not talking about Al qaeda. We are talking about nation survival. What can we do here in Alaska, if we don’t invest in these countries we do one small part.

Johnson: I am concerned and I think Gottstein sums it up. He mentions Shell, One day were doing business and the next they are still doing business with the companies. This may be one of those feel good kind of things. We haen’t een any evidence of any problem or effect. I don’t hold it up, I have doubts we do much good with these feel good bill.

Lynn: National security is very feel good.

Johnson: If I thought it did any good I would support it.

Lynn: Does it do any harm?

Johnson: That’s why I’m not opposed.

Peterson: .. missed it -

Seaton - we have Royal Dutch Shell. If it is fine to do business with these companies, but we can’t buy their stock, but basically be in partnership with them. I’m not sure of the effect. Hope we will get a little more information.

Johnson: SEaton raises interesting issue. Since we are partners with these company, do we qualify as someone who should be on the divestiture list? Are we know bad guys?

Wilson: As I look at the list, it amazes me that 9 of the 36 are from Malaysia and …???
I think we need to think where most of them are from. We are partners with some. I think we need more information just to make sure. I would like to know for sure if there would be ramiication for Alaska because we might have a partnership.

Seaton: Some of this we’ve asked the commissioner to gt back to us. We are looking at in the finance aspects. Commissioner would gt from the Department of Law about subsidiaries. Our partnerships in the wells that these companies have.

Lynn to Galvin: Seaton’s asked these questions. How long would it take to get that information?

Galvin: hard to hear.

Gruenberg: # of us were interested in …. this seems structured the same way. Has your position changed since Darfur. No change on bill, but situation changed.

Lynn: Don’t want to go down that path talking about Darfur.

Mr. Cane: I’d have to talke time to research deeper concerns. A few days at least, depending on depth of questions

Gatto: i think we could research this info to April 20. There is no end to the details we could look up. I count number of GI’s no longer with us. ⅔ killed, not in battle, but by IEDs and these come from Iran. This isnt’ to destroy the country of iran. This is to help save our soldiers. These are manufactured in Iran, They have the labels on them. I wish this bill wiould end Iran’s involvement. it does something to lessen the losses. If people want to investigate, let them. But pass the bill. Later, we can find out it has no effect. So what? It won’t hurt our portfolio. If you find out in your portfolio, some is helping IRAN. Would you not act, even if it meant you would lose a few dollars. I would, I hope you would, I hope the Prmanent fund would. I’m looking beyond money. Go to some of the memorials. Do it. Thank you.

Gatto: It made it somewhat easier ????? If divestiture had no effect, none. Why would BP remove their investments?

Petersen: It might be pretty dangerous for the employees to be working in that environment. In some places, employees taken for ransom. Oil companies may have hard time getting employees to go their and work. It could be political.

Brief at ease.

Lynn: I basically support this bill, but I have some questions, if meets agreement of committee, would like to bring it up next meeting - APOC, SC decision on campaing, if we have time I’d bring it back, if not then next time.

Gatto: OK

Lynn: Close out this hearing. Thrusday, overview on Citizens United overview.

Monday, February 21, 2011

Cissna Ferries To Juneau and Other News from the Capitol

Some notes while walking through the Capitol Building today.



Rep. Cissna Says No to Airport Pat Down

Traveling and staying with friends, I haven't heard any news for a couple of days, so when I was in Sharon Cissna's office and meeting her new staff person Marie, she was a little amused that a blogger didn't realize he was in the eye of the storm. That's where I learned that Rep. Cissna is a national news item for refusing to be patted down by TSA. Marie was answering phone calls from news outlets and having to say, "Sorry, I can't tell you any more than you know, because I don't know." Readers of this blog know that I find TSA's strategy to be serious lacking.

While Marie was not answering questions, Time magazine was saying that Cissna was going to take the Alaska ferry to Juneau.  I heard from others as I walked the halls that  Rep. Cissna is on an Alaska ferry and should arrive in Juneau Wednesday.  Time got this response from TSA:
. . . the TSA issued a general statement that they are "sensitive to the concerns of passengers who were not satisfied with their screening experience." Whatever Cissna's reason for declining to fly, we can only imagine it was worthy enough of enduring the 1,000 mile + journey to Juneau by sea.
I'm in Juneau, so people reading this listening to the radio and watching TV probably know more about this than I do.


Coastal Zone Management

Gov. Sean Parnell has allowed the CZM regulations put in place by Gov. Murkowski,  to continue for another six years.   I'm told, that local governments were pretty much cut out of any say over what happens on their coasts and the state has all the authority.  But in response to a question asked at a State Chamber of Commerce luncheon, apparently backtracked on this.   (Sorry I'm vague here, this is my first day, and I'll have a firmer grasp of things as days go by.  I'm trying to give a sense of things I heard as I talked to folks.  House Bill 106 as I understand it, is an attempt to make the renewal much shorter.
"An Act extending the termination date of the Alaska coastal management program and relating to the extension; relating to the review of activities of the Alaska coastal management program; providing for an effective date by amending the effective date of sec. 22, ch. 31, SLA 2005; and providing for an effective date." 
Or Senate Bill 56
"An Act extending by one year the date the Alaska coastal management program will be subject to termination under the statute establishing a procedure for evaluation of agency programs and activities; providing for an effective date by delaying the effective date of the repeal of the program; and providing for an effective date." 
These bills are not easy to understand.  I need to get more information.  


Jay Ramras,  former legislator, is making money in Fairbanks and Southern California and has taken up gardening.


North Slope Facilities Access - Rep. Gutenberg is sponsoring a bill to give companies not already on the Slope access to facilities.  OK, that isn't completely clear, but I'm trying to give you a sense of being here and getting lots of information very fast and trying to put things into context.  What I understood was that the current companies are making it difficult for companies that don't have facilities necessary for getting oil and gas to market. HB 138, from what I see, adds certain oil and gas facilities, whether publicly or privately owned, to the list of public utilities regulated by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska.  The specific activities added to the statute in this bill would be:
(H) furnishing, to the public for compensation, the service
12 of
13 (i) oil, gas, and water separation;
14 (ii) gas dehydration, compression, and reinjection;
15 (iii) natural gas liquid production; or
16 (iv) water treatment and reinjection;



Restricting Drivers' Licenses for Non-residents to the length of their US visas.

House Bill 3 is sponsored by State Affairs Chair Rep. Bob Lynn and a bunch of others:
REPRESENTATIVE(s) LYNN, HAWKER, CHENAULT, JOHNSON, GATTO, Millett, Thompson, Fairclough, Keller, P.Wilson, Olson, Pruitt, Dick, Saddler, T.Wilson, Doogan 
Does having Doogan as a co-sponsor make this a bi-partisan bill?  Maybe now that Eric Cordero  has become a Republican, he can have some influence on his new party's views on this.    Here's the the whole bill:
HOUSE BILL NO. 3
01 "An Act relating to issuance of driver's licenses."
02 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA:
03 * Section 1. AS 28.15.101 is amended by adding a new subsection to read:
04 (d) Under regulations adopted by the department, the department may issue to
05 a person a driver's license with a duration of less than five years if the person is
06 authorized to stay in the United States for less than five years or the period of
07 authorized stay is indefinite. The department shall issue the license for the period of
08 the authorized stay. If the period of authorized stay is indefinite, the department may
09 not issue the license with a validity of greater than one year.
I notice that although Rep. Millet is a co-sponsor, Rep. Johansen voted NR ("no recommendation") rather than DP ("do pass") when it was heard in the House State Affairs committee.


Divesting Investments in Iran, the Sequel 

Rep. Gatto has reintroduced his bill to Divest State Holdings in companies doing business in Iran, though I was told a major supporter of the bill last year, David Gottstein, has changed his stance on this as a strategy given changes in the international situation.
[Update Feb. 22: I ran into David Gottstein on the stairwell in the Capitol today and asked him about this.  My informant wasn't well informed.  He said that he still supports the divestment, but that his focus is on gas pipeline and so he thought there wasn't enough time in the 90 day session to get the divestment bill through.]  The summary of HB 2:
"An Act relating to certain investments of the Alaska permanent fund, the state's retirement systems, the State of Alaska Supplemental Annuity Plan, and the deferred compensation program for state employees in certain companies that do business in Iran, and restricting those investments; and providing for an effective date."
You can read all of HB 2 here.  You can see my account of the debate in the State Affairs Committee where Gatto was a member and where the bill failed last year.  A problem that Republicans had with the bill was that it would require the state to stop doing business with major oil related companies that are doing things in Alaska. 


That should give you enough to chew on. 

If anyone is asking, yes, I'm back in Juneau - as Harpboy so precisely commented in my previous post Where's This?  And back in the Capitol.  But only for a few weeks this year.  Some good friends have offered me a place to sleep - and since I'm not an employee of the legislature, or even a volunteer, I can accept their offer - and I'll blog the Legislature while I'm here.  But I want them to continue to be good friends so I can't mooch off them for too long. 

It's a spectacularly beautiful today in Juneau.  More fresh snow and a brilliantly blue sky. (I didn't bring my card reader with me to the Capitol so I can't post pictures, but I will.)   I can tell how much I learned last year as I walked over to what are now familiar digs. So I walked around and visited different offices to let people know I was here and find out what people think is important this year. So, this is just a very superficial first take.

Sunday, November 01, 2015

What's A Blogger To Do? Too Much To Write About - LIO Scandal, Forced Arbitration, Trump's Good Old Days, Hockey

Me:  Even with the gain of an hour overnight as we set our clocks back,  there's not enough time!
Jiminy Cricket:  Of course there is Steve, you just have to prioritize.
Me:  Actually, the number of things we could do has increased so fast that humans will soon be obsolete, we just can't keep up.  It used to be we maybe had two newspapers to read, now every newspaper in the world is available online.  Not to mention every home video anyone has ever made.
Jiminy Cricket:  You going to complain all morning or write?
Me:  OK, OK.  So, my first glimpse of November 2015 was an inspiring one as I looked out the window at what should have been 9:24am, but because of the time change was only 8:24am.  And if you look closely you can see the snow that we got Friday still lingering.


So, what's stacking up in the blog pile?  Anchorage International Film Festival (AIFF) posts on documentaries, shorts, animation, and maybe even Alaska films in competition.  I try to get some of those groups done before the festival begins and this year I have the features in competition up already.  I don't have to think too hard on these, just go looking for info on the films.  And the AIFF 2015 page is started already.  That's up on top and I'll be updating general festival strategy stuff from last year and information on the films for this year.

I've got more to do on the Chuitna decision which the resource development community is upset about and has appealed.  There are some significant democratic principle issues at stake there that should be explored.  But it's complicated and people have lots of other things to distract them (back up to complaints about too little time above.)

I want to post more on my new, evolving relationship with my sourdough starter.

I'm working on something on rules - what they do for us, but how to keep from becoming trapped by them.   There are some books I want to say something about, some movies, how Netflix and other online movie sites are changing things, more on the conflicts between police and African-Americans  . . .  But serious posts require some time and thought and if I take on a subject, I want to look at it differently than others, not just reprint what others write.

Then there are all the potential posts that show up everyday, not part of the queue, but begging to be written.  Today's Section A of the Alaska Dispatch News (ADN)  (it was the second time this week we had to call to say it wasn't delivered) was full of such stories.  I'll just try to do a short take on a couple of them.

1.  Jim Gottstein's lawsuit against the Legislative Information Office remodeling contract.  It's so easy for legislators to get away with stuff.  Lisa Demer wrote along detailed story on all the irregularities in the contract two years ago in the ADN.   But this needed someone with legal standing and money and perseverance to step up and sue.  Today's article reveals some private emails that show Rep. Hawker worked with the politically generous developer to get around legislative attorneys' opinions that a no-bid contract was illegal.  Legislators often work with constituents to find ways to get around obstacles to get things done.  But when it's for a no bid contract for a state building that's going to raise the legislature's  rent enormously, it's suspicious.  And Hawker's an accountant, so he can't plead ignorant (ignorance is not a get out jail free card for anyone, but he had special expertise and clearly should have known better.)

2.  Corporations slipping arbitration language into contracts.  This is a New York Times article that was on the front page of the ADN.  It's got several themes I've got an interest in:
  • The power of large corporations to force rules on their customers, rules that always favor the corporation.  In particular it is looking at rules that require arbitration to resolve disputes.   The offending language is:
". . .the company 'may elect to resolve any claim by individual arbitration.'


Those nine words are at the center of a far-reaching power play orchestrated by American corporations, an investigation by The New York Times has found.
By inserting individual arbitration clauses into a soaring number of consumer and employment contracts, companies like American Express devised a way to circumvent the courts and bar people from joining together in class-action lawsuits, realistically the only tool citizens have to fight illegal or deceitful business practices.
Over the last few years, it has become increasingly difficult to apply for a credit card, use a cellphone, get cable or Internet service, or shop online without agreeing to private arbitration. The same applies to getting a job, renting a car or placing a relative in a nursing home."
[Added later:  I should also add that attorneys have lots of incentives to fight for their ability to file class action lawsuits.  And that my sense is many of those suits only bring in money for attorneys because either the individuals don't understand all the paperwork needed to make a claim, or they do understand and decide that for the small amount they might possibly get, it's not worth all the work.]
  • The impossibility of consumers actually reading all the contracts they have to agree to these days.  For a particularly egregious example, see my post on the iTunes update agreement back in 2013.
  • Among many disturbing aspects of this issue, is how this change was carried out and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts' role in this.
" . . .the move to block class actions was engineered by a Wall Street-led coalition of credit card companies and retailers, according to interviews with coalition members and court records. Strategizing from law offices on Park Avenue and in Washington, members of the group came up with a plan to insulate themselves from the costly lawsuits. Their work culminated in two Supreme Court rulings, in 2011 and 2013, that enshrined the use of class-action bans in contracts. The decisions drew little attention outside legal circles, even though they upended decades of jurisprudence put in place to protect consumers and employees.
One of the players behind the scenes, The Times found, was John G. Roberts Jr., who as a private lawyer representing Discover Bank unsuccessfully petitioned the Supreme Court to hear a case involving class-action bans. By the time the Supreme Court handed down its favorable decisions, he was the chief justice."
 The problem for me isn't that a group of people come together to change the law.  That happens all the time for things like civil rights, environmental protection, and other important causes.  But the Constitutional narrative of James Madison was that competing powers would mean that laws would be just because people would challenge misuses of power.  And that's what seems to be happening in the LIO case mentioned above.  However, given the huge inequality in the distribution of wealth in the United States today, the ability to challenge large corporations becomes harder and harder.  The ability of corporations to draft legislation for the legislators they've funded, to change the laws in their own favor, grows increasingly hard to challenge. 


3.  A Washington Post article reprinted on page A-7 of the ADN explaining that supporters see Trump as the candidate who can restore America's greatness.   Trying to understand the motivations of Trump and other candidates is something I always want to do.  I think it is often more complicated than is normally reported.  Unfortunately, the reporter's tone is a bit flip (not to the snark level).  But he does point out that 'when America was last great' varies from person to person, and how Trump is going to restore this lost quality isn't clear.  But let's look at a couple of the examples of the good old days.
  • ". . . the last time America was great was when Ronald Reagan was president, when people played by the rules."   
Let's see, the 1980's included the savings and loan scandal, Iran Contra,  Reagan's Chief of Staff was convicted of lying to Congress and more. Jimmy Swaggart and Jimmy Baker scandals, and in sports Pete Rose was betting on his games and Ben Johnson got his Olympic Gold metal with steroids. 
  • ". . . it was in the ’70s, Holly Martin says, when you could depend on Americans to work hard."   
When the US had the largest number of union members who still had some power to negotiate with their employers?  When the pay ratio between the CEO and the lowest paid employees was about 20-1 compared to today's 350 - 1? [Clearly related to inequality of wealth mentioned in the class action suit article.]  And jobs were easy to get because so many men were fighting in a controversial war in Vietnam and women were supposed to stay home and raise the kids?
  • " . . .to find true American greatness, Steve Trivett contends, you need to go back to before the Vietnam War, “when you could still own a home and have a good job even if you didn’t have a college education.”
You mean just before the Civil Rights Act when whites didn't have to compete with blacks for jobs?  And redlining meant blacks couldn't get loans to buy houses?  
  • “The last time we had good jobs and respect for the military and law enforcement was, oh, probably during Eisenhower.” 
When income tax rates in the US were at their all time highest, the largest percentage of US workers were unionized, and when Southern police and courts looked the other way when blacks were lynched?  That was right after WW II and before Vietnam tore the country apart.  
All this selective memory echoes the theme of the play I just saw Other Desert Cities.  We all remember things differently.  And none of those decades were calm and peaceful. They all had strong conflicts. 

4.  Local hockey player squeezes in grandmother's and great aunt's funerals in Saskatchewan before leading his team to victory back in Anchorage.  Here's a kid whose family obligations came before his team obligations.  It involved three plane changes each way (and a hefty bill, I'm sure).  On the lucky side, instead of the normal Fri-Sat games, it's a Sat-Sun series.  A good story and my condolences and congratulations.


Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Planning and Zoning Does Round 1 of Title 21

I've promised myself to try to limit most of my posts to 1200 words for a while so I can do other things.  So I'll try to summarize what happened.

After a multi-year public hearing process, the Assembly had voted to provisionally approve Title 21 and it was waiting for some cleanup language by the staff when Dan Sullivan became mayor and hired former Assembly member Dan Coffey to go over it all again and recommend changes.  He's made recommendations to the Mayor and the Mayor has refined that into a set of proposed amendments.  Now the Planning and Zoning Commission is weighing in on these before they go to the Assembly.

Testimony included land owners and/or their representatives citing
  • specific sections of new Title 21 that would negatively affect the value of their property
  • general complaints that the new Title 21 is essentially social engineering that takes economic decisions from private landowners and gives it to the government
  • complaints that Title 21 is the introduction of the United Nations Agenda 21 which, according to handouts, advances global sustainability and "is being covertly pushed into local communities throughout the United States."

Basically, the people who testified framed Title 21 as social engineering that would take away the rights of individuals to make decisions about their property.  Some specific issues raised:
  • Change in I2 zoning to take out business and retail use and make this only industrial.  People said it would lower property values of existing structures and it covers  places like C and O'Malley that should have retail.
  • A CIRI representative with property at C and O'Malley  seemed not too fazed by the new Title 21, but wanted to be sure that they would be able to have an overlay district to make appropriate exceptions for a corner like that where they are planning retail development. 
  •  Target's representative felt it would take so long to get the overlay district approval that they would lose significant time in building and attracting other retailers into their south Anchorage project.  
  • The current chapter 12 on non-conformities does not afford owners of existing property  latitude to do maintenance and repairs as the existing code does.  When they do repairs, they are required to spend more on upgrading to the new requirements than presently required.  This will cause people to skip maintenance and lead to deterioration of property.
  • The staff's economic impact study is inadequate.  Staff argues that reducing the number of required parking spaces will offset the costs of added requirements.  But a couple of people said that with the landscaping requirements and extra costs because of more complicated requirements the costs will really go up.  
Commissioner Mulcahy asked everyone if they had any financial calculations to back up their allegations.  The Carr-Gottstein rep suggested the changes in zoning class would cost them $65 million in property value.

No one spoke in favor of Title 21.  There were quite a few ideological complaints about social engineering and loss of individual property rights.

One man, speaking for his 21 year old daughter who had bought her first house said, "I appreciate the academics who have spoken.  I speak as a citizen."  [I didn't hear anyone who identified themselves as even remotely involved with academics, and if they had, they too would still be citizens, it seems to me.]

Another, who identified himself as a contractor from Eagle River said, "Don’t know much about Title 21.  Heard a few things in the last few hours.  Couple of questions.  Assembly,  first make note of where Title 21 came from - Agenda 21 from the UN.  We are not in the UN we are the US.  We have a constitution. . ."

A few people referred to changes that would tell home owners how many windows they could have in their house.  [None of the commissioners asked them to identify which section said that.]

America's ideological divide was evident in the room Monday night.  The anti-government folks were out in strength fighting off what they see as the social engineering crowd whose goal is to take away people's individual liberties.

Monday, May 19, 2008

Shining Lights - Carol Comeau

A friend was organizing the Shining Lights dinner at the Sheraton Hotel and J was helping out Saturday and Sunday. This started as a synagogue event that honored people who were members of the congregation or the greater Jewish community each year and was held at the synagogue and was fairly low key. Last year's honoree was Jim Gottstein. The award honors individuals whose career is dedicated to public service and that demonstrates the highest level of character, integrity, and ethics. For the most part I think the people honored have fit that description, though one year, while we were out of the country, someone seems to have hijacked the award and they made a a terrible choice.

The event is also supposed to be a fund raiser as well. This year's five honorary chairs are the CEO's of BP, CIRI, BP Alaska, and JL Properties - none members of the Congregation or the Jewish Community to my knowledge - and the President of the Rose Foundation. Watching Joan and considering it was at the Howard Rock Ballroom at the Sheraton and all these corporate I was beginning to think this was going to be over the top.

But Carol Comeau is really an ideal recipient for this and the night turned out moving and inspiring. Here's are a few clips from the evening. I'd like to say highlights - but that implies I picked the best. Unfortunately I have limited room on my cardreader and so I video and hope I get some good parts to post. And the room was dark. And we were way in back. But you can get a sense of the evening.



Carol Comeau was the honoree this year and from my perspective it was a good choice.

Friday, March 25, 2011

House Finance Public Hearing on Governor's Oil Tax Bill HB 110 - Notes from Anchorage LIO

The meeting began at 5pm and people testified from, maybe, 5:15 until 8. My fingers are exhausted, my eyes drooping. I thought I'd try to pull out themes, but that will have to wait. I'll try the spell check and then put this up for people who'd like to know what was said. You'll see the same themes over and over again.

The pro HB 110 arguments were basically variations of this:
ACES has killed new oil development in Alaska. Without HB 110 you can be assured that the Trans Alaska Pipeline will shut down shortly and the oil money that pays for Alaska will run out and the future will be grim. Vote for HB 110 to ensure Alaska's future. Many, if not most, identified themselves as somehow connected with the oil industry.

The anti HB 110 arguments were variations of:
HB 110 is a giveaway to the richest corporations in the world. And they won't guarantee anything. You need a macro view of the world oil economy. Alaska taxes are low compared to Norway and other places plus we have a politically stable environment compared to the Middle East and Africa. This is just a shakedown by the oil companies like they do every where in the world. Keep the $2 billion a year and put it to use: building infrastructure, taking care of homeless, or financing our own oil and gas development.

My wife counted 43 for HB 110 and 37 against. (It seemed from the early questions that Rep. Stoltz was counting.)

Below are my notes from the meeting. There are lots of gaps and if you need to be 100% accurate, wait for the transcript from the Legislature. This will just give you the gist of what was said. The spelling of the names is particularly dicey since I only heard them quickly.

Public testimony repeats (continues?) Friday March 25 at 3pm.

Reps SToltz, Edgemon, Duggan, Fairclough (the whole committee was there at one point)
Sen. Giessel in audience

Anchorage:
Jerry McCutcheon: Must consider that the incentives are being given for things the oil companies are already required to do. The Tax wouldn't pass the Harvard business test. Sen. Jackson wouldn't support the gasline 30 years ago because of the impact it would have on the gas. Exxon deliberately lied to the committee and Alaska. Wound us up like toys back then. Alaskans loss almost came out in 2007 hearings AOGCC testified because the gasline was not conducted in the 1980s, had produced more oil because gasline not produced. Also testified Alaska would have been broke today if both pipelines had been constructed. We follow one ruse after another. Exxon and the other North Slope producer ... now more oil ... Exxon et al were trying to deprive Alaska and the US of billions of barrels of oil.

Inivted to send any written testimony.

Michael Jesperson: I support it and think it will put more money .

Matthew Manioni? - Been involved for 20 years. We are killing oil field jobs with ACES regime and regulations. All new dollars being spent on maintenance and repair, not new fields. I agree with experts that without more production, we'll lose the known oil reserve. Time to save Alaska from itself. For years I've been a supporter of responsible gas development. The oil companies want to work with us, but because we've been short sighted, .... Healthy oil and gas industry keeps producing a healthy Alaska.

David Gottstein: I've provided written comments Dynamic Capital mange nt capital. Aces provided . . . want to provide incentives to the oil companies. Aces provides a flexible formulaic way to tax. We want oil companies to make more money at higher prices. Devil in details. . . Also don't want to sell resources too cheaply. . . If purveyor rises prices ten percent and loses 5% of customers ahead, but if loses 15% he's behind. Hard to tell right prices from just the oil companies since they have an interest. Now Aces is too aggressive at higher levels. We don't want to do that, but we don't want to sell our resources too cheaply. Our answer thru aces is elegant. Change it from .4% progressive level rise, it could be .4 to .39. .38 etc.
Basically he's saying keep ACES but make careful adjustments within ACES.

Stick with ACES platform and study how to adjust the powerful tools you have...

Jeanine St. John: Been involved in oil and support industry for 31 years, followed every tax change over the years and consider myself pretty well versed on all these policies and I want to be clear, I fully change ACES and the Gov's HB 110.

Paul Kendall: [Got interrupted] Important that public understand - it's time - Alaska is ineffectual. You can't change that we will be taken out of the loop of affecting this. If you are ineffectual, but you have opportunity to breach both worlds and be in special place in 8 years. I'm used to looking people in the eyes when I talk. The world's seven largest auto industries to - Dougherty at ADN refused to publish it - 38 countries supplying oil to USA, they are being used to shape new world order. They surpass your ability to participate and influence. I have 20 projects before me, I don't see how you can run Alaska from Juneau. Impossible to help with 1-3 minute opportunities to talk.

Barbara Winkly: Thank you for considering public input. Speak as long time AK resident in opposition to the bill. I urge legislature to set aside any surplus funds to to fund for infrastructure maintenance. We don't need to spend money in Las Vegas to attract tourists. If we don't save our wildlife, tourists won't come anyway. Don't let Alaska become the superficial goat while oil companies make billions in profit.
Oil tax debate: need to ask if in our best interest or hoodwinked by oil companies and our governor. Other oil countries have higher taxes. Although Parnell says jobs down, but other sources say were' better than ever. Is he being loyal to his prior employer.

Bob Buch: I hope you received info Nov 2010 ADN article. I'm opposed to bill. If the answer is tax reduction, then why didn't oil companies develop when elf was in place. Why give away with no guarantee. Exploration will be status quo. They won't put in any more. Both BP and CP have made $7 billion in profits since 2007. Nothing in Constitution says we should give benefit of our resources to private corporations. Basic service would diminish if funds reduced. Now Alaska is best positioned. Giving money away with no return is not prudent.

Mike Duggan: Glad your fighting spirit not diminished.
Les Gara: Thanks Bob.

Stoltz:
Ben Moore: REsident of ER. I don't have prepared statements. I just want to be here to show my support. I see ACES as taking the shortterm money with long term hurt.


Mr. Boehmer??: Born in Ketchikan 1935, lived in anchorage for 35 years. Vote yes for HB 110.

S: Go to Fairbanks

David Delong: I do not support HB 11o. Unnecessary and excessive giveaway to oil industry. Little correlation between taxation and production. We have taxes but no political risk. Oil industry for last 30 years. Have always tried to lowball. In early 80s we were told the pipeline would be dry by mid 90s. In Gulf going thru wells for second time. Biggest impediment is the pipeline and Alyeska. We need tariff reform. Appearance of impropriety when former employee of CP is now gov and seeking tax release. Oil is finite resource and we should insure we gt max value for it.



Mark Sharp: Thank you. Who requested explicitness? Ms. Fairclough, my specialty is snarking, but I assure you I can be specific. If ever there was a proposal that deserved skepticism of public. Giveaway to states wealthiest corporations. Correlations between paybacks and reinvestment. Will take the money as is their history. World ... not political kickbacks rule investment. Parnell's APOC campaign disclosure. Amount going his way from oil companies is staggering. Citizens have right to honest negotiations and it appears the governor is sitting on the wrong side of the table. Trust Exxon Mobile? I don't think so. This isn't reform, it's a give away. Sick of watching oil money.... while economy ravaged the Gov's top priority is to raid the budget....... can't keep up with him.....

Do something, build something, another year spent in Juneau kicking the can down the road... shot to hell. Is it any wonder how little faith Alaskans have in elected officials. This bill needs to die in committee.

Lisa Herbert: Head of chamber of commerce - promote healthy economic environment, but I am concerned there will be no business to advocate for if we don't change the tax on the oil industry. Deeply concerned about economy of Alaska. With continued decline of production, same problems as last winter when pipeline shurt down. Can we dodge the next bullet. 110 gives greatest opportunity to turn things around. We can turn things around and save the state.

Tammie Wilson: Thanks for testifying.

Paul ?Metz?" In support of HB 110. Endorse comments by ED of Chamber of Commerce as board member.

?? Case: Business. Pretty scared. Significant amount of our business is related to oil business. How can we compete with Canada and North Dakota. Something is not right or the bill would never have been created. If we can get the oil companies back we can secure a good future for our children.

Jeffrey Bacon: APEA - as lifelong Alaskan proud to represent AFEA, 8000 members throughout the state. Disheartens me that our gov took valuable time this session to hurt our economy. Taking money from our state that could be invested in infrastructure and energy help - money which would help every business. Instead of vibrant community, he's taking our money and giving it to oil company shareholders.

David Wellborn: (left)

Jean Trainer: In Alaska 35 years, single parent. look at this $10billion as a giveaway. I think about all the money I saved so my daughter could go to college. If she'd come after hs and said, let me have that $40K you save and well see. Thats what the gov's bill is doing - here' take a tax break and we'll see what happens. It's evidenced by political turmoil in middle east, AK is more attractive to big players. My way of thinking is, don't create a budget shortfall by handing $ to oil executives. I'm opposed.

Buzz Otis??- Here since 1975. We're at a crossroads. Either we encourage development or keep current tax rate and discourage. Lower tax rate will cause new look at our stte. I've been a gambler on Alaska economy. My contracting business still going strong today. I see a struggling Alaska economy. Don't risk them by ringing the last dime out of aces. Pipeline at 1/3 capacity. Take the risk out of doing business in Alaska. In Rep Wilson district.

Richard Feinberg: Thank you. Will follow with documentation. Briefly: Decline in N Slope production is a historical fact, but significance of decline in this political dialog have been grossly exaggerated and current NSlope and TAPS situation widely misperceived Viable quantities of crude remain economically viable to be produced - tangible reality that benefits from existing infrastructure. Reasonable to expect, including TA{S risk, tangible quantities will be produced for an extended period. Numerous empirical indicators that ACES regime is not a problem. I have followed hearings closely. I have yet to hear substantive evidence that tax reduction will spur new development. New discoveries would be wonderful, but uncertain. The reasonable max of state revenue as produced by production tax fiscal regime is wise. Documentation will follow. I hope you will supplant rhetoric with reasoning supported by verifiable and relevant facts.

Tammie Wilson: Are you in favor or against the bill?

Feinberg: Did I not make that clear in every word? I'm very opposed.

Gerald Rafson?? - I've been involved in transportation and planning issues for 30 plus years in AK. Voice my opposition to bill. Giveaway to oil industry money that could be used for interior and bush infrastructure. What we really need than tax reform is tariff reform on the pipeline. Oil companies are greatest impediment with tariff on pipeline. They prevent competition. Legislature should ease that stranglehold on the infrastructure - much more benefit than this bill.

Richard Heieron - Chair of Chamber of Commerce 700+ businesses in Fairbanks. HB 110 top priority for Chamber. Not an expert in the field, just a small business man and obvious to me something needs to change. In past three years 3 major tax changes. It complicates business. News Miner says since 157 billion from oil, a few billion from seafood and timber. In January, piepline was shut down due to leak. within two days of a six months stoppage. All this leads me to Aesop's fable, when people speak in opposition, like dog crossing bridge with bone and sees reflection and opens mouth to get the other bone.

Lorna Shaw: Can't compete with Richard's fable. Strongly in support of 110. Only thing given away is our future. We have a natural resource economy and we need to be sure they are developed. We have to be competitive, attractive for companies to make those investment. We can't just apss around the same few dollars, as chair elect of the chamber, a miner, and parent, urge everyone to pass 110.

Stoltz: How many people in Juneau;

Mary ?Graham - 27 year resident of Alaska, recently retired and watching alot of gavel to gavel . Like the oil companies coming to us asking for allowance and maybe I'll do my chores later. Not in favor of State giving away more billions. I think money can be spent in other areas. We knew these days were coming. That's why we have the permanent fund. We knew we wouldn't be able to subsist on royalties forever. Not as dire as portrayed now. We could use money to invest in renewable sustainable resources.

Stotz: Dad, Democrat,

Barbara Huff-Tuckness - Teamsters, I do want to go on record as suporting the ???. We represent about 6000 members within the state except cruise ship and fishing. And 1000s of retired Teamsters that live in the state. Maybe 100 members still working on slope, surprisingly on Exxon. It goes without say that jobs are important to us. Thanks for opportunity to speak on this. We don't believe this is a partisan bill or union v. non-union work. Impact will affect every worker we represent or don't represent and unemployed. We commend you for your exhaustive time listening to everyone.
Clear that our development is down. Your being asked to change to ACES. We think this should be a strategic plan. We don't have the magic fix, we can relate to jobs our members have lost. NorthSlope production at historic low and you all realize the revenue it brings in. We are concerned with jobs. Need strong economic base, need to be competitive, and we need jobs. What comes out of this committee will help grow our economy and staggered economy. Quoting Begich, reverse the decline of oil. We encourage your due diligence.

Guttenberg: Would I be correct to say you support jobs?

MATSU LIO:

Loreli Carter: Greater Palmer Chamber of Commerce, we passed a resolution supporting HB 110. Tax revenue for oil and gas industry is major source of funds. TAPS at 50% below capacity.

SToltz: Miss Carter ineligible for Baord of Regents

James Crowell: I support 110. Let's become competitive again Oil company only gets one dollar from every barrel. We need to lower the tax rate. We only have one exploratory rig on the north slope. Once the pipeline is pulled out, everyone will leave. Let's become a state once more open for business.

Homer LIO:

Donna Ray Faulkner: STrongly against 110, according to Gov Office, we're seeing increase in exploration. We know the oil companies want to increase their profits. The richest companies in the history of the world want a tax break. But why is the governor supporting this? They won't leave the oil in the ground. It will only get more valuable sitting in the ground. Alaska deserves its fair share of oil value. Why gov wants to drop tax rate well below any other place is beyond me. Defeat this bill and be sure we get fair share of resource profits. Appalled Gov has proposed this rollback and wants to increase oil company profits at expense of Alaskans.

Don McNamara: Represents surfers of Alaska. 110 is poor idea. Crated by a CP lobbyist, doesn't he know who hes working for now. Look at Venezuela. If oil companies don't want to drill, we should do it. There's a huge profit there. Tax rate for ACES now 60%, in Norway 70%, and no one is shooting them in Alaska.

Amy Dombosky?? off net site: Then back to Anchroage.

Anchorage IO:

Brian Clemens: In support of HB 110. Time running short. Best option on table. Please pass 110.

Mike McGuiness: Small oil field related firm. Fully support 110. EVery one stole my material. One underlying issue is not so much the money -0 always about money - but how about the 100,000 jobs at risk if we chase the oil companies out of here. Give the oil companies within reason of what they want. Those of you opposed tellt he 110,000 employed, your selfish.

Mike Baggert: 38 years in Anchorage and oil fields. This down now is almost terminal if it continues. A lot of people won't be here, my firm included. I do support 110

Kevin Derling: South Anchorage, strongly in support of 110. 30+ resident of Alaska, company supports oil industry, military. six month downturn, had to release employees. Asked me to support 110. There are no guarantees in life except death and taxes. Can't guarantee a return. They can guarantee they will stop investing with this tax rate.

Deantha? Crockett; I do support 110. Grew up with parents in the oil industry. I hope tht keeps up for my kids BF works for Alyeska for 15 years. We have plans to live here forever. Friend now works in Bakersfield because lost his oil job. I want to see it pass and reverse the trend.

Katie Kaposy?: In support of 110: Came in 1996 military dad. Didn't expect to marry AF and taken away, but back now Looking to grow roots here. Real fear of making tht decision now. Just don't know if this is a place to buy a house. I've seen a tenth of all the documents you've seen. Overwhelmingly clear. What we have is broken. Needs to be fixed. Something needs to happen now. Don't do nothing. Hope you'll pass it. If you have to make changes, do it to relieve taxes for oil companies.

Karl Portman. Lifelong Alaska, raised in Fairbanks and UA graduate in 1977, worked on pipeline and plan to retire in Alaska. I remember Alaska before TAPS seen Alaska booms and bust. Worried about future. With pipeline now 2/3 empty and premature shut down in ten years or less. Economic Disaster. Depression beyond what hwe have ever experience. ISER study 50% of economy directly tied to oil industry. Nothing else including natural gas can replace this. Funding education, public emplyee pensions. Must improve investment climate. With high oil taxes, just not competitive. We must change that and bring companies back to the state. Trading some oil tax revenue for long term production. Strongly urge passage of 110. Thanks for opportunity to express opinion.

Jed Whittaker: I've been listening. Smartest thing said by Gottstein says, don't throw the baby out with bathwater, but if take a percentage of here or there, best thing. I want to make committee aware of global phenomenon. 2000, 6 billin people. This year there will be 7 billion people. ONe billion more who will need more energy and everything. Increased demand for commodities. Bull market. Foolish to give tax break to most profitable world companies to drill oil when they're already making huge profits. Worst testimony have gloom and doom scenario. Not the case. AK Journal of Commerce March 13. Spanish oil company has committed $768 million for exploration on NSlope. Quote CEO of Repsol: "This deal is perfect fit to balance portfolio with lower risk in stable environment." They don't have a history of buying alsaka legislators on the cheap. Bill Allen is in prison. This 2Billion giveaway is not cognizant of megatrends on the planet. Commodities will increase. Repsol didn't ask for a tax break. Our Gov. just wants to give away 2 billion. Maybe they haven't developed the historical corrupt practices of bribing Alaska legislators.

Scott ?? Also a surfer; STrongly support 110. A lot lost on public at large. Focus on profit oil companies taking out, but when it comes to making investment decision, you'll go where you gt the highest return. That's our problem today. Iagree with last person that oil prices will go up. With ACES, the higher the oil prices go, the less competitive we become to deal with ACES progressivity. We need to become mroe competitive in the world market, than other world areas that are roughly the same risk as here. Relatively low risk compared to middle east and Africa. But production prices high and you add some of the highest taxes in N America, transportation costs etc. makes us uncompetitive. Important to pass 110.

Pete STokes: Live in Rep Holmes district. Grew up in Kenai. Seen from beginning how oil has impacted our state, done wonders for it. Licensed Petroleum Engineer, started in Alaska, been all over Oklahoma Texas Indonesia. All my children are working professionals here. I urge you to pass 110 to allow Alaska competitive, but no guarantees that reduced taxes will guarantee investments, it is more likely. If remains high like they are and production will decline in higher rate. Rather than take a larger piece of this shrinking pie, we should grow the pie. Once there is no oil, no option to fund what we're doing. Except going into permanent fund and income taxes. High paying jobs because of oil industry will be gone. Lot of good jobs going to North Dakota. Not worried about myself. Ive had a good life and retire and become a snowbird and just come back in the summers. I don't want to do that. Want to stay here. Worried about my kids and their kids.

Jason Brune: Resource Development Council ED: RDC is statewide business association oil and gas, mining, tourism, fishing, Native Regional Corporations . Our mission to support strong, diversified economy. Testifying in strong support of HB 110. Testimony from Admiral Barrett [President of Alyeska]. Without change pipeline can shut down in ten years. Fair share we receive is the royalty. That was agreed to by those companies that spent 100s of millions to take the risk. Ever increasing taxes was not in the contract they signed. We are seeing fruits of our labor. Look at Nikaitchuq and Oliktok? - we need two or three of these a year. If oil shuts down, we'll see all the other industries shrink. I'd like to challenge the notion that the large capitol budgets have saved the economy. If TAPs shuts down, there will be no capital budgets.
As co-chair of Parnell's transition team - number one priority should be to deal with Alaska's taxation policy to encourage more investment.

Dugan: Jason, want to say most of the credit for the hearing in Anchorage goes to Bill Stoltz and his staff.

Kerry ???: My company is direct result of the oil industry. We have benefited from exploration and what the North Slope has become. Without the investment dollars to keep Prudhoe Bay viable. We have 14Billion state budget that will not be sustained that without oil money. If not paid for taxes, you'll have to reduce the budget. The people and infrastructure are withering on the vine. I see it on a daily basis what it takes to run TAPS at 1/3 capacity. That recent shutdown, a few more days longer it would have frozen and been shut down till spring. We can't continue on this path to get investment dollars here. We are setting ourselves for failure. I talked to Respol. They are looking at 110. Much of their investment is dependent on 110. Their decisions based on what happens. We need to do something right now. Since this has been in place, we've done nothing but decline. We had 17 before this began. They all shut down due to regulations by the feds or state. If you want to see - we're heading back to 1987 crash. I won't be here for that. I'll just go somewhere else. We employ 30 people and will have to lay off people. With $100 oil and laying off people is ridiculous.

SToltz: Kodiak

Mike Millikan: served on Assembly with Austerman and Stevens. Been in Alaska since ?? worked on the slope. I'm opposed to 110. I appreciate jobs. All of you are aware of what is happening with gas pipeline and fracking. All this money will go to lower 48 fracking. I want to point to Hawker's graph - over 65% of all world wide production comes from a state owned facility. Venezuelans come from state owned facility - they pay 10cents a gallon. Hickel was able to pressure ARCO to continue drilling at Prudhoe because state would take over if they quit. We have to have the possibility of State owned fields so we can have real negotiations.

Cordova:
???: Extensive on both sides. A lot of stuff thrown out and heat. Concern to all of us what we do and how we pay for it. I've worked in oil industry and fishing, lifelong resident. Pick up mixed signals. 22 years ago today was significant day - Exxon Valdez spill. Keep things in perspective. I'm reluctant to see this pushed and suddenly we're in doom and gloom and sky is falling. Having researched oil industry - largest entities on the planets today. Same banks and super rich hold their stocks as our finances rot. Our military supports them around the world. That's our taxes paying for them. We're stuck with oil as it is. Oil companies have been making and breaking oil countries around the world. These are the guys who wrote the maps after WWII. They hold all the cards and they know it. ACES only passed because of the light of corruption until their next pawn, Parnell arrived,
Yeah, I know its a rant. A far cry from Norway, where they have done much better than we have. I on't trust the oil companies. Force us into a corner and we're fighting each other instead of them.

Skip?? - One before us is impact of ACES may or may not have on majors and producers on slope. My opinion that ACES progressivity element is a disincentive and work needs to take place to improve the tax structure and you will modify ACES and I'm in support of 110. I have a son finishing at University and looking to go to work on North Slope.

Mark MacArthur?? - economist, own part of business in textile market, we understand business. In line for tesla motor car. I oppose it. Not good to give money to most profitbale companies on the planet. Will force our state to run a deficit budget. Rather than house bill 110. Why not champion Alaska's own oil company. We need to take more control of our resources, that's our oil they are using to make huge profits. I want to see real competition. Oil Spill in Gulf opened my eyes. Oil companies don't do anything ont heir own - contract it all out. Think how many wells we could drill with $20 billion. Great Bear and Repsol - Our gov and big oil companies want us to think we are closing down. It's a lie.

Ron ??- been here for 35 years. In opposition. Sympathetic to those fearing losing their jobs. I would support the bill if there was any evidence that passing the bill would do the things they say. There is no evidence. 18 - 20 years no relationship between taxation and production. Repsol publicly said they were going to do it because of our stable political environment. Other study says taxation either supports or is neutral. Wagoner has a bill to give them tax credits if they increase productions after not before. We have lots of other projects. There is no benefit cost ratio to support this.

Tom Lakosh - I come to bury Caesar not to praise him. Testimony establishes that it would be unconstitutional to pass 110. You must dispense resources in the public interest. There is no correlation between decreasing taxes and increase productions. Dan Sullivan told you majors told him they would not guarantee production if taxes reduced. Ridiculous and contrary to ethics of a democratic people to try to compete with cannibalistic third world despots who will swing bribery deals with oil companies. That's who you are competing with. Throughout the testimony. The one statement made by a representiative that came to the quick was Mr. Duggan's question. Did the oil majors threaten to let oil pipeline go dry if we didn't give a tax break? They already made that decicion. We've had a horrendous mismanagement of our system. They built a pipeline that turns into an 800 mile sausage. Always have problem of pipeline mismangement and corrosion. When we went through ACES we went through every company. Relied on Norway model. They created their own corporation then bought 68% of ???. Lack of capital while sitting on $39 billion of permanent fund. You have not done your due dilligence. You cannot constitutionally pass 110. Invest the money on refineries and ship product.

Merrick Peirce - Serve on board of Alaska Pipeline Port Authority?? and on Palin-Parnell transition team. Some big picture nubmers. barrels of oil today. about 65% of the value of our PF. We get to keep about $5 or $6 for us and $17 for the industry. You are being asked to give away additional billions. Constitutionally. Almost anything is alternative is better than 110. We could give everyone several hundred a year. Why not take that $2nillion a year. Like Alaska residents told you. Protects us from the extortion of the oil companies. Cleans the air, and affordable energy for military basis. Federal deficits so significant that all the bases vulnerable to closure. Finally we'd get more into the pipeline. I can't keep up with how fast he's talking. We could develop a fund to compete with the Norwegian fund which is near $500 Billion. Or we could act like sharecroppers on our own land. Why would we trust putting our money into hands of multinational corporations.

Fairbanks:

???: 41 year resident. Prof. Emeritus in Environmental and Petroleum engineering. I'm opposed to 110, but I could be convinced to support it with facts. We need jobs. But do you know how many jobs we could create with $2billion. Why $2 billion, why not $1 Billion, $O billion? Is this a one time thing? Absurd to say there are no guarantees in business. Govt. is business and these are our funds. You won't get support without guarantees. Let's amend it and establish an account and let the oil companies apply for funds to explore. Why do they need money to eplore? they know where the money is. The need to produce, not explore. If they apply for money, they need to justify their use. I'm against the proposal as it stands. Or why it has to pass because it's urtent? We've known for 30 years there would be a decline.

Cynthia Tabasco?? - mother grandmother banker and Chamber member - serious concerns about our future. Need to make Alaska competitive. What we're doing isn't working. I want my children to stay here. North Dakota has an abundance of jobs.

Butch Stein : Live in Ester since 1972. Wasn't going to testify because a lot of good testimony has been given, but you're keep track of yeas and neas, so I want to be recorded as a yea. I urge you to pass the bill out of committee.

Randy Griffin': I favor HB 110. We used to have elf, the jacked up ppt, to correct deficiencies of elf. Increase about $1billion. Then new governor, populist, they changed it with ACES partly because of Bill Allen, had nothing to do with oil industry, just a guy who hurt his head in a motorcycle accident. We've lost while North Dakota gained 20,000 jobs. I see pigs going to the trough to slop up. I'm one and in favor of maximizing what we get. Let's be smart pigs. Let's not just maximize short term slop, go for long term slop. Some people say oil companies are just using Alaska as a land bank. I worked for ARCO, just blue collar guy. My experience was they were constantly thinking how to expand and explore. Some low flow, because there is high risk. Some say we don't want to give this tax break because we don't have any guarantee. No one can guarantee. They go back to stockholders - you and I because state is invested in oil companies. I'm in favor of 110 and keep Alaska vioable.

Ken Hall: Lived in Fairbanks all my life, went to school here UAF, three kids. Part of commitment, I'm in Fairbanks Chapter of Support Alliance, and volunteer to make Alaska a better place. I've always worked in private enterprise. We do everything we can to keep things competitive and improve our position with customers. If we don't our competition does. I'm in support of 110. No one wants to give away $2billion. It will make Alaska competitive for the future. Legislature's responsibility to make it competitive. My industry had good month in March. Sold a lot of stuff to Prudhoe. Support bill.

Don Gray: Lived here 40 years, several friends some pro some con. I'm opposed. I remember pre-pipeline days, TAPS, taught history, was in private sector as financial adviser. Where the rubber meets road as far as capitalism is concerned. Hammond, I say with great respect for oil companies, Conoco only one that reports Alaska profits separately. Hammond said we have to remember who owns the oil companies here. Oil companies look out for best interest of their shareholders. Extracted maximum benefit wherever they were - in Kazakhstan or Venezuela, if had to leave, cost of doing business. Cost of
doing business in Alaska is reasonable. Some of these proposals here, read Roger Marx's and Governors, incremental cuts, using brackets, cut not a huge amount, and pretty soon it adds up to real money. A lot of these are tax policy questions beyond my expertise. You have far better experts. David Gottstein said maybe you don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. ACES has lots of good features already. This would cost Alaskans lots of money with no guarantee. Oil companies go where the oil is, maximize the profits for their shareholders. I encourage you to not pass it now. Hold it for next year if you have to. Thanks

Matsu LIO

STu Graham" I'm in favor. First step we can take to increase thru put though the pipeline. That's the future of the state, not in gas pipeline. Depends on increasing TAPs throughput. We've show we could do it int he past. There is no guarantee, but we do have opportunity to open window so exploration and development companies can move forward, based on their great risk. My opposition to some of the wording. People talking bout giving away - what we owe is oil in the ground and lease that and tax. We're allowing companies to keep what they have earned. And provide tax revenue, now an excess, a political football. Discussion saying to move it into the permanent fund. they we can't use it for anything It's not our money. It's money that shareholders and oil employees rely on this. Remind that progressivity in ACES is twice what previous governor proposed. Not like were giving anything away, just trimming taxes to reasonable level. Future of Alaska is based on TAPS throughput. We have workforce in Alaska we've trained to produce ont he North Slope. Now those jobs moving to other states. We can move 110 forward.



Geoffrey Humphrey in Anchorage: Speaking in opposition. Not focused on important metrics - profits. Not right way to focus our attention to maximize benefit we see to maximize

Roger Jenkins - Good evening to committee. I am a resident of Spenard, live in Rep Doogan's district. Just read your interview int he Petroleum News. Comes as no surprise to people who know me that I'm for this bill. My earth science background says geologically we have to - geophysical targets in ANWR and off shore in Chukchi and PET4. BEaufort Sea closed violating air quality. ANWR is away from us. Each of you should find on eBay, Don Young's 74 mile pipeline to ANWR. 12 years ago both houses passed bill to open ANWR and president then said it would take ten years. Young laid it all out. Only 74 miles from drilling to terminal of pipeline. We can build a 74 mile pipeline.

SToltz: Roger was member of 14th legislature, hope I will see you at Mulcahy.
Doogan: I'd never dream of trying to tell the truth about you.

Donald Bellamy: new resident of Alaska. engineer, supporting mining and petroleum. I'm envious of people who say they are lifelong Alaskan and I want to make my life hear. Fear we will have to leave. Friend is going to Houston. Someone said 110,000 jobs and their families who will leave. I support anything that will create jobs. Not easy oil Tough to get that developed. When oil is 100 /barrel, and in other places the boom is on. What is it about Alaska that the boom is not on here? What can we do to create growth. If 110 does that I'm 100 % for it.

Chuck Becker:

Buch: Can you hear us? ARe you going to take questions? Young lady has just returned.

Deborah Berlini??: Testifying in support of 110. 35 year Alaskan a couple of kids, single and unemployed. I went to Juneau to support 110. In mid 1980s I was foreclosing on homes due to plummeting oil. I was 20 years old foreclosing 20 homes a week. One para legal, I have foreclosed on 5200 homes in five years. After I returned I researched the year Alaska crashed. I didn't realize how bad things were in 1986. The headlines which stood out: Income plunges. AHFC largest property owners. Budget cuts cut 9000 jobs. Warns of depression. Alaska dug itself out of the crash when prices went up and oil in the pipeline. I want my kids to have the same opportunities. Crying as she says to remember my children.

Chuck Becker: Distinguished members of the committee....I am supportive of 110 retired of commercial service of US this is my personal opinion. ACES is disincentive. ONe exploratory well in 2010 and only one permitted in 2011. Average monthly employment in oil jobs fell by 1000 jobs. .... Many years ago I sold pharmaceutical, I'd tell my physicians ... ACES exceeded optimal affect. Alberta too increased taxes until industry went elsewhere.

Lynette Moreno Hens: I was born in Sitka just before statehood. I'm opposed. The money given away for AGIA was Alaskan money. She wanted to please Canada and also gave away salmon. As ak native I oppose. I've driven cab in Anch for 32 years. I don't represent industry. I drive around and see homeless kids - high school, jr high, and elemntary. I look in their eyes and see they have no hope. Other kids told not pick on them. I know homelss hardships. Ex husband vietname vet, is on the streets. My three grandchildren taken by OCS. This is some of the real problems Alaska residents face. I'm starting a petition to have state sell Alaska oil at cost. Me and Javen Osie are starting this. We know Alaska has an agreement with the oil companies. NOw I see the outcome. I never saw that in this state that we'd have people so greedy who want more and more and more and that's why I'm doing this. Testimony from Kodiak Island - Mark - I know people think this is a charity. How many people give back their permanent fund money? not many. People here tired of paying the middle men - the oil reinery jacking up cost of distribution of Alaska gas. ..... fingers hurt. .. she's reading her petition to the legislature. Gasoline, since we own it, shouldn't cost more than $1.50 a gallon. They expect $5/gallon.

Yolanda Delacruz - I oppose 110. This administration who support exploration want to give away $2billion. Sarah Palin already gave away $500 million to Trans Canada. Time for legislators to work for all Alaskans. Time to stop this manipulation and control. Thank you very much.