Governor, Commissioners And Legislative/Administration Pay Raise Process Badly Flawed

Are the Alaska State Officers Compensation Commission pay raise recommendations for the governor, his commissioners, and the legislature reasonable?  My basic response is "No."  First round, the Commission only recommended raises for the administrative branch (governor and department commissioners), but not legislative branch.  The legislature rejected it.  All the members of the Commission then were either removed or resigned and governor appointed a whole new board which came up with new recommendations in a matter of days including a 67% increase for legislators.  

I'm going to take a look at this from human resources perspective.  While this isn't something I've spent my life on, I did teach human resources at the graduate level including compensation and I was involved in a major classification study at the Municipality of Anchorage - from helping write the RFP to working with the consultants - so I know a little more than the average person about how this should work.

Here are the basic issues for me: 

1. Compensation changes in large organizations are usually preceded by a study that gathers relevant data which becomes the basis and justification for the changes.  The final report also would discuss the fiscal implications of increases in compensation.  The report the Commission posted on its website in January is NOT a serious compensation study.
2. Traditionally, commissioners of state departments, like US cabinet officers, serve for a relatively brief time.  It's been considered an honor to serve one's state or country and good commissioners are respected for taking a break in the careers to serve the public.  Those coming from the private sector often take a cut in pay to serve.  Such servicet also makes someone more desirable for jobs after their service because they better understand how government works and they have personal connections that can be helpful.  So prestige and public service, but not a high salary, have been the traditional remuneration for these kinds of jobs.  No one seems to have discussed this. 
3. The Commission did not follow the steps listed in the statutes that establishes the Commission.
4. Given that the first Commission recommendation was no raise for the legislature, and the second Commission's recommendation was a huge raise, there's the appearance that the governor was really offering the legislature a bribe so that he could get his own salary and those of his commissioners raised.  This is obviously speculation.  But it's consistent with the governor's reelection campaign where he basically offered voters a higher Permanent Fund check if they reelected him.

That's the gist of this post.  If you want more details see below.  

[I'm trying to give you some headlines to act as guideposts, but separating out the issues so neatly also hides the interconnectivity of the issues.  I'm doing my best but also mindful if I wait to make this perfect, the issue will no longer be current.]

How to determine fair pay

There is no foolproof way to do this, but human resources experts have come up  two standard, general approaches to calculating salary:

• What is a job worth?  Classification and Pay studies try, in the simplest terms, to examine the duties of each job , the qualifications required  for each job, and the value that work contributes to the organization. You can see more details here.  It's an imperfect system at best as it tries to pin down and quantify many qualities that can't be quantified in a system that is constantly changing.  
• Market analysis looks at what specific jobs get paid in other organizations in order to determine what pay must be given to compete for workers.  This works best for common job types, but less so for more specialized positions.  This system tends to keep high wage jobs high and low wage jobs low.   You can learn more about this process here.

Large organizations often do a combination, trying balance both those strategies.  

Commission Doesn't Seem To Have Done That

The Alaska Compensation Commission proposed significant raises.  There is no evidence they did any serious data gathering or analysis to arrive at their recommendations.  The Compensation Report at the Commission's website basically says it was decided to increase legislative salaries by 2% a year to match inflation, but that hasn't been done.  So let's add up all those years and bingo, here's the number.  (OK, I'm being slightly facetious here.  You can see the study here.  Don't worry.  It's short. Two and a quarter pages, and that includes the cover page.)

This is NOT the serious report one would expect.  The posted one was dated January 24, 2023.  That's the one that didn't recommend any increases for legislators and was quickly voted down by those legislators.  

The new Commission, quickly created after the legislature turned down the original Commission's recommendations, doesn't have a study up on the website, presumably because there was no time to actually do one between their appointment and their recommendation a couple of days later.  

Basically, the January report  reads more like something written by a bunch a guys meeting to play poker one night, but they have to get this recommendation out before they play cards.  

"What do you think guys?  

"Is this fair?" 

"Yeah sure, that sounds good." 

"We're done.  Start dealing."

That is NOT how you run an efficient and effective organization.  This is a good old boys style of operating.   

Do we know what the cumulative costs of 60 legislators (40 house members and 20 Senators) would be?  No. 

What about the impact on the state employees' health system and retirement system?  

What do we compare ourselves to?

Was there any consideration of how much Alaskans get paid compared to other state legislators?  There is in a comment or two that observers made after the proposal went public, but was that part of their discussion?  The Juneau Empire writes very briefly about that:

"Alaska ranked 12th in legislative salaries in 2022, although it also is among 10 states that are classified as full-time legislatures whose members receive an average salary of $82,258, according to the National Conference of State Legislators. The raises would rank Alaska fourth among all states in 2022 (although other states’ salaries may have also changed since then), with California topping the list at $119,702 (plus roughly $210 in per diem)." (emphasis added)

Full time legislatures? 

Is that from discussion among Commission members or research the Juneau Empire did?  But even so, while the Alaska Legislature has exceeded its 90 day limit regularly in the last few years, calling it a full time legislature is something of stretch.  Certainly it's not a full time permanent legislature.  It meets for four or five months full time, then lots of members go back to their regular jobs.  Do we want to continue with part time, amateur legislators?  Do we want professional legislators?  More on this below.

Size of population, land mass?

And how do we compare based on populations of the states?  Alaska is the third smallest state (after Vermont and Wyoming)  How difficult is being an Alaskan legislature compared to legislatures of other states?  Ours is  the smallest legislature in the country. By a lot, compared to most states, though a few - Delaware, Nevada - are close to our size. One could argue that means more work per legislator, or one could argue it means far fewer people to deal with and negotiate with which should make it easier.

Alaskan is also the largest state geographically, with at least one house district larger than many states, yet with few roads.  On the other hand,  manyAnchorage legislators could walk across their districts in an afternoon.  It does seem reasonable evaluate pay of Alaska legislators based on how much it costs 

• to get to and from Juneau
• to meet with their constituents (though electronic meetings are much more common these days, the reliability of internet can be terrible in many remote villages)

Other considerations that were raised in media coverage

Alaska Public Media reports that Senate President Gary Stevens said,

“I think the younger folks that are entering the Legislature, they deserve to have a livable wage,”

Compensation Commission Member Larry LeDoux is  quoted in the Juneau Empire:

“I think if we’re really going to have a citizen legislature we need to have a salary that will allow citizens to maintain their households while they serve in the Legislature.”

  One could argue that a citizen legislature is a more amateur legislature and shouldn't get paid professional salaries.  

Professional or Amateur ("Citizen Legislator")

Do we have a citizen legislature or a professional legislature?  What does 'professional' legislator even mean?  One with many years of experience in the legislature?  Or one with educational training and work experience in a field relevant to understanding the issues facing the state?  

Surely we have a number of legislators who would qualify as 'professional' by those definitions.  But we also have people whose basic qualification is that they are residents of Alaska with a party brand that is in the majority of their districts.  And some sort of name recognition in that district helps.

Amateur suggests this is public service more than a career.  That they just need enough to get by for a term or two.  But people get addicted to the Juneau summer camp atmosphere and to the prestige that comes with being called Representative or Senator.  And after two terms as a Representative or just one term as a Senator - the next term vests them in the State retirement system.   But I appreciate the argument.  I'd note that I did spend a session in Juneau blogging the legislature on my own dime.  It's doable, but my kids were on their own by then.   

Former legislator Adam Wool from Fairbanks wrote in a March 29, 2023  letter to the editor in response    (sorry there's a pay wall) :

"But I feel compelled to counter the narrative I’ve been hearing lately that the current pay is not sufficient to entice legislators with young families to come to Juneau. As a legislator who had a young family, I find this untrue.

The salary of $50,000 per year, although not great is what a beginning teacher makes, and although it isn’t high, it isn’t low for a job that is only full-time for four months per year. The job also includes full medical benefits and a pension plan, another draw for a young family.

The tax-free per diem of $300 per day while in Juneau is much more than adequate. Many of us paid around $1,500 per month in rent; some even had roommates, which made it lower. A few rented bigger houses, some owned condos and one even lived on a boat he owned. Between restaurants, cooking at home, eating in the legislative lounge and the various dinners and receptions we attended, food totaled around another $1,500 per month. Altogether, that leaves about $6,000 per month of untaxed income to send home, making the salary closer to $80,000 per year."

Nat Herz, a reporter who covers the legislature, thinks they should get the salary raise, but cut out the per diem.  That's not an unreasonable suggestion - though it has tax consequences for the legislators.  

These are the kind of things a good compensation study would have looked at in detail instead of making broad generalization about pay and then suggesting a huge increase without any back-up data.

We also heard from the governor and a legislator that the State department commissioners' salaries were too low in an Anchorage Daily News article about the first recommendations that were voted down by the legislature:

"[Senator] Stevens said Dunleavy has told him that he has struggled to hire commissioners on their current $125,000-per-year salaries. Eagle River Rep. Dan Saddler, who worked at Division of Natural Resources between stints serving in the Legislature, said $125,000 may sound like a lot of money, but that it can be an impediment to hiring highly skilled administrators.

“There are more opportunities in the private sector for people with those administrative talents,” he said."

 

In it for the money or to do public service? 

 This, again, gets back to the issue of whether being a commissioner is a regular job that people apply for because of the pay, or a way for a seasoned professional to spend a few years taking a cut in pay to do public service.  

A Brookings Institute study in 2002 which looked at Federal appointee salaries (not just cabinet secretaries) did not put much emphasis on the public service motive, but did say this:

"People who accept top federal appointments derive non-monetary benefits from their service, of course, and these benefits help to explain why government service continues to attract outstanding candidates. Many public-spirited Americans are eager to serve in influential or high-profile positions, even if the financial rewards are far below those obtainable in a private-sector job. Experience in a senior government job allows workers to acquire skills, knowledge, and reputation that may have considerable value outside the government. Few appointees say they are forced to accept a big cut in earnings when they leave federal office. More than one-third of the appointees who served between 1984 and 1999 say they modestly or significantly increased their earning power as a result of holding a senior administration job (Light and Thomas, 2000, p. 35)." (emphasis added)

The Center for Presidential Transition, answering the question "I Was Offered a Political Appointment—How Much Will I Be Paid?" in 2020, writes: 

 "The government does not pay senior officials the kind of money typically found in the private sector. In the government, you may run a multi-billion-dollar program with thousands of employees and make less (sometimes much less) than $200,000 per year. You should also not be surprised if you receive a political appointment and have subordinates who make more than you. Career employee pay is much more controlled by statute and regulations, and is not connected to the pay of political appointees."(emphasis added)

So what's a reasonable pay level for Alaska state commissioners? Chron  lists the salaries of the top appointees in the US federal government:

"Level I Officials [highest Federal level]

Twenty-one federal officials have Level I jobs and earn $210,700 annually, as of 2018. These positions include all cabinet secretaries, such as secretary of state, secretary of defense and secretary of education, as well as the U.S. attorney general, U.S. trade representative, the director of the Office of Management of Budget, the commission of Social Security for the Social Security Administration, the director of the National Drug Control Policy in the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the chairman of the Federal Reserve and the director of national intelligence."

I doubt that any Alaska commissioners have more responsibility than the top people in the US President's staff.  So this is easily a ceiling figure, though one could also argue being a Commissioner in Alaska doesn't carry the prestige of being a Cabinet member in Washington DC.

The Commission's Process Doesn't Follow Statutes

The Alaska Statutes clearly spell out some procedures the Compensation Board is supposed to follow:

(c) The commission shall meet at the call of the chair. Notice of a meeting shall be mailed to each member at least 20 days before the date scheduled for the meeting.

(d) The commission shall meet to discuss its findings and recommendations at least twice before submitting its final report to the presiding officers of each house of the legislature and the governor.

They did not give 20 days notice.  They came up with their recommendations in about two days after being appointed.  

They do not seem to have met twice.  And if their "final report" is just the salary recommendations with no data to support those recommendations, they truly have no defensible basis for their recommendations.  

There is no evidence they met twice.  

What can the Legislature do now? 

I'm not 100% sure.  I can't find the statute that says what the legislature can do with the Commission's recommendation.  I'm not sure one exists.  

I did call Rep. Andy Josephson because he's a lawyer and until the last Redistricting Board changed the boundaries of his district, he has been my representative.  I asked how much leeway the legislature has to change the Commission's recommendation.  He thought they could vote for part but not all, but they couldn't change it.  He said there was a statute, but couldn't immediately find it.  He also said that since the legislature writes the statute, they could also change it.  But, I responded, that defeats the idea of having an independent commission, rather than the legislators themselves, setting the legislative compensation.  He agreed.  

Rep. Josephson also reinforced the idea that this was a pre-arranged deal.  That the Commission was set up to make this proposal.  And since the Governor appoints the members, I understood that this came from the Governor's office.  

Should the legislature approve the recommendations, could a member of the public sue because the Commission didn't follow its procedures?  Anyone can sue, but I'm not sure how the courts would respond.  

Last observation about the work the Commission should have done

Over the last few days, spending maybe 3-5 total hours on this, I'm offering you a lot more information about how to think about appropriate salaries than the State's Compensation Commission offered in their January report.  The second Commission hasn't even posted their report, and given they came up with salary recommendations in about two days, I'm guessing they have no report.  Though, what I've written is hardly a comprehensive salary survey and analysis that would normally be the basis of a professional report, it's way beyond how the Commission considered its recommendations.  

Conclusion

The jobs of governor, state department heads, and legislators are fairly specialized and unique.  Unlike organizations with hundreds of types of jobs, there are only a few types of jobs here and not that many comparables - the 50 states and the federal government.  This sort of study is probably much easier and could be done in less time than such a study for Conoco-Phillips or the Municipality of Anchorage.  It's not that hard, but the Commission didn't even make a symbolic effort to outline the issue and justify their recommendations.

The salary commissioners have let Alaska down. Their work is unprofessional and highly unworthy of the people of Alaska. They didn't even follow the statutory process.   Our legislators need a fair compensation package, not a wholesale giveaway to get them to approve salary increases for the governor and his cabinet officials.  

The legislature should reject these recommendations and ask the governor to commission a serious compensation study.  Or the legislature could commission its own study.  From what I can tell, they don't have the power (and shouldn't) to set their own salaries. Such a study would give them a basis for voting yes or no on the recommendations and/or could form a basis for the Compensation Commission to make new recommendations.  

That's how things should go, from a legal and rational perspective.  But this has become a very political (not partisan that I can tell) decision.  

The Lazy Blogger

 For most of the life of this blog, I posted close to daily.  Within the last six months or so (maybe longer) I've given myself permission to slack off.  Why?  

• This should be fun, or at the very least satisfying for me.  
• There's so much crazy out there to write about it's hard to choose how to best spend one's time dealing with it.  
• When I write about important issues I want to do it right - get most of the key issues and back up what I saw with evidence and that often takes time.  But that means working harder than just popping off with my opinion
• Much of that crazy is simply intended to confound rational people, because 
• it isn't intended to make sense, 
• but to waste rational people's time as they try to 'expose' the lies
• The key things we need to focus on are:
• signing up non-voters, people who 
• have never voted because they aren't interested in politics
• have never voted because they weren't old enough and may not know how to vote and for some, are leery about doing something they aren't good at
• for those of us who went along with our parents when they voted, this may seem hard to believe, but lots of people have parents who didn't vote or didn't take them along to familiarize them with the process
• stopped voting because they think both parties are equally bad
• don't vote because they think their one vote doesn't make a difference
• developing scripts with evidence explaining 
• why voting is important
• that there is a huge difference between the parties
• that democracy is threatened if the GOP hold on to the House, regain the Senate, and/or the Presidency
• how to vote and how to get their non-voting friends to vote too
• [UPDATED MARCH 27, 2023 - How to distinguish between fact and fiction, human and bot.]

But we can't use ignore ALL the BS flying around.  So I do have some thoughts on the pay raise for the Governor, his commissioners, and the legislature among many other things.  But that's for later posts.  Enjoy the end of the weekend.  Do something you've never done before.  

Finally, There Are Lights Out, No Clouds, And I'm In Anchorage

 @AuroraNotify posts photos people take of Northern Lights.  In Anchorage we can see them start early in the day from Finland, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, then Canada.  But this fall/winter, it was usually cloudy when there were supposed to be good lights.  

And then we were out of town gramping when there were good lights and clear skies in Anchorage..  

But tonight had good lights predicted and clear skies.  I went out on the deck several times for about 15 minutes each.  You look up and it's like there are faint wisps of cloud, but you can see stars through the wisps and they move. 

The fourth time I went out the faint wisps exploded.  These pics are from my iPhone.  What I saw was much, much brighter but not as colorful.  The phone picks up things my eyes don't.  But here are a few sudden bursts of light right over the deck.  

This all happened in about five minutes or less.  And then things went back to faint gauzy ghosts floating and shapeshifting in the sky.  

The Ides of March Is A Good Day To Watch Shakespeare's Julius Caesar

 This cast has some of the biggest names of the day - Marlon Brandon, John Gielgud, James Mason, Deborah Kerr, Greer Garson . . .

From the Internet Archive:

Teaching English To A Refugee In Alaska - Polishing Old Skills

RAIS is the Alaska Catholic Social Service's Refugee Assistance and Immigration Service.  Last summer I volunteered to tutor English for them, but I decided that I did not want to go into someone's house regularly during COVID.  They said some of their clients live outside of Anchorage and maybe we can do this online.  

Several weeks ago they got back to me.  A refugee living outside of Anchorage wanted lessons. (I'm going to be vague to protect confidentiality.)

In Peace Corps training back in 1966 and 1967 we got killer training for Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL).  The trainer in charge of the TEFL lessons was like a teaching machine.  She had a technique and a style that, in hindsight, was a really good way to teach a foreign language AND the lessons were good for teaching any class.  I can't believe her name escapes me at the moment.  I used to have nightmares about her watching me practice teach.  [UPDATE March 11, 2023 - It was Phyllis!]

A 50 minute class consists of

• 5 minutes of pronunciation drill
• 10 minutes of vocabulary lessons
• 20-25 minutes of grammar drills
• 20-25 minutes of reading the lesson in the text out loud and questions and answers about the text

The pronunciation drill would be related to some of the words in the vocabulary lesson.  The vocabulary would come from the reading in that chapter.  The grammar drills focused on lots of oral repetition using the grammar we were working on.  And, of course, it included the vocabulary and sounds we just did.  There might be a sentence and after the students could repeat it fairly well, I'd give them words that they used to replace words in the sentence.  This was a good way to see if they understood it or whether they were just parroting stuff they didn't understand.  

We had a Level 3 English textbook at training that was used in Thai high schools.  The readings in the chapters were about Thai history, US history, and British history.  (I learned the basics of key Thai historic figures that way.)

When I arrived at my school, I found they were using the same book we had trained with.  And the class was at a chapter that I had done a practice lesson on in training in DeKalb, Illinois.  It felt like magic.  

So, using what I learned then,I've started preparing my lesson plans, though now I can do that with Keynote (Apple's version of PowerPoint.).  My student is highly motivated, already speaks fluent enough English, but grammar and vocabulary are limited and pronunciation could be improved as well.  Lesson 3 is tomorrow morning (Saturday).  So far he's put up with my very packed lessons with good humor.  I think I will have to ease back a bit - I can't sustain that level of effort.  But we've got lots of material to work with over the next month.  I told him he's my boss and he has to tell me what he wants and then I'll do it. But, of course, his texts also alert me to sentences and grammar he needs to work on.    

As I've been reading online to get foreign language teaching tips, I found one that both of us like:  Learn the words to English songs you like.  He's suggested the Beatles "Yesterday."  So I'm going to see what sort of grammar and pronunciation lessons we develop using the lyrics as a starting point.  (I used "Hello, Goodbye" once in Thailand.  Very easy lyrics.)

I'll look at the grammar they use, and then try to substitute words to make a lot more useful sentences from the lyrics.  

Learning to teach English as a Peace Corps volunteer meant we were learning Thai using the same method that we were preparing to teach our students with.  That's a very humbling experience which gave me a much better understanding of what my students were struggling with.  What looks so obvious to a native speaker seems impenetrable to a non-native speaker.  Sounds they make in Thai, we simply couldn't distinguish at the beginning.  So I had a lot more patience than I probably would have when my Thai students had the same problems I had and was still having trying to speak Thai.  Thais only have eight final consonant sounds.  Eight!  B, D,  K, N, NG, M, P.  (I checked online and they include W and Y, but it seems to me that those really become vowel sounds.)  But that means Thais have a LOT of trouble with all the consonants and consonant clusters (RD, ST, CH, NK, etc.)

So I've been looking at specific pronunciation issues that speakers of my students native language have.  

That's been using a lot of my creativity.  

I also learned in our first meeting that one of his sponsors is someone I've spent a fair amount of time with in the last couple of years.  

Getting Boosted Does Help, And The Older You Are The More It Helps

As some of you know, I've been monitoring COVID data since March 2020 and posting updates as the State updates their dashboards, which is now weekly on Tuesdays.  Today I speculated that the folks getting sick enough to be hospitalized and to die are likely to skew older and unvaccinated.  And I try not to say such things without back up data on here, so I looked it up.  And it's supported by the data - boosted folks don't get as sick or die as often.  Old folks get sicker and die more.  

I infrequently post the COVID updates in the main part of the blog.  You can see them at the tab on top labeled Alaska COVID-19 Count 3  May 2021 - ???.

So here's today's update (yes, it's Tuesday).  And in the tabbed updates there's also an introduction and some tables where I updated the numbers as they got posted.  Early on it was every day, then three days a week, and now weekly as the state chose to update less frequently.  I began the charts because in the beginning the state didn't put up anything except that day's numbers and you had no way to see if things were getting better or worse.  

Tuesday, March 7, 2023 - Positive tests up 132 from last week's 450, no new deaths reported (doesn't mean there weren't any, just not reported yet), and hospitalizations down from last week's 44 to this week's 35, but this week there's someone on a vent while there hadn't been for several weeks.  Available ICU beds up by four to 33 statewide, but remain at two in Anchorage.  

The takeaway?  COVID is still here.  Most people seem to be less sick, but some get sick enough to be hospitalized.  I haven't dug deeply enough into the state data to know who is still getting hospitalized and who's dying.  Presumably a) those with little or no immunization and those who are older, if we go by national trends.  

From the CDC - you can see the odds of being hospitalized go up by age, and it's starker for deaths.  (This chart is as of Feb 6, 2023)

Here's one from Washington State that shows both hospitalizations and deaths by vaccination status.  Again, those getting boosters were significantly, but not absolutely, better protected from hospitalization and dying.

Supreme Court Redistricting Decision Is Still Being Written - What I'd Like To See Them Address

 It's been nine months since the Supreme Court first ruled on the Alaska Redistricting Board.  That was a relatively short opinion which just answered the most immediate questions - was the latest plan acceptable and if not what needs to be done?.  They left themselves until later date to write up their reasoning for the decisions they made.  

The Alaska Court system suspends the pay of judges who don't complete their written decisions within six months of the trial..  But the Supreme Court is a little different because there isn't just one judge.  The judges who sat on the case must all agree or complete their dissenting opinions.  The Court's clerk explained to me that a draft is written and circulated to the judges.  If there are changes, the six months clock is reset.  

The Redistricting decision is no longer time sensitive.  Given that the Court hasn't issued their decision suggests to me that the last Proclamation Plan will be the plan for the rest of the decade.  If not, they needed to let the Board know that early enough to make adjustments for the 2024 election.  If there were going to be any changes, they would be limited to a few Anchorage Senate seats at most.  So, I could be wrong, but I suspect the Courts longer, explanatory decision will leave the current Proclamation plan in place.  

The decision they are currently writing will be for the 2030 Redistricting Board.  They are taking their time, I assume, so the next redistricting board will have the clearest possible guidelines for what they should be doing and should not be doing when they divide the state into 40 House districts and 20 Senate Districts.

I've discussed some of the key outstanding issues in a Previous post.  I'm repeating part of that post here.  I've made some changes and added part 4.

Some things the Court ought to answer:

1.  Explain what appears to some as a contradiction between past rulings that said everything within a Borough boundary is considered Socio-Economically Integrated (SEI) and their finding this time that Senate pairings in Anchorage were political gerrymandering.  Those two findings are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but since the Board's attorney's mantra was "everything within a Borough is SEI" based on previous Court rulings, the Board majority seemed to think that then they could pair any two contiguous house districts within the Municipality of Anchorage, and it would be fine. (Contiguity being the main legal criterion for a Senate pairing.)  Aren't things like race, economics, political leanings part of Socio-Economic Integration? Why then are factors like race, economics, and political leanings  within a single Municipality  indicators of political gerrymandering?  That needs to be explained.  And maybe the past rulings about everything in a Borough being SEI should be adjusted to reflect the differences within a Borough as populous as the Municipality of Anchorage.  Here's a post I did looking at past rulings about SEI.

[UPDATED Sept 4, 2022:  Maybe this is better focused:  I'd like to see the Court explain how they differentiate the criteria used to determine political gerrymandering and the criteria used for Socio-Economic Integration (SEI).  If Board Member Marcum hadn't mentioned that ER would have gotten an extra Senate seat, would the other characteristics of the two paired house districts been irrelevant?  At one point in the Supreme Court hearing there's an interaction between Board attorney Singer and Supreme Court Justice Warren Matthews [not to be confused with Superior Court Judge Thomas Matthews or Board attorney Matthew Singer] on terms like 'communities of interest,' and 'equal protection.'  It would be nice if they could explain clearly the different concepts that Attorney Singer discussed and how the Court distinguishes between the idea that a Borough, by definition, is SEI, but, as Justice Matthews pointed out, there are differences in communities of interest within the Borough of Anchorage.]

2. Address the issue of geographic contiguity.  While the House districts paired in the revised map were technically contiguous, the borders that were touching were in unpopulated and roadless mountain areas.  While that 'connected' the two districts physically, the communities in those two districts were geographically far apart (relative to the population of Anchorage) and not really sensible political units. 

"Auto-contiguity" came up as a concept.  That 'auto' refers to cars - can you drive from one part of the district to another without leaving the district?  This was an issue in the Valdez/Mat-Su case and in the Eagle River Senate pairings. 

 I understand that being contiguous in large, roadless rural districts will sometimes require those rural Senate seats to have much less ideal connections between communities.  But in urban areas where there is much greater population density, it seems more than reasonable to consider contiguity as a continuum from "more to less," than an "either/or, yes/no," evaluation.  It was clear that the Board majority paired HD 22 and HD 9 with such an unusable border for political reasons.  The Hickel Decision tell us that

"In addition to preventing gerrymandering, the requirement that districts be composed of relatively integrated socio-economic areas helps to ensure that a voter is not denied his or her right to an equally powerful vote."

In urban areas, extreme contiguity such as we had, should also be an indicator of possible gerrymandering,  particularly when much more natural contiguity alternatives are available.  

3.  Explain why the Supreme Court disagreed with Judge Matthews' finding that the Board needed to pay more attention to public testimony in the Skagway case.  Did they disagree with his reasoning on the Board's need to justify why they were making a decision that was contrary to the overwhelming public testimony?  As I understand it, they basically said, it didn't matter since the district met the criteria for a district.  

4.  The State Constitution says that Board Members should be chosen without regard to political party.  This has rarely been the what actually happens.  And in this case, the Governor picked three Board members who were not only Republicans, but were highly partisan Republicans who, in the end pursued maps that were clearly politically gerrymandered.  Budd Simpson even testified that he was selected for the Board because there are many Republicans in Southeast.  The Court did not really deal with this clear violation of the Constitution by the Governor in selecting Board members.  But perhaps it was on their minds when they said the Board was guilty of illegal gerrymandering with some Anchorage Senate seats.  It would be very helpful if the Board set some standards for dealing with such partisan choices by those given the power to choose Board members. If they don't, they are essentially saying that that part of the Constitution is unenforceable.  

5.  There was a request from Calista plaintiffs that ANCSA boundaries be found acceptable as local boundaries for the Board to use making their maps.  This makes some sense in situations where those boundaries connect villages (water districts, schools, roads).  But the for-profit Native corporations are just that: profit making corporations that have a lot of power.  We wouldn't want corporations, say like Conoco or Monsanto, to have their own corporate political districts.  I think the Native Corporations have the burden of proof here that they are sufficiently different, in ways that matter to elections, that it would be okay. Or the Court could identify which ANCSA boundaries might be permissible and which might not.  Would making a district that exactly matched the boundaries of a Native Corporation be legal?  By refusing to accept Cantwell into the larger 'Calista' district, the Court suggests probably not.  More clarification would be helpful.  

6.  Also on hold has been the decision about whether the Board has to pay attorney fees for the Girdwood plaintiffs.