Awful Layout Design

I got to part B of the paper today and was startled to see this picture and headline.

These two stories just should not be placed together.  A picture of five family members matches the five people around the table above.  Someone wasn't paying attention.  I don't know enough about how the stories are laid out, but I know this is just wrong.

What Did He Know And When Did He Know It? Still The Relevant Questions

Those were the questions the Watergate committee and the media asked about Richard Nixon's knowledge of the Watergate break in.  He claimed he knew nothing until very late and then when he learned he acted quickly.

Alexander Butterfield told the committee on July 13, 1973 that Nixon taped all his White House conversations.  I was in a closet that I'd made into a darkroom when he said that and it was clear this changed everything.   But then the stalling came.  Executive privilege prevented the White House from handing the tapes to the committee. 

Yesterday, the Alaska Dispatch News and the Alaska Public Media filed suit against Governor Sean Parnell for not releasing emails and other information that would help them understand and report on what Parnell knew about the sexual harassment and general toxic environment at the Alaska National Guard and when he knew it.  The article in today's ADN  says it took the Parnell administration four months to deny the request from the Alaska Public Media and three months to deny the ADN request. 

"Under separate requests, Alaska Dispatch News reporter Lisa Demer and Alaska Public Radio Network reporter Alexendra Gutierrez sought access to guard-related emails to or from Nizich. Because chaplains within the Alaska National Guard had sent their growing concerns about the agency’s toxic climate to Nizich’s personal email account, reporters asked that guard-related correspondence from Nizich’s personal email account also be provided to the media.

In April, during an interview with APRN, Parnell said that once he learned about the communication to Nizich’s personal email account, he directed his top aide to forward any such emails to his state account, where they would then become a public record."

The article offers explanations for the denial:

"In denial letters sent Sept. 26, Ruaro explained several exemptions and laws that allowed the emails to be withheld, including deliberative process and the need to protect “the right to privacy of victims and alleged victims.”
Ruaro also stated that people accused of misconduct also have a constitutional right to privacy when disclosure of the material “could reasonably lead to embarrassment, harm, or retaliation.” Finally, he cited that confidentiality also extends to members of the clergy, in whom victims have confided." [highlight added]

You can read the whole letter denying the material from the governor's chief of staff here.


John McKay's (the attorney for the ADN and APM on this - and, to fully disclose here,  for myself  when I was threatened with legal action if I didn't take down a blog post - takes issue with the governor's reasons for withholding the requested information.  You can see the full document online here.  My numbers correspond with the numbers in McKay's filing.  I've summarized some of McKay's key points responding to the reasons the governor's office gave for denying the requests.

20.  That while state law presumes the public records are disclosable and that doubts should be resolved in favor of disclosure, the governor has taken a narrow restrictive approach, “resolving doubts in favor of secrecy, delaying responses . . .discouraging pursuit of legitimate requests, and otherwise failing to comply fully, timely, and effectively. . ."

21.  Governor is wrongfully withholding documents that would “help explain the circumstances of the NG Scandal . . . [and] would allow the public to better assess the accuracy and candor” of what the Governor says on this.

22.  Didn’t provide an index identifying documents being withheld and the reason for withholding them as required by the law. 

23.  For documents that might be subject to privilege or redaction, Governor has not released those parts that are not subject to privilege or redaction.

24. - 26.  Governor previously told press that the emails to Chief of Staff Nizich would be made publicly available.

While there is room for interpretation, I'd say points 22 and 23 don't leave much wiggle room for the governor. 

The suit asks the court to take nine actions.  Again, I've abbreviated them and you can see the full language here.)

1. That the court order the governor to turn over the documents without delay.
2. For documents not turned over immediately because of claims of privilege, that the governor turn over a log of the withheld documents and the specific privilege claimed for withholding each.
3. Unless the governor moots this request by handing everything over immediately, that the employees of the governor’s office certify to the court that:    
1. they’ve made a diligent search for the documents requested and
2. that they've turned over everything, and if not when they were asked to do so by a superior and why they had not
4. That Chief of Staff Mike Nizich certify that he
1.  has been directed by the Governor to locate and forward to his state email account emails relating to the Guard in his private email account
2. He fully complied
3. If not, why he failed to do so and whether and when he advised the governor of his failure to do so
5. Order any documents or records relating to the NG Scandal not already turned over be preserved.
6. Court issue temporary, preliminary and/or permanent injunctive relief against the governor, his office, and anyone working for them, restraining them from further obstructing or delaying or denying access to the relevant documents.
7. Court enter a declaratory judgment finding the governor’s office  has failed to comply.
8. Court enter other such relief it deems just and appropriate.
9. Court award the ADN and Alaska Public Media their costs and attorney fees

I find it ironic that the governor is pleading for the privacy rights, based on the Alaska Constitution, of the accused here, people whose names in many cases have already been before the public,  though he's not shown any concern about those rights being violated for women seeking reproductive health services or for gays and lesbians seeking to get married. 

As the lawsuit says, protected confidential information can easily be redacted and the information not protected should have already been turned over. 

Nixon fought as hard as he legally could to hold on to the tapes. He even ignored suggestions that he burn them. Nixon’s lawyers argued before the Supreme Court that the tapes were protected by executive privilege. On July 24, 1974, the justices decided differently. By a vote of 8 to 0 — Justice William Rehnquist recused himself — Nixon was ordered to turn over the tapes.
Fifteen days later, the president of the United States resigned.  [The whole article is here.  The link in he quote goes to another article on Nixon's resignation.]

The Parnell case is trivial compared to the Nixon case, though for Parnell, in a competitive race for reelection, it could cost him the election if the information shows he knew more sooner than he has so far revealed.  The delays could also just indicate the lack of understanding and ineptness of his staff.  

I've been unusually harsh on this topic of the National Guard because I know that the governor could have and should have taken action much sooner.  I got emails after posting about Katkus' confirmation hearings in 2010 from National Guard folks that were long and credible about the depth of corruption in the guard.  If I got such information based on a brief comment in a longer post, the governor had equally credible reports then too.  I didn't act on it because my correspondents didn't want to give names or specific details.  And I wasn't the man ultimately responsible for the National Guard.  The governor is and was.  Many people's lives were seriously harmed because of the governor's ineffective response to this situation.  And the governor has the long report on the problems with the guard.  All the media are trying to do now, is determine the accuracy of Parnell's declarations that he did all he could with the information he had. 

Do You Know What's Going On In Your Brain? Some Brief Comments With Links

Some items of interest: 

The Hidden Brain: How Ocean Currents Explain Our Unconscious Social Biases  - A book I'd heard about before and which sounds important for anyone interested in how we know things - a major focus of this blog.  The link takes you to an extensive Brain Pickings review of the book with lots of examples, many of unconscious bias against women.

 

History of the New York Jazz Museum - this came in the form of a comment on the movie The Wrecking Crew which mentioned it took them a long time to get the film out because of trouble getting rights to use the music.  Howard E. Fischer has the same problem getting out his movie on the history of the Jazz Museum in Manhattan  You can help him out here.  Here are some questions he says, on the website he linked to, that are answered in the movie.

1.    Which musician’s funeral in 1939 attracted 10,000 mourners and an 80-car funeral procession?

2.     How did substance abuse affect these musicians' lives and what Charlie Parker said about it?
3.     What was probably the most significant activity in all their lives that lead to their success?
4.     Which swing musicians influenced beboppers Charlie Parker, Dizzy Gillespie and Miles Davis?
5.     How did the jazz environment affect these musicians’ lifestyles and deaths?
6.     How are these musicians celebrated more than 50 years later in the case of one and more 70 years later in the case of the others?

Dispatch/Anchorage Daily News Morph

Aside from just noting that it happened, I've held off on comments.  I had a couple of posts relating to the Daily News that I was working on when the news came out.  I'm still letting the idea settle.  In the meantime, this piece from the Press seems to raise relevant questions:  Good News For People Who Love Bad News.

 

 

Alaska Dispatch Is Buying The Anchorage Daily News For $34 million

Not sure if you still have time to offer McClatchy (the parent corporation) $35 million.  I suspect not.  


I just got this email from Strategies360 Alaska a firm with principles [principals] David Shurtleff (former KSKA news guy), Ethan Berkowitz (former Demomcratic state legislator and congressional and gubernatorial candidate), and Taylor Bickford (former executive director of the Alaska Redistricting Board).  Berkowitz wasn't on the communication, but a person I don't know, a fourth principle, Aileen Cole.  It's part of a national firm that does research, public relations, and advocacy.  (Bickford seems to be, for example, the spokesperson for the proposition to make marijuana legal in Alaska.)
[Update 5pm:  A close relative seemingly disagreeing with the Supreme Court's belief that corporations are people, suggested they couldn't have principles.  I'm not sure we can't say that a firm with principled leaders has good principles, but what I meant was principals.]

Since I don't know  more at the moment, I'll just give you their press release, it gives lots of the details:

Alaska Dispatch Publishing LLC to Purchase Anchorage Daily News

ANCHORAGE, AK—APRIL 8, 2014—Alaska Dispatch Publishing LLC, the owner and publisher of Alaska Dispatch, has reached an agreement to purchase the Anchorage Daily News from The McClatchy Company (NYSE: MNI).

Founded in 2008, Alaska Dispatch is an award-winning site at the forefront of the national movement toward independent online news. Alice Rogoff, a longtime supporter of journalism and a former chief financial officer of U.S. News and World Report, became the majority owner of Alaska Dispatch LLC in 2009. Since then, the operation has employed writers, editors, and a full-time sales staff. Rogoff is the publisher and chief executive while co-founder Tony Hopfinger is the executive editor and president.

"We founded Alaska Dispatch to ensure the future of quality journalism in Alaska," said Hopfinger. "We've established ourselves as a leader in investigative reporting, public service journalism, and in offering a variety of opinions and perspectives from around the state, and we've been recognized with regional and national awards. We're proud of what we have accomplished in the last five years, and we couldn't be more excited about this new venture."

The Anchorage Daily News, the largest newspaper in Alaska, has a long history of distinguished journalism, winning two Pulitzer Prizes for public service in 1976 and 1989. “We’re excited to add the many talented and accomplished employees of the Anchorage Daily News to our team,” said Rogoff.

“The Anchorage Daily News and Alaska Dispatch play vital roles in our great state,” said Rogoff. “By merging these operations, we can serve as a stronger, even more comprehensive resource for Alaskans for their news and information. Our mission is to offer a level of coverage never before seen in Alaska history, and to offer it to readers across the state through a variety of mediums.

"We expect to publish news and commentary for all Alaskans, from oil field workers on the North Slope to Southeast fishermen; from those whose roots go back thousands of years to newcomers fresh off the plane; from our biggest cities to our most remote villages and everywhere in between. We want to provide a true public forum where Alaskans from all walks of life can come together to help build our community.”

The purchase price is $34 million, payable at closing, which is anticipated to occur in May of 2014.

The transaction covers the Anchorage Daily News, their website adn.com, and the newspaper’s real property and operations in Anchorage. After the purchase is completed, the real estate assets of the Anchorage Daily News will be sold by Alaska Dispatch to a private local buyer. The Anchorage Daily News will continue operations as a tenant from its East Anchorage location.

###

Alaska Dispatch was co-founded by Tony Hopfinger, Amanda Coyne and Todd Hopfinger in 2008. In 2009, Alice Rogoff, a longtime supporter of journalism and a former chief financial officer of U.S. News and World Report, became the majority owner of Alaska Dispatch LLC, and the operation expanded to employ writers, editors, and a full-time sales staff. Rogoff is the publisher and chief executive while Hopfinger is the executive editor and president.

Pt Capital, based in Anchorage, serves as the buyer's financial adviser.

I do know that the ADN has been struggling and the Dispatch, which only has an online presence (to my knowledge) has been aggressive and covering Alaska news more comprehensively than the ADN.


[UPDATE 3:22pm:  From Reuters:

The sale of the newspaper to Alaska Dispatch Publishing marks the first time a local news upstart has purchased the local daily newspaper in its market.
Alice Rogoff, publisher of the online-only Alaska Dispatch, said the deal was meant to serve Alaskans, many of whom still read a print newspaper.
"Advertisers still view it as a useful medium," she said.
Rogoff, a former chief financial officer of U.S. News and World Report, said Alaska Dispatch plans to produce more news in print and online with the purchase of the newspaper.

Upstart?  Why not just say "online' publisher?  

The Reuters report also quotes McClatchy's president:

"We weren't looking to sell the Daily News, but after Alaska Dispatch Publishing approached us, we saw advantages to local ownership in this case and opportunities for consolidation that would strengthen both news organizations," Talamantes said.

Local ownership is a great goal, but the person who's been paying for the Dispatch, as I've understood it, Alice Rogoff, lives in New York.  But the co-founders and co-owners are Alaskans.  [UPDATE 4/9/ 2:30pm:  A reader with an Alaska Dispatch email account wrote me to say that Alice Rogoff has gradually moved to Alaska over the last ten years.  And has been a full time Alaskan for a while now. And she lived in DC, not New York (but then the East Coast is all the same thing, right?) Big mistake on my part - my apologies.  The Dispatch has a story about her today.]

ADN's Lisa Demer Writes Nice Article On Questionable Legislative Office Contract

The story takes up most of the top half of the front page and all of the back page.  It's great to see pieces like this, that obviously took a bit of investigative time, in the ADN, which has been getting slimmer for a long time.

Basically it raises the following questions:

• Was the contract a good deal?  
• different people measure costs different ways
• can this special building be compared to going square foot rate?
• Did the Legislative Council fool around for 11 years until they had no choice?
• there were other choices that weren't followed up on
• Did developer Mark Pfeffer land the deal because 
• he had lots of political juice?
• he worked harder than other developers?
• he had a better product? 

  

A Good Contract?
 
     Measuring Costs:    

Demer gives the square foot price for the building given by the developer and the Legislative Affairs office as $6.21* per square foot compared to 

"Downtown, high-end office suites are going for $2 to $3 a square foot a month"

But a 'semiretired commercial broker, Larry Norene' whom Demer quotes a lot for an alternative view, thinks the numbers are fudged because the State uses gross square footage instead of  "net usable square feet" and because a lot of costs that normally are part of the rent such as "property taxes, building insurance, utilities, routine maintenance or janitorial service" will be paid for extra by the Legislature.  And there's also the $7 million of the renovation costs that the Legislature will pay for.

The new building, we're told by the state, will cost $3.4 million a year for the lease, but with the other extra expenses (tax, maintenance, etc.) and the renovation costs, Norene estimates it will come to $5 million per year.

Compared to the old  "$682,356 a year for a "full-service" lease."

Pam Varni of the Legislative Affairs is quoted as writing:  

"Our annual savings will be $528,344" 

Demer goes on to explain:

"But that wasn't savings compared to what the Legislature was paying -- once everything is added up, the state will pay about $4 million more each year. Instead, it was based on Lowe's calculation that the new building would have a "market rental value" of $3.9 million a year, compared to the $3.4 million that Pfeffer and Hawker agreed to."

According to the story, the state will pay about $5 million a year compared to the $682,356 a year they pay now.

     Is this a special building?

The explanation those defending the contract gave for the higher price was:  This is a specialized building - like

"churches and schools and courthouses and government office buildings and aviation facilities. I could go on and on. Sports facilities."

Consider a shuttered church building, he said. It will only sell for its full value to another church. Any other user would likely get a deal because it wouldn't have much use for a worship hall's special construction, stained glass windows, pews and altar. His report said prisons, medical buildings and sewage treatment plants also are examples of special-purpose facilities.

This is putting it on thick.

Anyone who's been to Polaris K-12 School knows you can even turn a movie theater into a school.    This is not nearly as special as a prison or sewer treatment plant.  It's offices and a meeting room.  And certainly no more security than many of the other office buildings downtown. Definitely less than the Federal building and the State Court building not to mention Concoco-Phillips. 

The head of the Legislative Council, Mike Hawker is quoted:

"The main hearing room sometimes couldn't handle all the constituents trying to attend, and it was tucked away on the second floor, reachable by one slow elevator."

How often is 'sometimes'?  Once every few years?  I've been to Redistricting Board meetings there and to a few legislative hearings - like the ones for HB 110.  

Back half of LIO Public Meeting Room Anchorage

There was no problem with capacity.  And if they're going to have a really big meeting, the Egan Center and Dena'ina Centers are nearby.

True, the elevator is small and slow, but there are stairs too.  Tucked away?  Then so are the House of Representatives' chambers tucked away on the second floor in Juneau.  That's silly.  That's painting a dire image to justify the change.  Don't get me wrong.  The existing offices were not luxury, but they were no worse than, say, many University faculty have as their full time offices.  (Most legislators have other full time jobs and only spend a great deal of time in their Juneau offices during the session.) 

It does need good teleconferencing facilities, but that's not too difficult to find in 2013.  And with the $4 million a year extra they'll be paying, they could get some pretty fancy stuff.

One reason for the 'good' numbers from the State, the article suggests, is that the appraiser, a Mr. Lowe, was an old friend of Mark Pfeffer.  (Read the article for more on that.)

From Wikipedia - click to focus

Did the Legislative Council fool around for 11 years until they had no choice?

"The council had been searching for replacement space since 2002 but nothing worked out, Hawker says. The Legislative Affairs Agency issued requests for proposals in a competitive procurement process in 2002 and again in 2003. The agency sent out five informal requests for information to see what was available, in 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011 and 2013."

In their defense, I'll say that it's hard when there's no real boss to make the final decision and they have to get a majority to agree. But this isn't like Congress where one house is Republican and the other Democratic.  Or the US House where a chunk of the Republicans threatens retaliation against their fellow Republicans (not to mention the minority Democrats) if they don't march to their inflexible orders.  Over an 11 year period, this looks like lack of focus and leadership to make a good deal for the citizens of Alaska.

"We were stuck with what we had because nobody had done anything and our lease was up," [Republican Representative] Pruitt said.

"State Rep. Bill Stoltze, R-Chugiak and a member of the Legislative Council that agreed to let Hawker negotiate the terms, said he has "renter's remorse." Stoltze, co-chairman of the House Finance Committee, said he mistakenly assumed the council would get to sign off on the terms when it agreed on June 7 to let Hawker negotiate.
"Bad on me," Stoltze said in an interview. "It was off to the races after that enabling vote."

That's what I call taking responsibility:  "Bad on me."  Possibly tens of millions of dollars in unnecessary costs and the consequence for Stoltze is 'bad on me."  (But at least he admitted a mistake, that's not something legislators do very often.)   Stolze is the guy who once spent ten minutes at Leg Council arguing why the legislature shouldn't allow its members to access Facebook from the Capitol building computers.  This was after saying he knew nothing at all about Facebook. 

Apparently there were a lot of choices over the years, but the Legislative Council couldn't get its act together to follow up on them.  

"Promising prospects fell through; the council failed to move quickly enough, the other party backed out or the property was too expensive."

"In response to the 2011 query, builders, developers, brokers and landowners -- among them some of the most prominent in town -- offered up a total of 24 possibilities for new legislative space. Twenty-two were within the specified geographic boundaries that started downtown, stretched south to Tudor Road then east to Gambell Street."

There was a Mental Health Trust parcel downtown. 

"The Legislature could have ended up there in a new building for much less than the cost of the renovated Fourth Avenue building, according to an analysis put together in 2011.

"We never got a response," said John Morrison, chief administrative officer of the Mental Health Trust Land Office. That lot now is being marketed anew." [emphasis added]

And there was

"the old Unocal oil company building at 909 W. Ninth Avenue as its No. 1 choice. Legislators were skittish about making an offer, and a deal involving NANA Development Corp. beat them out. Pfeffer, who is part owner of the building with Bristol Bay Native Corp. listed as majority owner, was the developer. The redone building is now a striking new NANA office."

And when they missed that opportunity, Demer writes:

"There's no evidence the council re-examined the next best sites."

Did developer Mark Pfeffer land the deal because 

• he had lots of political juice?
  No question here.  The article points out all the Leg Council members Pfeffer had contributed to. 
  

  "On the current Legislative Council, Republican Reps. Hawker, Pruitt, Stoltze, Craig Johnson, Alan Austerman and House Speaker Mike Chenault, as well as Sens. Peter Micciche, Lesil McGuire, Kevin Meyer, Gary Stevens and Senate President Charlie Huggins, all got donations from Pfeffer their last campaign. So did Democrats Max Gruenberg, Dennis Egan and Lyman Hoffman, who like Austerman is an alternate. Only Rep. Peggy Wilson of Wrangell and Sen. John Coghill of Fairbanks, both Republicans, didn't report any contributions from Pfeffer."

  Follow the Money, in a report on attempts to privatize prisons in Alaska, says that Pfeffer's company's contributions to Alaska politicians from 1998 to 2006 were second only to VECO's (by quite a bit).
  

  "KOONCE, PFEFFER AND BETTIS

  Mark E. Pfeffer, founder of architect and design firm Koonce, Pfeffer and Bettis, gave $96,775 between 1998 and 2006. Democratic legislators got $20,600 and $63,825 went to Republicans. He gave $1,000 each to Gov. Knowles in 1998 and Murkowski-Leman in 2002. He also contributed $9,500 to the Alaska Republican Party."

  
  Back to the ADN article:
  

  "Mark has been involved in political and civic activities for many years," his marketing director, Slinker, said. "He does not target any special interests or particular candidates. Mark believes in the civic process and has a history of participating at the city, state and federal levels."

  "[He] believes in the civic process"?  What does that mean in this context?  Giving money to all politicians so that whoever wins, they'll see me and help me out?
  
  It's my experience that people give money to politicians for a number of reasons:
  
  • The are friends with the candidate
  • They are in alignment with the candidate's and/or party's platform
  • They are supporting the candidate's stand on a particular issue
  • For personal gain in the form (for example) of
  • greater access to the politician and information
  • favorable treatment in government contracts
  The first three can be idealistic and the only expected personal benefit is that the official will support one's world view, but not give personal favors.
  
  But when someone gives money to candidates of different parties with different ideologies who were not personal friends before the candidate entered politics, then we're left to assume they are doing it for the last reason.  
  
  And when almost all the politicians on the Council, that will decide a contract that the contributor has had an ongoing interest in acquiring, get maximum allowable financial support,  it becomes more than just a little suspcious. 
  
  
•  he worked harder than other developers?
  
  I don't doubt this.  Most business owners try to do their business and really want to have as little to do with government as possible.  But there is also a segment of business owners who have figured out how government procurement works and like playing that potentially lucrative game. Pfeffer's company has made a lot of money out of government construction in Anchorage.
  

  "Pfeffer has been involved in numerous big public-private projects -- the Dena'ina Civic & Convention Center, the Linny Pacillo parking garage, the NANA office and the Alaska Regional Hospital expansion.He also is part of the group that owns Anchorage City Hall."

  I suspect that Pfeffer knew that there was a lot of money to be made and that not many other players were in the game.  The odds were good that he might win.  Of the 22 possible sites that met the location criteria in 2011, the ADN writes:
  

  "Pfeffer Development pitched five ideas, including a view lot on L Street between Seventh and Eighth avenues that made it to the top five list."

• he had a better product?
  
  It seems from what I've cited above from the ADN article, that Pfeffer really wanted part of this action.  As the five other proposals he'd been part of failed, and the end of the contract came near, he bought into the building the Legislature was already using.
  

  "Pfeffer is a prominent and politically active Anchorage developer who bought into the Fourth Avenue building and neighboring Anchor Pub and Club earlier this year."

  The article says the current owner was difficult to work with, but when Pfeffer got involved, "legislators saw opportunity."
  
  Does he have a better product?  Probably not in terms of the facilities and the cost.  But probably in his ability to negotiate a deal with politicians, lubricated, I'm sure, by his campaign contributions.  I'd note that the Alaska Public Offices Commission report on his contributions shows that most of the Leg Council members got the maximum allowable contribution ($500 per year) from Pfeffer  for 2011 and 2012.
  
  

Conclusion

As go through all this, it seems pretty clear to me that we have:

1. A political body that
1. is not particularly well focused, efficient, or effective
2. has more incentive to get advice from the people they should be negotiating against than to stand firm for the best interests of Alaskan citizens
2. A politically savvy contractor who has learned how to work governmental contracts, particularly those worked out with politicians and whose checkbook is busy during campaign season

The Legislature does NOT sit down and prioritize their spending.  Some committees might do that, but overall, the legislature puts together their budget piece meal.

Did anyone in the Legislature weigh the benefits to the state of having fancier offices against getting, say, running water and sewage systems into the rural Alaskan villages that still don't have them?  Or getting Alaska out of the top ten states in rape statistics?  But that's expecting way too much.  After all, these are the folks who were convinced by the oil companies that the only way the companies could eke out a profit in Alaska was with a $2 billion a year tax break. 

At the end of 10 years, the state will have paid $50 million in rent.  If they'd just built or bought their own building, they would at least have own the building at the end of that time.  As it is, they'll be back in the same place they are now.  


I hope that Lisa Demer and the ADN don't think I've ripped off their article for this post. It's really meant as a nod of appreciation for doing this kind of work. We need a lot more of this kind of reporting. I hope my post adds a little value to all the hard work you've already done. And I'd add, buildings and leases are at least tangible and relatively understandable to most readers. We also need this kind of investigation into the more complex legislation that is passed in Juneau. And readers might consider that if the Legislature fiddles around on something relatively simple like a building, and are so influenced by savvy contractors, how badly are they doing on other legislation?


* for the first five years, and then when the renovation costs are paid, it will drop to $5.24 a square foot.

Climate Warming Denier ADN Letter Writer Dr. Maccabee Linked to Koch Brothers

Dr, Howard Maccabee wrote a letter to the Anchorage Daily News ridiculing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change draft report. 

His letter begins:

"Justin Gillis' Aug. 20 article "Sea Level Could Rise 3 Feet by 2100"  is speculation, not science.  The assertion that seas will likely rise by 3 feet is almost absurd, since current levels rise about 2 mm. per year (about 6 inches in 80 years)."

The title of Gillis' article in the print version of the ADN is unfortunate, but not inaccurate reporting.  The online title is "Climate Panel Reports Near Certainty on Warming" the same title as the original NY Times article.

In any case, the article does NOT assert "that seas will likely rise by 3 feet."  What the article actually says is

"that sea levels could conceivably rise by more than 3 feet by the end of the century if emissions continue at a runaway pace."

 I would say that "could conceivably" is not even close to Maccabee's "will likely."

The online article has more of the original NYTimes article than the print version.  It says, later in the article:

"Regarding the likely rise in sea level over the coming century, the new report lays out several possibilities. In the most optimistic, the world's governments would prove far more successful at getting emissions under control than they have been in the recent past, helping to limit the total warming.

In that circumstance, sea level could be expected to rise as little as 10 inches by the end of the century, the report found. That is a bit more than the 8-inch increase in the 20th century, which proved manageable even though it caused severe erosion along the world's shorelines.

At the other extreme, the report considers a chain of events in which emissions continue to increase at a swift pace. Under those conditions, sea level could be expected to rise at least 21 inches by 2100 and might increase a bit more than three feet, the draft report said."

 The "8-inch increase in the 20th century" is very close to Maccabbee's own figure of "6 inches in 80 years."  Actually, Maccabee's figure comes out to 1.5 inches per 20 years.  Add 20 years to Maccabee's figure to get a century and you're at 7.5 inches. Another two inches in the 21st century is not only conceivable, but probably highly optimistic.

Maccabee asserts this is 'speculation, not science' but goes on to use words like absurd and ridiculous - distinctly unscientific terms - to challenge the report.

I've linked Maccabee to the Koch brothers in the title. I don't want to commit the rhetorical fallacy of guilt by association.  The facts about how Maccabee mischaracterizes the report speak for themselves.   However, to a certain extent, it doesn't hurt to look at the credentials of the people involved, how they do their work, and who supports them.

The IPPC is made up of climate scientists from around the world reviewing the scientific works on these issues.  They won a Nobel Prize in 2007 for their work.  You can read more about what they are doing and how here. 

One should also ask about Dr. Maccabee's credentials on Climate Change.  He's an MD who has a UC Berkeley PhD in Radiation Biophysics.** A Heartland video presentation he made on Climate Change says Dr Maccabee is the President of Doctors for Disaster Preparedness.  His environmental resume says he was President from 1982-4 and is still on their Board.   Their website has lots of pseudo scientific articles that deny climate change.  But there is nothing on it to say who they are or who funds them.  But Sourcewatch reports:

Doctors for Disaster Preparedness (DDP) "promotes homeland defense and prudent preparedness for disasters of all kinds, including war or terrorism," according to its website. Topics addressed by DDP include "global warming, ozone 'depletion,' radiation hazards and radiation hormesis." ^[1]
DDP is skeptical of climate change, as the title of their web page on the subject suggests: "Ozone hole, Global warming, and other Environmental Scares." ^[2]Doctors For Disaster Preparedness was a co-sponsor to the Third International Conference on Climate Change , which in turn was sponsored by the Heartland Institute.

The Heartland Insitute is  funded by ALEC and the Koch Brothers - the main source of Climate Change Deniology. ( I first wrote about ALEC when I attended a presentation they gave to legislators in Juneau in February 2011.)

These are the hard core climate deniers.  Guilt by association can be fraught with logical dangers.  But it's also helpful to know where speakers come from.  Using someone from the Heartland Association to talk about climate change is like inviting a member of the Nazi Party to talk about Jews.  (I know that using Nazi similes is frowned on, but I'm reading a book that takes place in Berlin in 1933 and the similarities are striking for both make a science of propaganda.  I'm not saying these people are Nazis, but their objectivity is about the same as Nazi objectivity.  And Climate Change deniers, to the extent that they hold back Congress and other governing bodies from taking serious action now, could endanger the lives of far more people than the Nazis killed.) 

Here's another article by Gillis specifically looking at water level reports.

** This is almost totally unrelated, but quirkily interesting.  When I first tried to look up Maccabee's academic field, I switched around the terms and googled "Bioradiation Physics" I didn't find anything until page three where I found "professor of medical radiation and physics."  Clicking on it got me to this page of  Berkeley at War : The 1960s

by W.J. Rorabaugh Professor of History University of Washington.

click to enlarge and focus  from Berkeley At War

Heynes was the new UC Berkeley Chancellor in 1965 after the Free Speech protests on campus.  I'd note these events at the Berkeley campus took place 30 years before Maccabee got his PhD there and that Professor Jones was probably long gone.  But it is eerie. 

Thursday Meeting, ADN Article on Fairbanks Plaintiffs' Coming Legal Challenge, Where to Find Documents

Here's the agenda for Thursday's Alaska Redistricting Board meeting, most of which was scheduled for executive session.  I missed the first three items, but listened in after that.  But there was nothing while they are in executive session.

1. Call to Order 
2. Roll Call 
3. Approval of the Agenda 
4. Executive session to discuss litigation issues
   The board will disconnect from the teleconference network and call back in for the executive session.
5. Re-connect to the teleconference network. 
6. Board actions if necessary Adjourn

I'm at my mom's in LA and she needed a number of things and I had some calls come in and missed the Board's reconvening.

But the Anchorage Daily News had an in depth article about what happened and the likelihood of a lawsuit because the Board couldn't didn't respond as the Riley plaintiffs requested regarding the Senate pairings in Fairbanks.  


Meanwhile, Ernie Weiss, who works for the Aleutian East Borough has filled a gap left by the Redistricting Board.  Last year, the Board, to its credit, posted all (I assume) the briefs that were filed regarding the Redistricting Board.  Anyone could see, not only the orders of the Courts, but also what all the parties filed.  That list of links can still be found here. 

This year the Board has most (maybe all) of the orders and opinions up, but almost none of the 2013 ancillary documents that help someone understand what the order means.  (Sometimes the order is clearly explained, but the last one simply said the Board's petition was denied.)  There is also a new pleadings page with three documents dated July 18, 2013.  Be careful though.  The first document is 739 pages. 

In any case, **Ernie Weiss has set up a website** where he's putting up the various petitions and amicus briefs, etc. that are being sent to the court. 

UAA Hockey Coach Search Gets Saturation Coverage, Chancellor Search Was Ignored

When the University of Alaska Anchorage sought a Chancellor several of years ago, the Anchorage Daily News, as I recall, ignored the story completely.  The head of the whole campus, the dominant institution of higher education, a major economic and cultural driver of the city, the region, and state even, was searching for a CEO, and no one paid attention except a blogger and the school newspaper.

But when it comes time to hire a hockey coach and the Daily News is all over the story:

UAA names 4 finalists for hockey coach position

Corbett states his case to take over at UAA

Prospective UAA hockey coach cites work with legends   

Prospective UAA hockey coach cites work with legends

Ex-UAA assistant ready to take over Seawolves

Utica's Heenan wants to rebuild UAA

UAA puts search for hockey coach on hold to revamp committee

UAA suspends search for head hockey coach
Heenan, Brown still interested in UAA hockey job



Even the Denver Post and, gasp, the Wall Street Journal covered this search.

Say, maybe they would have paid more attention to the Chancellor search if they had realized that the Chancellor is responsible for hiring a hockey coach. 

Anchorage Daily News Map Gives Alaska To Obama

Imagine my surprise when I looked at the newspaper yesterday morning.  I knew that Obama had taken most of the swing states, but I hadn't realized that my RED state had gone for Obama too.

From Alaska Daily News Front Page Nov. 7, 2012

I know newspapers are under the gun these days.  And the map is from the McClatchy mothership.  But still.  This isn't a minor typo.  I have my own share of those, sometimes even in the title.  I know it's hard.  But this is not a misspelled word hidden in a paragraph.  It's not even a verbal mistake.  It's visual.

This is the biggest state in the country, off to the side in the lower left of the US map.  In BLUE.

This one is hard to miss.  Maybe all this is being done by computers now, and they aren't programmed to think "Alaska can't be blue."   Or if it was a human, maybe the person can't distinguish certain colors, like blue.  But I can't imagine anyone - especially someone working for the newspaper - who wouldn't notice if Alaska went Democratic.

So, am I being a jerk here for pointing out mistakes at the ADN?  I hope they don't take it that way.  When I (and other Alaskan bloggers) started out, we liked to poke fun at the ADN if we found mistakes or if we beat them to an important story.  It got a little heated when the ADN sent cease and desist letters to bloggers using their photos.  Particularly so when the ADN started putting up our photos without permission.

But the ADN played a big role in supporting this blog in the beginning.  They put links to my coverage of the political corruption trials and most generously, they included this blog when they got the court to allow journalists to take their computers into the courtroom and in sharing the audio and video tapes of the trial.  Their reporters and columnists were very kind and helpful in guiding me through some of the basics of journalism.

So, I think of this as a friendly jab - something fans of rival sporting teams might do.  Something the Alaska Ear does every Sunday.

Having a newspaper that covers local and state issues is important.  Bloggers can do good stuff, but there really needs to be a full, paid staff of professional reporters monitoring all that's going on.  So this is a friendly razz.  But more seriously, bloggers and mainstream reporters report other people's errors all the time, so it doesn't hurt if ours are called out now and then so we know how it feels.  And if they know someone is still reading the newspaper and might point out their mistakes, maybe they'll be a little more careful. 

Do you think anyone was fooled by the blue Alaska? 

Newspaper Still Relevant - Sunday Tidbits from ADN on Young, Palin, etc.

Rep. Don Young

 The ADN coverage of Don Young over the years has highlighted pictures of his hunting trophies - as they did again today - and his malopropisms.

I think lots of readers, particularly those on the left - myself included - underestimated him based on these stereotypes.  His skills were less tangible and harder to document.  But someone doesn't get reelected over and over again if he doesn't have something working right. OK, living in Republican state didn't hurt, but there was more to it.  I 'got it' in the 2008 election when I attended a debate between Harvard grad Ethan Berkowitz and Don Young.  Young creamed him.  This was not the Young I'd conjured up based on reading about him in the newspapers.

Today's story by Erika Bolstad is the most subtle and balanced one I can remember reading.  It's worth a look.  This isn't an endorsement of Young, but we need to know as much about politicians as possible to understand them as complete people, not two-dimensional cutouts.  The Abramoff connections and the Florida highway are still questions that the Justice Department's handling doesn't resolve in my mind.  Here are some highlights:

Knife, but no computer

The 77-year-old congressman who brags of never using a computer but always carrying a knife?

Here, editing the online version to get rid of the misplaced question-mark would have been ok, but it's online as well as in print. 

His wife convinced him to run for reelection before she died.

In August 2009, Young lost his wife of 46 years, Lu, his constant companion. If she hadn't persuaded him to file for re-election before her death, he might not have run last fall, Young said in an interview recently.

He was asked if he'd learned who his friends were during the investigation hard times.  He chose to focus on those who weren't his friends.

"Let's put it this way. I learned who was not my friend," he said. "It's like a movie star who has three flops in a row. Nobody goes to their movies, nobody knows who they are anymore."

"I'm very happy with those that did stay with me," he added. "Those that didn't? You recognize that. And just have a little short pile in the back of your head and just remember that."

"I don't need a lot of friends," he added. "I never have." 

And while Young may be different, he's solid and not ideological.

"Despite the gruff exterior and the un-Washington ways, sometimes his intuitions and insights into things are extraordinary," said Kish, who acknowledges he's also "nearly come to blows arguing" with Young.

"But it's born out of respect," he said. "Washington is full of that crap, and Don's different. It's a different cut of cloth. He continues to have that bright-faced optimism."

Young is skilled at building coalitions other Republicans won't touch, Ferguson said, including with organized labor. And he knows how to trade.

"There's something about Don Young that enables him to make friends on both sides of the aisle, to further his chairman in sort of a sly way and be such a cooperative sort of fellow that they work close," Ferguson said. "He's like a trapper. Trappers learn how to trade. You've got a certain number of pelts, they've got what you want, you've got to put a value on it, then you've got to strike a trade. He's always been like that."

Then, Young launches into a story about the work he did with former Rep. Gerry Studds, D-Mass., to pass the landmark fisheries bill known as the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The 1976 bill created 200-mile exclusive economic zones off the country's coast and led to Alaska's multi-billion dollar fishing industry

Young said he has always worked well with Democrats. He points out that some of his signature achievements -- including the Alaska pipeline -- happened while Democrats controlled the House.

Those House members closest to him include former Rep. Jim Oberstar, D-Minn., the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, who lost re-election last fall after 36 years. Loner or not, Young takes "a very personal approach," Oberstar said.

We're Paying For Young's Life Saving Health Care

if I hadn't had the job, I would have been dead in a heartbeat," he said. "Now I've got more to focus on, so it keeps me going, and I thank her for that."

Trudeau Skewers Palin with Her Own Words

And while I feel there are enough people writing about Palin that I don't have to do that, now and then I feel compelled.  Last time I couldn't resist pointing out while she and her supporters claimed Rep. 's shooter was totally responsible and none of the blame could be traced back to her actions and words, that she had said Ansange was a terrorist who had 'blood on his hands' for publishing government documents.  In his Doonesbury today, Garry Trudeau takes a quote from Palin's book and skewers her with it. (I checked - various people covered this quote when the book came out in November.  While it's not new, it probably has more relevance after Bristol's stint on DWTS.)  Here are a couple of panels.

Double click to enlarge if you can't read it or go to link and see whole strip

Can a woman in custody consent to sex with the officer?

There's more of interest.  Julia O'Malley's piece on how former Anchorage police officer Anthony Rollins' attorney, Susan Carney, is using outdated stereotypes to make the jury think that his rape victims (while in custody) all consented.  She concludes with:

He knew he didn't need to use violence. He had an invisible weapon. It was in his position as a police officer. It was in his uniform, a symbol of trust. His word was more powerful than hers. He could take her to jail if he wanted to. He weighed almost twice as much as she did, and he was twice her age. She was shocked, emotional and scared. She was still in handcuffs. He had a gun on his hip.

Maybe she didn't exactly say no. But that doesn't mean she said anything close to yes.

WHAT??!!

I'll end with this bizarre disclaimer from a syndicated gossip piece on Charlie Sheen (the online version is a little different from the print version - one of the dangers of online news:  it can change over time, whereas hardcopy can't be doctored after the fact.)

The person familiar with the call, who was not authorized to publicly discuss details, spoke Friday on condition of anonymity.

Talking about qualifying your facts . . . This was a story about Charlie Sheen going back into rehab.  Did this source get paid or did the leaker violate Sheen's privacy and organizational procedures voluntarily?  Look, it's reasonable for organizations to have some rules and structure for releases of information to the public.  If the information were not released through regular channels (if that is required) in a timely way and there were some critical issue interest that's a different story.  There's a difference between someone blowing the whistle because the organization is hiding damaging information the public really should know and handing tips to gossip columnists.

Former Doolittle aide pleads not guilty in Abramoff inquiry

Let's see if this McClatchy piece gets into the ADN tomorrow. [Update, Sept 9: There's a two paragraph excerpt, less than I have below, in News Digest in Section B today] Or maybe it's only in the Sacramento Bee because Roseville is just outside Sacramento.

By Marisa Taylor and Rob Hotakainen - McClatchy Newspapers

Last Updated 6:28 pm PDT Monday, September 8, 2008

WASHINGTON -- A former top aide to Republican Rep. John Doolittle pleaded not guilty Monday to public corruption and obstruction of justice charges in an indictment that provides new details about links between the California congressman, his wife Julie and convicted superlobbyist Jack Abramoff.

The Roseville congressman and his employees were showered with free lunches and tickets to concerts and sporting events, according to the indictment. In exchange, Doolittle provided legislative favors to Abramoff's clients, including work on a $16 million appropriation and a bill to provide statehood to Puerto Rico, the indictment said.

In addition, Abramoff provided Doolittle's wife with a job in which she received $96,000 working for a non-profit group, according to the indictment. It said Abramoff sent an e-mail to a consultant of the company, saying: "I want her to help, but not be overburdened with work." For the whole article.

Don Young's Abramoff related former aide has pleaded guilty and presumably is talking to prosecutors about his former boss. From an April 20, 2008 ADN story by Rich Mauer:

Last year, Mark Zachares, whom Young hired as a top aide on the House Transportation Committee, pleaded guilty to accepting bribes from Abramoff and agreed to help investigators. Before going to work for Young, Zachares, originally from Alaska, had been a labor and immigration official for the Mariana government. Prosecutors said Abramoff placed Zachares on Young's committee, and Zachares used his insider spot to help Abramoff's clients. Since Zachares' plea 12 months ago, Young has refused to explain what he knows about how Zachares got his job.

Thanks Chris.

Correction

A reliable source has told me that ADN reporters are to leave corrections to their editors, and the editors did make the correction today on David Shurtleff's position at the Berkowitz campaign. I was also told that the ADN takes their corrections seriously. The correction was already in the works before I posted yesterday.


But as I mentioned in the earlier post, there are still questions about how corrections are handled - intentionally and unintentionally - for the online stories, which, for most of us, will be the story of record when we've recycled our newspapers.

The online story says:

...Berkowitz spokesman David Shurtleff said in an e-mail...

This is the corrected version, but there's no hint that there was an incorrect version. The best blogs will go back and do it this way:

...Berkowitz campaign manager [spokesman] David Shurtleff said in an e-mail...[[MPB made an excellent suggestion to also include the date of the correction]] [[August 18, 2008]]

to show the original and the corrected version.

Bloggers v. ADN - John Dean's Broken Government - Don Young's Lobbyist Friends

This isn't about Wrangell-St. Elias, but I did say I'd started reading John Dean's book Broken Government. (He was selling copies when he spoke to the Alaska Democratic Convention.) Being out of wifi range since Thursday, I have some catching up to do. This morning I caught the front page of yesterday's Anchorage Daily News. Last night I'd read Phil Munger's Progressive Alaska chiding of MSM reporters for missing things that bloggers were getting.

These all tie in together nicely.
First, while the rivalry between some bloggers and the ADN probably makes everyone better reporters, we bloggers need to remember that the reporters have stories to report every damn day. They can't just throw up some pretty pictures of flowers or fish as filler. Just because they miss a story that one of us gets is no reason to pound them. They aren't the enemy. Even the ADN is not the enemy, though if the ADN is missing stories it has more to do with how they are allocating their resources as they face their financial struggles as a print medium in a digital age. I've spent plenty of blog space on that topic already.

Good natured rivalries like UCLA-USC, Yankees-Red Sox make everyone play a little harder and better, but the reporters don't have near the freedom bloggers have to shoot back at us. [Tuesday: Actually, Kyle Hopkins blogs on the ADN website and Robert Dillon has his own blog where he responded strongly to Phil's post. Phil responded to this post in a comment below and to this and Dillon's response on his blog today.] And we really are allies in a larger battle to get news out. If the kind of comments Phil is making here gets the ADN management to give more resources to political reporting, good. But if this friendly sniping gets old for the already beleaguered reporters, then we might lose some of the cooperation that we've had - help getting our computers into the trials, tips on stories they can't run, etc. - then that would be bad.

Anyway, in response to Phil, I wanted to commend Sean Cockerham and Erika Bolstad's Sunday story on Don Young's lobbying money , which shows that they are digging and bringing to light information Alaska voters should know.

I would like to borrow some words from the John Dean book to add some context to their story which tells how a Young staffer raised $90,000 by emailing 20 lobbyists.

This comes from John Dean's Broken Government from pages 48-49. Dean's been quoting several different observers of how Congress has changed under Republican rule. Here he's talking about lobbying.

Wolfe, too expressed concern about the vital part of the corrupting machinery, the infamous K Street Project, named after the street where many lobbyists have their offices, which "was designed not only to allow lobbyists to make contributions to legislators in return for laws that benefit themselves - this has always been part of the politics of democracy - but to transform lobbying , which has usually been understood as bipartisan in nature, into an arm of one political party; in return for access to government, Republicans insisted that lobbying groups fire Democrats from their leadership positions and replace them with Republicans."

Recognizing the damage that the Abramoff plea had done to the K Street Project, Wolfe observed that "although Democrats will surely insist that lobbyists stop hiring only members of the majority party, no one seriously expects that lobbying will return to its once bipartisan days." Wolfe's concerns, expressed in 2006, were well placed.

Althought the Republicans are keeping tight-lipped about it, I am told that the K Street crowd is doing everything possible to help get Republicans back in control of Congress. They dream of returning to those days when the GOP ran Congress, and GOP leaders like Tom DeLay boasted that he had lobbying firms writing the laws.

[This is one long paragraph in the book. I've chopped it up to make it easier to read on the screen and added emphasis. 'Wolfe' refers to Alan Wolfe and his Washington Monthly (July/August 2006) article "Why Conservatives Can't Govern."]

In the Cockerham/Bolstad article, the Young staff response is that these are all close friends, so it's ok to ask for money, they are helping a friend, not buying influence.

Anderson, Young's chief of staff, said Young doesn't make decisions based on lobbying and his relationship with Alcalde is personal.

"If Rick Alcalde could talk to you on the phone he would tell you that when he was a youngster and so forth he was kind of a rabble-rouser and everything else. The Youngs looked out for him," Anderson said. "And that goes back to the relationship the Youngs have with Mr. Alcalde, with Hector, (Rick's) father and his mother. When Rick went through some tough times and so forth the Youngs were there to help him, to kind of give him some of that guidance he needed. ... Rick credits the Youngs with being a mentor."

While I have no doubt that these people are long time friends (after all Young has been Congressman 35 years now), and some would help him even if he were not a Congressman, the whole explanation is ludicrous. He doesn't make decisions based on lobbying? Then why are all his clients paying them handsomely to talk to Young? Explaining the closeness of the personal relationship only helps explain why people pay these guys to lobby.

The scary part is that Anderson takes this all so for granted that he doesn't realize how damning his explanation is. Pete Kott and Vic Kohring both thought that their friendship with Bill Allen made everything ok, even after being convicted. "He gave us money because we were friends, not because we were legislators he wanted to influence." Tom Anderson, while appearing to have a little more sense of the problem at his sentencing statement to the court, also had trouble confusing friends and lobbyists.

As I'm reading the Dean book, the problem I'm pondering is this: Much of what Dean says is pretty available knowledge. Most people have at least a vague understanding of many of the problems. But they either dismiss the stories that weaken their own ideology or they claim that it's a problem for both parties, or that it can't be changed. If a Democrat makes the charge - well she's got a partisan vested interest. If a former Republican insider like Dean makes the charges, well, he's a disgruntled turncoat. What does it take to get a significant part of the population to get it? Or is the distraction industry - sports, video games, celebrity gossip, etc. - too powerful for people to attend to protecting the US Constitution?