"Nuisance" Ballot Initiatives - Translation: Voters Too Stupid To Decide

Let's see how calm I can stay [not very it tuns out] while I give my reaction to a story in today's ADN.

"Scott Hawkins, founder of ProsperityAlaska believes the voting public should not decide complex tax questions or other measures that increase regulations or permitting of businesses. . .

'Our elected officials spent years and thousands of hours in hearings and hired experts and oil taxation is not a suitable subject for the ballot.'"

Where to begin?  There's so much packed in this article.

It cites a question sent to candidates for state office that asks:

"whether the rules for putting initiatives and referendums on the ballot need reform and are being 'abused resulting in a nonstop series of bad ballot measures that Alaska's business community must spend millions of dollars every 1-2 years to fight.'"

Let's get this straight.  Now that business - big and small - has helped elect a conservative legislature that is so lopsided that Democrats are pretty much ignored, they want more.  Business gets most of the legislation they want.  Apparently that isn't enough.

Because when the public gets riled enough by the kind of legislation that gets through this one-party legislature, they write petitions and gather signatures around the state to give the public the opportunity to put some brakes on the business express coming out of the legislature.  So, since Hawkin's friends already are spending so much money contributing to conservative campaigns to get the loyalty of well over half the legislature, they shouldn't have to deal with fighting citizen referendums, the only check left for the public when they think terrible legislation has been passed, or good legislation has been stymied.

And it isn't enough that the petitioning requirements have been made more difficult.  Ballotpedia explains: 

"Signatures equal to 7% of the total district vote in the last general election must be collected in each of 3/4 of the 40 Alaska House districts.

An older, less restrictive, distribution requirement was changed by a legislatively referred ballot measure on the November 2004 ballot, the Distribution Requirement for Initiatives Act. That measure was approved with 51.7% of the vote. The older requirement was that proponents must collect petition signatures from each of 2/3 of Alaska's 40 state House districts--only one voter needed to sign from each of the 27 districts."

But those pesky citizens have managed to overcome these obstacles to get initiatives on the ballot.  In August, they got enough signatures to challenge SB 21 that gave oil companies about a $2 billion a year tax break.  And the oil companies had to spend millions to defeat the referendum, and it was relatively close.  So why not cut off this last way that people can keep their legislature accountable?

I'd also note that I spent a session in Juneau as a blogger.  There are a number of legislators who have no more smarts than the 'public' Scott distrusts.  And then there are those who are reasonably smart, but ethically challenged.  And then there are those whose world view, apparently like Scott's, sees business as the savior of humankind. 

What else might voters be incompetent to decide on Scott?

Don't get me wrong.  I think the voters of Alaska make plenty of mistakes.  They voted to amend the constitution to restrict marriage to one man and one woman.  The voted to make English the official language of the state.  They've elected Don Young again and again and again.  But I trust them a lot more than I trust the oil industry or the various big business interests to decide what's best for Alaska's people now and in the future. 

 Before posting this I checked ProsperityAlaska's website. 

Prosperity has the nerve to run a headline like "Alaska Budgets Have Run Amok!" yet, they have a picture rotating through their header with the  corporate supporters who lead the Republican majority in the legislature along with Gov. Sean Parnell all of whom fought for and passed these out of control budgets!  

Image from PosperityAlaska Header

Another headline "Facing Down "Enviro Whack Jobbery" goes on to tout the bill that passed the legislature that threw out regulations on the cruise industry that were passed by an initiative.

"An important vote on cruise ship wastewater regulations brought the environmental extremists in the Alaska Legislature floating to the surface.  With solid leadership from Gov. Parnell, sound science carried the day. "

Environmental extremists?  In the Alaska legislature?  I think he means anyone who mentions any regulation on business.  This sounds like the language of the old Anchorage Times back in the 1970s.  What about the pro-business extremists in legislature?  These are folks who worship the free-market with no idea that some of its greatest supporters warned that it has serious flaws.  Everything has flaws and we need to use all tools with awareness of when they don't work.   And these folks need to recognize and protect against market's failures.  Anyone who points them out and tries to correct them seems to be pilloried. 

The cruise ship industry is one of the Outside corporations that treat Alaska like a colony and were not happy at all when citizens put restrictions on them through an initiative.  The legislation the site touts gutted much of that citizen initiative. 

Thank you Alex DeMarban (ADN reporter) for writing about this so the rest of us become alerted to this attack on the rights of Alaskans.  An attack on the Alaska Constitution.

Oh yeah, the initiative and the referendum are spelled out in Article 11.  From the Lt. Gov's website:

Article 11 - Initiative, Referendum, and Recall

§ 1. Initiative and Referendum

The people may propose and enact laws by the initiative, and approve or reject acts of the legislature by the referendum.

§ 2. Application

An initiative or referendum is proposed by an application containing the bill to be initiated or the act to be referred. The application shall be signed by not less than one hundred qualified voters as sponsors, and shall be filed with the lieutenant governor. If he finds it in proper form he shall so certify. Denial of certification shall be subject to judicial review. [Amended 1970]

§ 3. Petition

After certification of the application, a petition containing a summary of the subject matter shall be prepared by the lieutenant governor for circulation by the sponsors. If signed by qualified voters who are equal in number to at least ten per cent of those who voted in the preceding general election, who are resident in at least three-fourths of the house districts of the State, and who, in each of those house districts, are equal in number to at least seven percent of those who voted in the preceding general election in the house district, it may be filed with the lieutenant governor. [Amended 1970, 1998 & 2004]

§ 4. Initiative Election

An initiative petition may be filed at any time. The lieutenant governor shall prepare a ballot title and proposition summarizing the proposed law, and shall place them on the ballot for the first statewide election held more than one hundred twenty days after adjournment of the legislative session following the filing. If, before the election, substantially the same measure has been enacted, the petition is void. [Amended 1970]

§ 5. Referendum Election

A referendum petition may be filed only within ninety days after adjournment of the legislative session at which the act was passed. The lieutenant governor shall prepare a ballot title and proposition summarizing the act and shall place them on the ballot for the first statewide election held more than one hundred eighty days after adjournment of that session. [Amended 1970]

§ 6. Enactment

If a majority of the votes cast on the proposition favor its adoption, the initiated measure is enacted. If a majority of the votes cast on the proposition favor the rejection of an act referred, it is rejected. The lieutenant governor shall certify the election returns. An initiated law becomes effective ninety days after certification, is not subject to veto, and may not be repealed by the legislature within two years of its effective date. It may be amended at any time. An act rejected by referendum is void thirty days after certification. Additional procedures for the initiative and referendum may be prescribed by law. [Amended 1970]

§ 7. Restrictions

The initiative shall not be used to dedicate revenues, make or repeal appropriations, create courts, define the jurisdiction of courts or prescribe their rules, or enact local or special legislation. The referendum shall not be applied to dedications of revenue, to appropriations, to local or special legislation, or to laws necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety.

§ 8. Recall

All elected public officials in the State, except judicial officers, are subject to recall by the voters of the State or political subdivision from which elected. Procedures and grounds for recall shall be prescribed by the legislature.

You best check the link now before the governor thinks the Constitution is too radical to have on the state's website.

Monday's Becoming Cop Day, LIO Remodel, Fog, Green Bike Trail, Moose

It's May in Anchorage.  We're greened up a little bit early and yesterday (Monday) was a little cooler than it had been.  People were biking in short sleeves and in jackets.

I ran into police action as I left home.  That's two weeks in a row now.    There was a car that clearly was involved.   It appeared that the red truck on the far right was also somehow involved.  It was easier to get by this time because I was on my bike.

I'm not sure why it took 3 police cars and fire truck to handle this.  You'd think Anchorage had no crime and the cops had nothing to do but wait for a call.  Maybe the insurance companies should be paying the police if they require these lengthy police reports before they pay claims.


I had to support a friend in the State Court building yesterday and the building offered a great view of the Legislative Information Office remodel.  I suspect that this fiasco will be forever linked to Rep. Mike Hawker.  The only winner here is developer Mark Pfeffer.

In the ten years from 1996-2006 he make $1.36 million in political contributions  alone, mostly related to building a private prison.   So one might understand why the Legislative Council didn't pay close attention when Hawker worked out this deal.  Sounds like a lot, and it surely gets the legislators' attention.  But it's not much when you keep getting multi-million dollar contracts from the state.

Then down to the Captain Cook statue as he watches the fog forming  in Cook Inlet.  It was all over town this morning, but burned away fast. 

 

Here's a view of the fog from the mudflat level next to the bike trail from downtown to Westchester Lagoon. 

                      There was even a moose munching the new green along the bike trail.

And this south facing hill was full of blooming dandelions.

Isn't this a much better way to travel than by car on the roads?  Especially when summer comes so early? 

How Much Do You Pay Your Lobbyist? Nothing? Maybe That's Why

. . . the things you want your legislature to pass don't get passed.  The Alaska Public Offices Commission posted the list of Alaskan lobbyists, their clients, and their fee on April 24, 2014.

This list is by the lobbyist, with a list of their clients and their fee for each client.  They vary, some are 'annual fee', some 'hourly fee', some 'monthly fee.'

Check out how much different organizations are paying to get continuous monitoring of legislation and access to legislators.  And consider how much you are paying for this kind of service.

I really haven't had much time to look at this list carefully, but, for example,  I'd note that GCI pays:

• Ashley Reed $50,000 a year
  "All legislation, and administrative activities,
  regarding or impacting phone and
  telecommunications services"
• Reed Stoops $40,000 a year for
  
  "All telecommunications issues relating to GCIs
  internet, cable, telephone, wireless and TV
  business in Alaska."
• Sam Kito Jr. $40,000 a year for
  
  "All things regarding telecommunication issues
  and broadcasting issues"
• Eldon Mulder $40,000 a year
  
  "All issues pertaining to information
  technology, broadband and
  telecommunications."

Be careful.  This is probably more complicated than just looking at the list.  Anyone who has insights to things or people on the list, please leave them in the comments.   Below is a scribd version, but you can go to the APOC website and download it yourself here.

Alaska Lobbyist Directory 4-24-2014

"Yes, but we're not Congress, aren't we?" Giessel Said

Wednesday I reported that Sen. Hollis French had sent a letter to Sen. Cathy Giessel requesting that the witnesses - oil company representatives - be asked to testify under oath.

For those who want just the summary, scroll down to:  It All Seems to Boil Down To


That afternoon, the committee met and the Anchorage Daily News reports that Giessel opened the meeting by saying they would not administer oaths and when French attempted to respond to her, she had his mic shut off and the televised portion when silent.

Obviously, the issue, as far as Giessel was concerned, was not open for debate.  I've tried to glean from the Daily News article by Rich Mauer   Giessel's main objections.  This snippet seems to get most of them which I've highlighted:

“It’s unfortunate we have to have this kind of duel on the floor,” she said. Acknowledging that the use of sworn testimony wasn’t quite without precedent, she said it was last used by the Legislature in 1997.     
“We are to conduct ourselves with some decorum, and to spring that on people who are coming to testify would simply be unprofessional of us,” Giessel said. “I’m not an attorney, as the previous speaker is, but it is my understanding that the preparation for testimony under oath is a different type of preparation than simply coming and providing information.”    
As the Senate broke, French said as he was leaving the chamber that his request was hardly extreme. “You can’t contest a traffic ticket without taking an oath,” he said.    
At her desk in the chamber, Giessel talked to Senate President Charlie Huggins, R-Wasilla.     
Doesn’t Congress swear in witnesses? a reporter asked.     
“Yes, but we’re not Congress, aren’t we?” Giessel said.     
“This is redneck Alaska,” Huggins said.    
“There was no criminal activity that was being investigated,” she said as Huggins called her away.

Additionally, Giesel is quoted as saying the request was:

• “unprecedented and inappropriate.”
• “Springing an under-oath requirement on invited citizens at the last minute is not only unfair but unprofessional,” Giessel said. The request by French, a former prosecutor, would bring a “criminal justice approach to this committee meeting,” she said. 

My reaction Wednesday, and the reaction of some others I talked to, was, "Gee, I thought it was expected that you told the truth."  But it turns out that unless you are sworn in, you can't be prosecuted for perjury.  So, if you lie, there are no legal consequences.

Let's look at the arguments one by one.  

• "to spring that on people who are coming to testify would simply be unprofessional of us,”
  There are two parts here.  1.  The timing and 2.  asking them to testify under oath. 
• Sen. French's letter is dated one day before the committee hearing.  I'm not sure when the witnesses were announced.
• Unprofessional is a word that many people use when they disagree with a practice.  Essentially it's a fancy word for 'bad.' For 'unprofessional' to have real meaning, one would have to cite a professional association (in this case relevant to legislative hearings) that has among its rules, regulations, or standards something about asking witnesses to testify under oath and/or related to a time limit.  
• "preparation for testimony under oath is a different type of preparation than simply coming and providing information."
• My sense of this, confirmed by an attorney friend, is that this isn't wrong, but it depends on the context and the experience of the people testifying.
• If under oath, it isn't hard to say, "I'm not sure of these numbers" or other qualifying comments.  In fact, the ConocoPhillips presentation even had a 200 word disclaimer (see below) on their forecasts. 
• These oil company representatives were not there to casually provide information.  These are well-paid professional spokespersons,  trained in presenting their corporations' views.  They had Power Point presentations (see below) that someone had clearly spent a lot of time preparing. 
  
• "we’re not Congress"
  I'm not quite sure how to interpret what she meant by this.  Obviously, the Alaska legislature is not the US Congress, but it is to the state of Alaska what Congress is to the United States.   Some possibilities:
• She may have meant that unlike Congress with all its intense security and many other restrictions, the Alaska legislature is much more casual.  And that is certainly true.  Anyone can walk into the capitol building and up to any legislator's office without going through security.  And being more casual, we don't have to administer oaths. 
• Or perhaps she meant we aren't gridlocked like Congress.  In Alaska the minority has no power to stop whatever the majority wants to do.
  
  However she meant it, it's more than clear that few other issues than SB 21 and its impact on oil companies will have greater impact on Alaska's future.  The oil companies are spending millions of dollars to defeat a proposition to overturn SB 21.  No one in Alaska has a greater financial vested interest in any legislation than the oil companies have in SB 21.  They have every incentive to make it appear that SB 21 has stimulated them to invest more in Alaska and to create more jobs in Alaska.  And that could include misleading testimony.
  
• There was no criminal activity that was being investigated  Note:  She didn't say there was no criminal activity, only that (if there were), it wasn't being investigated.  But we do know that battles over oil tax funding have, in the not too distant past, involved criminal activity that netted a dozen or so pleas and/or convictions.
   
• “unprecedented and inappropriate.”
• Sen. Giessel herself already corrected the unprecedented claim
• Inappropriate is like 'unprofessional' but even more vague.  It's a way of saying no in polite language but without giving a reason.
  
• "unfair but unprofessional" Unprofessional has already been addressed.  But we don't know what she meant by 'unfair.'  It's unfair to ask people to swear that what they are testifying is the truth?  

I checked with Sen. French's office to see if any reports were submitted to the committee.  Each oil company representative had a Power Point presentation (see below), but nothing too heavy with words.  My thinking was that if they had prepared reports that they knew were not quite truthful, it would be hard to withdraw them before the hearing.  But if you look at the presentations linked below, there's simply not that much content that could be faulted for perjury. It's mainly about plans, which can always be changed. There are claims about how much new money has been budgeted to be spent in Alaska this year and in the future.  Discussions about new projects and new work.  There is even language that talks about new investment in relation to SB 21:

Plans for over $2 billion gross in production adding investments announced since passage of SB21

Note that this only talks about timing, not about cause and effect.  Since the oil companies are in control of when they announce things, there's no reason to believe that this wouldn't have happened if SB 21 hadn't been passed.  Certainly these things take a long time to plan and cost out.  If the passage of SB 21 was the reason for this new investment, then surely they would have said so. But I didn't see that claim in their written documents, only that it happened after SB 21 was passed.

It All Seems To Boil Down To:

Essentially, from what I can tell, this was a show hearing.  SB 21 gave the oil companies a $2 billion a year tax break, which the governor said would increase oil production and state revenue and jobs.  Prop 1 on the Alaska ballot in August would repeal SB 21.  The oil companies were being given a platform to prove how the passage of SB 21 was making Alaska a better place.  French wanted to require them to be subject to perjury prosecution if they lied. Giessel didn't. 


The Reports 

The reports that are linked online through Basis - the legislative website - are essentially Power Points with some text.  I've highlighted the main text below.  The links should take you to the reports themselves.

• Respol - basically pictures
• ConocoPhillips - pictures and text
• $1.7 billion net 2014 Alaska capital budget - 1750 new jobs
• 2014 exploration update
• Plans for over $2 billion gross in production adding investments announced since passage of SB21
• ExxonMobile- mostly pictures with a bit of text, here's what appears to be the key text:
• More than 729 positions on the slope, many of which are rotational
• 1,200 positions statewide
• 85% Alaskans
• Out of 92 companies, 73 are Alaskan
• BP   - Pictures and fair amount of bulleted text, below is their Investments in Alaska Summary:
• Actively investing in the North Slope oil fields
• Acquiring new seismic data in Northern Prudhoe Bay – 190 sq. miles summer and 220 sq. miles winter season, 150 jobs, ~$78 million, 55 million barrels resource potential
• Adding 2 new rigs with 200 jobs, $1 billion over 5 years – currently 7 rigs • Testing new drilling completions technology for challenging oil fields.
  i.e.: Sag River potential resource 200 million barrels
•  Restarted development Milne Point drilling in 2014
• Appraise/Select stage engineering for West End Prudhoe Bay with potential startup in 2018, $3 billion, peak 2022 est. 40,000 bopd
• Major facility investments committed to safe & sustainable operations, for example $76 million in 2014 Turnarounds with over 700 people involved, including GC2 Module built at NANA’s Big Lake facility – 79 jobs, $13.5 million, potential 2,000 bopd.

Here's the ConocoPhillips disclaimer:

The following presentation includes forward-looking statements. These statements relate to future events, such as anticipated revenues, earnings, business strategies, competitive position or other aspects of our operations or operating results. Actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed or forecast in such forward-looking statements. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict such as oil and gas prices; operational hazards and drilling risks; potential failure to achieve, and potential delays in achieving expected reserves or production levels from existing and future oil and gas development projects; unsuccessful exploratory activities; unexpected cost increases or technical difficulties in constructing, maintaining or modifying company facilities; international monetary conditions and exchange controls; potential liability for remedial actions under existing or future environmental regulations or from pending or future litigation; limited access to capital or significantly higher cost of capital related to illiquidity or uncertainty in the domestic or international financial markets; general domestic and international economic and political conditions, as well as changes in tax, environmental and other laws applicable to ConocoPhillips’ business and other economic, business, competitive and/or regulatory factors affecting ConocoPhillips’ business generally as set forth in Item 1A of ConocoPhillips’ 2012 Form 10-K and in our other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Other notes:

I also called Sen. Giessel's office to ask her about these statements and to see if I had missed anything.  I talked to an aide, who, after my first question - about what professional standards the Senator was referring to when she said it was 'unprofessional' said he'd have the Senator call me back and answer the questions.

That was Wednesday.  My cell phone did ring.  I got a call from "an inmate of Grayson County" that I could accept for $9.99. I assumed it was not Sen. Giessel so I hung up.
It's Saturday now and there have been no messages from her on my phone.

Title Note:  I didn't comment on Sen. Giessel's grammar because:
a.  it's not really relevant
b.  it's a quote and not necessarily accurate
c.  much of our spoken English wouldn't pass grammar tests when written down

Apparently Lying To The Alaska Legislature Is OK

[UPDATE April 12, 2014:  Follow up post here.]

I got a copy of a letter* that Sen. French sent to Sen. Giessel about this afternoon's Resource Committee hearing.  He asked her to swear in the witnesses from Repsol, BP, and ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil, who, he expects:

". . . will be generally trying to establish that SB 21 is 'working' and that negative consequences would result if SB 21 were repealed by the voters in August. "

He goes on:

"There is no issue of greater importance to the economic future of the state than this one. Alaska has struggled since statehood to set a fair oil tax. Our obligation as elected representatives should be to elicit the most reliable and trustworthy information that exists on the topic and to make it available to our constituents. 

AS 24.25.060 gives you, as chair of the Resources Committee, the authority to administer an oath to witnesses appearing before your committee. While this power  is not normally invoked in the Legislature,  it is of course a matter of everyday routine  in the court system.  By this letter I am requesting that you use your authority under our laws to swear  in  the witnesses who appear before the committee at tomorrow’s hearing.

I believe that as citizens and as legislators we have an obligation to seek the truth and to promote it."

I didn't realize that witnesses before legislative committees weren't expected to tell the truth.  I called Sen. French's office and spoke with an aide, Alex, who said that if a witness does not testify under oath, they cannot be prosecuted for perjury.  And thus, if they aren't truthful, it has no legal consequences to the witness.

It seems Sen. Giessel's options are to say:

• "Sure, why not?  They have nothing to hide."
• "We don't swear in most people and swearing them in would be an insult to their integrity."

In Sen. French's press release, he notes:

"The investigation surrounding the grounding of Royal Dutch/Shell’s Arctic drilling rig, the Kulluk, had a role in French’s decision to make the request.    Through a series of problems the Kulluk went aground.  Questions arose about whether Shell took the risky move of a mid-winter tow to avoid paying millions in state property taxes.  A Shell executive told the press that tax considerations had nothing to do with the move.  The same executive later admitted under oath that Alaska tax laws influenced the move."

I covered the Kulluk press releases last year and remember them denying that the tax issue played a role.

In a fair world, Sen. Giessel would  have no choice but to agree to swear them in.  Is there a choice between risking insulting a witness by asking him to take responsibility for telling the truth or making sure the people of Alaska are guaranteed that if the witness lies, he could be prosecuted for perjury? 

In my mind, not swearing them in would be an insult to the people of Alaska. 



You can watch the meeting which starts now (1pm Alaska Time) here.
[UPDATE:  This is the House Resource committee.
The Senate committee starts at 3:30pm. You should be able to get it here.] *No special scoop, it was in a press release emailed to me and zillions of others.

Smarts and Humor Versus Dumb Power

[Warning:  It's early Saturday morning, so I'm not quite as even-handed here as I normally attempt to be.]

Sometimes there's a letter to the editor that perfectly captures what's going on.  I admit I wasn't there and didn't see the exchange.  But Rep. Stoltz is the same guy who held up funding for school lunches because, well, it's hard to know why.

I really don't have a clue about what makes Rep. Stoltz do what he does.  I have to be careful not to generalize.  I did watch him once at a Legislative Council meeting (see item 12) take up ten minutes to say, basically, I know nothing about Facebook and I'm opposed to letting legislative computers access it.  Ten minutes to talk against something he said he knew nothing about!

My guess is that he likes being someone important.  Likes seeing his name in the paper.  Likes being able to wield power over others.

I can't remember the last time I posted a letter to the editor, but here's one that deserves to be read widely:

Lisa Demer provided excellent coverage of Tuesday’s House Finance Committee hearing on SB 49, a bill to limit state funded abortions. However, Demer omitted the final remarks made by Rep. Bill Stoltze when he flogged Rep. Les Gara one last time for the manner in which Gara framed his questions. Co-chair Stoltze suggested Gara watch the game show “Jeopardy” for guidance in forming questions.
How would that sound? Gara: “For a hundred points, Commissioner Streur, can you tell me (through our game show host, Stoltze) how many times the state of Alaska intends to run afoul of the Alaska courts in attempts to limit abortion? For 200 additional points, what will the litigation cost the state?”
Stoltze marginalized the female representatives of his own party when they asked thoughtful questions. Perhaps he should take his own advice. “For 300 points, Commissioner Streur, can you tell me how many times Rep. Holmes has to ask the same question (about the need to redefine medical necessity) before you answer her?”
Let’s put the buzzer away and have a conversation.
— Vicki Turner Malone
Bethel

Thanks Vicki.  And Rep. Stolze, I'd love to sit down with you one day and have you explain to me your idea of the role of government in modern society and how you further that notion.  

I can't help wondering whether Stoltze really reflects the thinking of people in Chugiak or are they mostly just unaware of what he says and does and they're turned off of politics altogether?  BTW, he now has a Facebook page.

His website lists his record of service. 

Bill Stoltze

• Lifelong Alaskan
• Co-Chair, Finance Committee: 2008 – present
• Vice-Chair, Finance Committee: 2005 – 2008
• Member, Finance Committee: 2003 – present
• Member, Legislative Council Joint Committee: 2005 – present
• Vice-President, Chugiak-Eagle River Chinooks, Baseball Boosters
• Board Member, Special Olympics
• Charter Member, Chugiak Lions Club
• Life Member, Chugiak Senior Center, Inc.

Notice, it's just a list of positions.  There's nothing about what he actually accomplished in any of those positions.  Service implies you make the world a better place by doing what you do.  I'd like Stoltze to convince me that it's true in his case.  What little I've actually seen or heard about suggests otherwise.